Also see Paul Starr's piece at The AmericanProspect, "Letting Go Of Iraq." http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10137

there you go again, steve... proposing rational behavior to a crowd that operates in a parallel universe... nothing whatsoever in the nearly 5 years of bushco gives me any grounds to think that they will do anything that doesn't directly link to and support a continuing consolidation of political power, the unilateral dominance of global power, the destruction of the domestic social compact, a return to robber baron-style social darwinism, and the establishment of rigid social control through fear and extremist christian ideology... in words of one syllable, they just plain don't give a shit about what you and i might consider "rational..." you might as well be talking to a wall...

Great post!! Hayden certainly does give us a starting point, and your thoughts are a good follow-up. The "endgame" discussion HAS to be put into focus NOW! Having said that, profmarcus above has it right, we might as well be "talking to a wall" with this administration!!!!!!

During my wayward youth, Tom Hayden's Port Huron Statement was an epiphany. He could write a new phone book and I'd read it.

So what's with all this rational ideas stuff? Rumsfeld can't even get the slogan right.

Thanks very much for the pointer to the Hayden article, and for taking seriously the subject of exit strategy from Iraq.

I'm struck by the dissonance between your view that U.S. bases in the region are oil-related and possible triggers of instability and your taking it as a given that "America generally has benign intentions -- and generally tries to good things."

The Uzbekistan base is closing, by the way; Karimov invited us out so as not to have to listen to even the mildest carping on human rights.

Lots of writings suggest the US say it has no interest in bases. This can't be said, becasue it is untrue. America is always interested in military bases - all over the world!

Read Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire".

Domination has been US foreign policy under ALL administartions for quite a long-time. While Clinton wouldn't have done what Bush did (and neither would have Gore), there is no reason to think that the basic tenet of US foreign policy would be different.

with all the bases in Turkey, more bases in Iraq is just posturing. But taking the bases out would undermine a major portion of the neocon strategy.

Next I'm waiting for the invasion of west africa to protect oil fields there.

Perhaps it's my own wishful thinking, but it feels
like an anti-war movement is starting to take
shape. The 2006 elections are looming and the
Republicans face the danger of losing control of
one (or, be still my beating heart, both) houses
of Congress.

If the Democrats take control of either the House
or the Senate and they have a spine (a BIG "if")
they could start to investigate the Bush administration
using subpoena power. All of the illegal actions
of the Republicans and the Bushies could be
uncovered and prosecuted. Between torture and
the violation of US law supporting the Geneva
Convention and Tom DeLay's fund raising abuse
there are a lot of ugly insects under those
Republican rocks.

Rather than face the prospect of losing power
I think that there is a good chance that the
Bushies will "cut and run". They will declare
that "Democracy" has been installed in Iraq,
the Iraqi forces are trained and ready to take
over. "Mission Accomplished". If they time
it right, perhaps a big pull out in September
2006, the November elections may happen before
Iraq disolves into civil war and "ethnic cleansing".
The US voters, who pay attention to little more
than the latest "reality" shows, may actually buy
the "Mission Accomplished" lie and the Republicans
could squeek by with their majority in Congress
intact. No investigations and a platform for
yet another narrow Republican victory in 2008.
Oh, and, as others have mentioned, a pardon
for Rove, Libby and anyone else in need.

Iraq was all about Bush being a "War President"
and getting all that "political capital" he
loves to talk about (his political capital is
about as bust as his Arbusto oil company).
Since Iraq was not the cake walk it was supposed
to be, it is time to "cut and run" before it drags
the Republicans down.

Ian

Two policemen killed, 26 civilians wounded in two attacks in Baghdad

Gunmen killed two Iraqi policemen and wounded two others while US forces wounded 26 bricklayers in Baghdad on Tuesday, police said.

"Armed men opened fire at about 4:30 a.m. (0030 GMT) at a civil defense center in Baghdad's eastern Sadr City, killing two policemen and wounding two others," an Interior ministry source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

In a separate incident, the US forces fired at a group of bricklayers at about 5:30 a.m. (0130 GMT) in Alawi district in central Baghdad, wounding 26 of them, the source said.

The US troops told the Iraqi police that they had shot at " terrorists".

"But when our patrols reached the scene they discovered the wounded people were bricklayers who left home early looking for work," the source said.

Source: Xinhua

HEARTS AND MINDS, WIN THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS

Control of oil in Iraq

Is Iraqi oil controlled by corporations or is it under national control? Need to know to understand Iraq and oil and what Bush administration thinking.

Article I read recently (where?) distinguished between corporately controlled oil (think it was 30% of world oil) and nationally controlled oil (as I remember 70% of world oil).

Does anyone know which category correct for Iraq?

As Ian suggests, the anti-war movement is now getting serious. While I agree with 99% of what Ian says, I think that unless Bush were to start withdrawals NOW, a mid-summer or fall '06 pull-out won't fool anyone, and the Dems WILL gain in congress.

WHAT A NON-STARTER!
Hayden innocently says,"First, as confidence-building measures, Washington should declare that it has no interest in permanent military bases or the control of Iraqi oil."

Not in 100 years will this administration ever say that! It is much more likely that George will change his last name and renounce his inheritance than he will ever voluntarily relinquish permanent military bases or control over Iraqi oil.

Doesn't Tom Hayden know why Bush invaded Iraq in the first place?

Wrote steve a E re this nonsense he has writen. The gist of it is that unless his brain is on vacation in crawford, I am not sure that he is truly supportive of a liberal or at least moderate political position.An 8th grade student could, with a little help, probably express quite clearly the disgraceful examples of our great countries "Benign" behavior.Oh lets see- wounded knee, slavery,remember the main,wwI, the depression, WW2, Nam and now the middle east. The idea that we are not in Iraq for its' oil is the laughing stock of the rest of the world, including our so- called allies. The Idea that the bases that are being constructed out of "CONCRETE" in the Iraqi desert are "NOT PERMANENT" is being waved off with a sneer all over the world.
So-- as I said to Mr C in my E-mail- what a loss of respect after the "cause bolton!"
billjpa@aol.com

An "Iraq Exit Plan," in this administration falls under the "How to Keep Power in All Branches of Government Plan." You can sell them on an Iraq Exit Plan if you can first and foremost show how The Plan can ensure an across the board victory in 2006 US elections. To keep domestic power is Everything, without which one has nothing.

Uzbekistan tossed us out, we now say it doesn'tt matter.

Related to that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which include Russia, China and 4 other central Eurpoean states inluding Uzbekistan has called for our withdrawal from thia area and reportedly has made an invitation to Iran.

Thus our setbacks in the "great game."

Instead of talking to a stone wall, why don't we talk to the U.N. directly and ask other countries to propose a cease fire and place Iraq into U.N. Trusteeship for 25 years while Special Advisory Services helps them really develope a new government and to learn how to administer one farily and openly? It has happened many times with emerging nations. It works. If Bush can circumvent our Constitution, we can circumvent him.

The appeal to the UN is the same unseriousness that lost Kerry the election.

1) Without the US the UN does not have the capacity to project the kind of resources that could manage the situation.

2) UN members are not idiots. This is an exceedingly messy situation. At a minimum one will be trying to intervene and broker nasty internal disputes, disputes which could easily break into a mideastern wide conflict. But this assumes the force would be accepted as legitimate. It will not be, the UN has already been forced out. Foreign troops will be regarded as trespassers by part of the population. These people have access to nasty weapons.

It is legitimate to say that the United States needs to repair relations with parts of the world, that these relationships can be developed into small, but important parts of a coherant policy.

But the idea that the UN can, much less willingly will take on a US sized mess is as much an escape from reality as the consistent claims from the right that we are winning. Anyone who makes it is trying to shirk responsibility and is engaging in the same immorality as those on the right who minimize the seriousness of the situation.

Anyway I am not sure why this discussion is being had. The indications are strong that the administration is planning on pretending the south is not an Iranian allied theocaracy and is hoping to withdraw forces from there next year while handing over other responsibilities such as the handling of prisoners to the new government. this will probably increase abuses but is the same type of solution people like Hayden propose. The goal then seems to be to create a situation later in the year where we can pretend to have won and have many troops out by election time.

It seems that the administration may have neglected to inform the president of his policy, but we can be confident he will get onboard when the time comes.

In this situation senator's Biden, Clinton, et al have positioned themselves cleverly for the "who lost Iraq" debate. The politicians failing to listen to the advice of generals argument will probably be quite delicious.

"America generally has benign intentions."

Since when?

Steve, either you don't believe this, you're impossibly naive for a tough journalist, or they've been spiking your office cooler with Right Wing Kool Aid.

Benign intentions. Please.

In all seriousnes, why would anyone think that the present administration will ever renounce "interest in permanent military bases or the control of Iraqi oil?"

What indications have there been, at any time-perhaps I missed these, but I doubt it- that the administration will ever suggest this? Hasn't the opposite view been established conclusively many times throughout the shifting rationalization for this war? I've never heard the oil or the bases renounced as aims of our country. indeed, look at any poll and the majority vote will list oil and military bases as the reasons most believe we are in Iraq. So if the majority of Americans can see this, why must Progressives act as if the jury is still out on the administrations goals and actions? Kindly offer one indication, just one, that the administration is likely to ever take this step of credibly renouncing such obvious aims?

Seriously, isn't it well established by now that this administration will not state any such thing because the oil and the military bases to 'secure' the oil have been the obvious goals all along. Isn't suggesting that the administration remounce it's obvious goals sort of like giving the administration cover by implying that these haven't been the obvious goals all along? Isn't it time to draw this line clearly, without offering any sort of choice to the administration? Call them what they are, highlight the distinction between the two positions, and let the chips fall where they will. Don't play the courteous academic. While we wait to 'influnce' the missile heads, they continue to wage an illegal effort to occupy and dominate. Wake up already.

I agree with Profmarcus.....expecting Bushco to act in a rational manner is pointless.

Several commenters have pointed out a very serious problem for those who want to approach the Iraq problem rationaly. Tom Hayden offers some sensible suggestions, but if there was even the remotest chance of Bush and Co thinking about these suggestions, then they would not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

This then highlights a problem reality-based policy wonks from both sides of the Aisle have never had. Since 1945, no matter who was president, a republican or democrat could put forth some policy suggestions and bleieve that someone in the executive branch might listen. The proposers and the proposees thought they were all talking the same language. But, as we see with the above comments, this is no longer the case. The people in charge reject the bipartisan comity that informed policy discussions for the last 60 years. And that's why Hayden's piece reeks of unreality.

Thus, we have the larger question: How do those of us who consider themselves part of the rejected tradition even talk about what the neocons are doing for the next three years?

Put another way, is it time to start considering how the next President is going to have to take this country through the wreckage that these people have created----and will continue to create for the next three years?

Is there anything--no matter how limited--that we can do to limit the damage until either the likes of Chuck Hagel or Wes Clark takes over?

L. Miller is right above.

I remember that Tom Hayden has been involved in Irish Republican and Northern Ireland politics over the years. His call for a declaration by the US government, of course, is a copy of the "Downing Street Declaration" a few years back by the U.K. and Irish governments.

In this declaration, the Prime Minister, John Major affirmed that the British government has "no selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland, and "that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland".

This led to the historic cease-fire by the IRA, then the Good Friday Agreement. While it was only a couple of weeks ago that the IRA finally dumped arms, during the period since the Downing Street Declaration, Northern Ireland has been *relatively* peaceful, compared to the two decades before it. ( yes, I know about the Omagh bombing, but that really was the "last throes" ).

Hayden's idea, of course, would be a no-brainer, if the Bush administration's aims were truly peace, democracy and human rights. I agree with Hayden that a declaration of this type would go a long way toward making Iraq less violent, thereby removing the need for US troops to stay in Iraq.

But I also agree with L. Miller above. This would be a big 180 degree change of policy for them. They did Iraq because they want to take over that part of the world. They have no interest in peace. They want to keep the pot boiling.

I forsee the conflict becoming *more* violent, not less. There are a lot of people in charge who think that "we" absolutely *cannot* "lose", because the rest of the world would get wise to our "weakness".

We really need to depose these people. Impeach Bush and Cheney, and elect Tom Hayden president. War crimes trials for all the politicians responsible for the war. Anyone in the room who was present when the generals came in with the briefing papers that said "Option A: 250-2000 Americans dead, 10,000 - 100,000 Iraqis dead." should go to jail.

Right now Dear Leader can continue to be coy about oil and permanent bases in Iraq; simply stating we're withdrawing doesn't force Cheney to step from behind the curtain -- he can stick with "not staying the course", "cutting and running", etc.

We need to pose a military alternative to a total withdrawal, something which forces Cheney to admit that he's turning it down because of oil and basing rights in Iraq.

That alternative could be to state that instead of withdrawing from Iraq we are repositioning the troops from Iraq to another country in which we are engaged in a war, also with too few troops -- Afghanistan.

Specifically:

1. Within the next 90 to 120 days, relocate the regular Army and USMC light infantry/air assault/SF forces from Iraq to the Afghan-Pakistan border. Their mission would be to capture/kill al Qaeda and to give Afghanistan some stability. When that's done, they leave -- after all, no oil there.

2. The remaining forces in Iraq -- regular Army and USMC armor/armored cav/mech infantry units plus the Reserve and NG units -- would be relocated to Kuwait and temporary basing in Jordan. Their mission would be to continue to train the Iraqi forces by rotating into Iraq on a monthly basis and to act as a Quick Reaction Force if the Bandini well and truly hit the air supply.

3. As the dates on which the Reserve and NG units to come home arrived, they would not be replaced. Eventually, say in about a year, there would be the equivalent of two or so brigades left in Kuwait, about what we had before the invasion.

There's nothing we can do re: Iraq -- we've messed it up too badly and simply don't have the forces to give it any semblance of security which is what it desparately needs. By posing something like the above, the Right may be forced to respond with something other than the usual slime and defend.

Any appeal to, or solution from the UN is out the window now that Bolton is there. After all, his "mission" is to "reform" the UN!!! Think any members will want to work with our "ambassador"?

"Lastly, Hayden suggests some kind of American piece envoy to deal with the parts of the Iraqi political establishment that are pushing for a near-term American exit and don't support our presence."

Are there any parts of the Iraqi political establishment that don't support a near-term American exit?

Nice try on the Iraqi Fund idea. Transparency should go over really big with the political establishment that is busily looting the Iraqi treasury. To date, Bush's own inspector general for the reconstruction of Iraq, Stuart Bowen, found that $9 billion was probably embezzled after the CPA handed it over to the Iraqis. The Christian Fund, a charity group, reports that $20 million of Iraqi oil revenue is unaccounted for. The Iraqi defense minister and his cronies look to have misspent $1.27 billion of a $1.3 billion budget.

"Hayden's proposal could be strengthened with some thinking about what we could do to build a class of political/economic winners amidst the chaos we have generated in Iraq."

First, try and get rid of the political/economic losers that have bank accounts stuffed with billions of stolen Iraqi money. Fat chance.

It is not unrealistic to appeal to the U.N. for help in solving the current situation in Iraq.

Yes, the U.S. is the big guy on the block, but it has been possible to thwart the U.S.in some instances when there is widespread resentment against Uncle Sam, as there is right now. I was not suggesting that the U.N. could solve a giant U.S. mess, but someone has to, if we are ever going to leave. Some of our oldest allies defied us on the U.N. resolution to use force in Iraq and defeated it, forcing us to go it alone. I think Old Europe would love to say, I told you so, now we'll help, if you don't insist on total, control of all decision making, as we did.

I'm in favor of putting something on the table in a forum where we can at least get it discussed and where Bush and Cheney are not the only ones calling the debate. It's high time this administration had to answer for the fake documents, etc. It can only happen in the U.N.

It is unrealistic to think the Iraqis can come up with a stable government on BushCo time. It takes years, that is the reality. Right now all Bushco wants is a piece of paper that authorizes some certain individuals to sign oil leases. So far, it is being written in blood.

What do you suggest, Mr. Reality?

Kathleen,
I agree with your premise: that maybe our old allies might be willing to finally help, but do you really think Bushco would be willing to stand aside on decision-making??? I doubt it. And as I noted above, we have p. ohed the rest of the UN so they aren't likely to fall in to help clean up our mess.
It is going to take 2 1/2 years and a new administration to take care of this disaster.

Hallelujah! Dennis Kucinich laid out all the points Tom Hayden makes back during the primary debates. They were sensible and sensitive then and they are now. Thank you so much for featuring Hayden's concrete proposals here, Steve, as well as reminding us of your egalitarian oil-benefits distribution proposal from two years ago. I remember reading it then and thinking "what a sound idea" but know until now the idea was yours.

Wow, that's some echo.

I agree with the comment(s) above that the use of the word "benign" to describe the US's intentions is a bit of a stretch, at least as those intentions have been expressed and operationalized over the past 5 years (and beyond). My main issue with this post, though, is the last couple of paragraphs, re the allied envoy idea. I used to work at a prominent DC think tank just down the street from Steve's before moving across the Atlantic to Norway, and since being here I'm struck at how very instrumentalist the US policy community, even the US left/Dems, are towards Europe and other allies -- as if (fill in the country) exists solely to serve their US master, regardless of their own interests or domestic political imperatives. I hadn't noticed it when I was doing it in DC, but it's really glaring when you're watching the policy community's machinations from afar. Guys, Norway has an election in less than a month. No one in their right mind, even on the right and centre-right, would touch the idea of lending a Norwegian imprimatur to the debacle in Iraq. Not to mention that the election is looking to be a good result for the Labor Party/Socialist Left bloc, which REALLY doesn't want to get within a city block of this mess. And what with the problems that the Dutch are having with their own native-born and immigrant Muslim population, does anyone honestly think that it would be in their interests to forward the US agenda in Iraq (which is how it would be spun, regardless of what US policymakers might say)? Look, I'm all for reaching across the Atlantic and improving relations, treating allies as partners and not as buttboys, etc. But you have to do it in a realistic and honest way, not in a "carry our water, dummy" kind of way. And you also have to realize just how very toxic US middle east policy (including Iran and Israel-Palestine, not just Iraq) is in Europe, not just among the Guardian-reading left but among your average Joe (Jacques? -- or in Norway, your average Ole).

No way are BushCo gonna give up on bases in Iraq and the greater Middle East. They will need them to protect "their" interests (to distinguish those interests from the average Iraqi or American), and to stage their proxy war with Iran via the Mujahedeen al-Qaq or whatever their name is (surely I misspelled it).

Losing the base(s) in Uzbekistan, as noted earlier, adds more importance to the Iraqi bases.

And watch the new bases in Azerbaijan, a country which also has military non-aggression agreement with Iran. Interesting....

"They" are not interested in peace.

No, I do not think Bushco will be willing to step aside entirely from decision making in Iraq, but he does need to be stopped some way. He needs to be obstructed as much as possible. He must be forced to share decision making on Iraq. He needs to be forced to explain. The world needs to stand firm and not just lay down so the big war machine can run right over everyone.

Just as in 2000, if only one Senator had had the guts to sign the Congressional objections to certifying the election results, we might not be here today, we now need to do what we can to get the rest of world to stand up to him and stop him before we are at war with everyone who dares to disagree with BushCo.

I think we should lobby the U.N. Credentials Committee members to not give Bolton his credentials, for starters. Right now he just has provisional credentials. We can do it by e-mail. If nothing else, it would embarrass BushCo for average people around the world to block him. All we need is 5 out 9 to stop Bolton from being seated.

I think if we do the little things that can be done, we won't end up with big things that can't be done. We have to do something.

Of course proposals like Hayden's and Steve's aren't going to sway the Bush administration. The important thing is that they can sway the electorate.

Right now the neocons and their supporters have everyone thinking that, yeah, Iraq is a mess, but there's nothing to do but soldier on. Or complete the mission, as the put it, without ever clearly and decisively stating what that means.

Proposals like these let people know there are not only options for addressing the immediate situation, for how to be in the world, too -- a truisms that hold promise for our world but are, for Bush & Buds, quite dangerous.