What Withdrawal ?

It's official. The United States is digging its heels in Iraq. The clues (more like obvious facts) are coming in thick and fast and its hard to see how anyone can still have any doubts about this.

First, there was the matter of spineless Democrats and continuing war funding.

Next, for those who came in late, the US Embassy in Iraq is currently under construction (by First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting, billed at 592 million $, US taxpayer money, of course). Being the size of the Vatican, it isn't exactly modest. This is basically the largest embassy ever, anywhere. Forget the citizens of Baghdad and their reconstruction needs. That money is lining the pockets of various corporations that were awarded no-bid contracts. However, embassy construction is under full swing and will almost certainly be the only thing in Iraq to be completed on schedule. To add to this, during the construction, several labor laws are being broken as documented in Kuwait Company’s Secret Contract & Low-Wage Labor by David Phinney.
Does the embassy have a Starbucks and "other versatile solutions for modern living" ? Probably. Does this sound like an imminent withdrawal to you ? No.

Then there is the matter of military bases in Iraq. As revealed by Dahr Jamail at truthout in Iraq: Permanent US Colony, there are quite a few not-so-tiny bases in Iraq.
As described by Jamail:

"Camp Anaconda, near Balad. Occupying 15 square miles of Iraq, the base boasts two swimming pools (not the plastic inflatable type), a gym, mini-golf course and first-run movie theater. Air Force officials on the base claim the runway there is one of the busiest in the world" 

"There are several other gigantic bases in Iraq besides camp Anaconda, such as Camp Victory near Baghdad Airport, which - according to a reporter for Mother Jones magazine - when complete will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. The Kosovo base is currently one of the largest overseas bases built since the war in Vietnam" 

"Camp Liberty is adjacent to Camp Victory - where soldiers even compete in their own triathlons. The course, longer than 140 total miles, spanned several bases in the greater Camp Victory area in west Baghdad"

Does this sound like a withdrawal ?

But wait, there are more clues from the foul mouths of the administration officials themselves. I guess they just assume now that people have figured it out anyway and there is no point pretending anymore.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the United States is looking to a long-term military presence in Iraq under a mutually agreed arrangement similar to that it has long had with South Korea.

Gates says "What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans -- mutually agreed with mutually agreed missions -- is present for a protracted period of time" (US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-54 Korean War)

Gates also says " Our military commanders should not have to worry about the Washington clock. That is for us in Washington to worry about".

Not sure what clock Robert Gates is talking about. The Democrats made sure there is no clock. But I bet Iraqi civilians do have a clock unless it gets blown to smithereens by a cluster bomb. Oh, by the way, cluster bomb fragments are intentionally designed to be jagged so that its harder to remove them from the eye of a screaming victim.

Many (well-meaning) commentators have remarked on the similarities between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war. I think Stephen Zunes analysis at FPIF (see The Democrats' Support for Bush's War) is excellent in general, but I think his analogy with the Vietnam war may be flawed.

According to Zunes:

"In certain respects, the movement against the war in Iraq today is in a similar situation to the movement against the war in Vietnam in 1969. After more than four years of fighting, the majority of Americans and increasing segments of the news media and elite opinion are finally recognizing the need for a withdrawal of American troops" 

"And it may take heightened measures, including sustained nonviolent direct action. When Congress forced the withdrawal of American troops from Cambodia in 1970, it came only after anti-war protests shut down more than 300 colleges and universities across the country and more than 100,000 demonstrators converged on Capitol Hill in early May."

I agree that the popular global movement against the Iraq war is unprecedented (doubt if the same applies to the media and elite opinion). However, whether this will change policy at the highest levels of power is debatable. There is good reason why Democrats (or Republicans or the lapdog media) aren't going to react the same way to popular protest against the Iraq war as they did in Vietnam. Iraq isn't Vietnam. The US aims in Vietnam were to destroy its independent nationalist movement before it inspired others in the region to take a similar route. Vietnam's natural resources were not of much significance to the US. However, Iraq is an altogether different scenario. The massive petroleum resources in the region are one of the largest in the world. Control over these resources is essential to continuing US hegemony while allowing the United States to exert considerable influence over its competitors (Europe, Japan, China etc.).

Withdrawal from Iraq would have very serious consequences for the United States in terms of its global hegemony and that's why withdrawal is unlikely even in face of unprecedented public protests. Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch nor the elite media is willing to deal with the consequences of a withdrawal.

As Noam Chomsky puts it quite clearly in a recent FPIF interview, the two fundamental questions to ask are: "Why did we invade? Why don’t we want to get out?"