As President George W. Bush’s approval ratings fall into the 40s and casualties continue to rise in Iraq, a variety of plans have been announced by politicians and antiwar activists to begin the process of withdrawing from Iraq. President Bush has staunchly refused any suggestion of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and the few Democrats publicly questioning the war (who have largely been unable to channel the antiwar energy) have adopted plans for a gradual withdrawal.
Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution that calls for a withdrawal from Iraq by December 31 2006. Feingold has argued that President Bush needs to announce a timetable for withdrawal in order to curtail the insurgency. The Senator has also encouraged others in the Senate to call for a specific deadline for the withdrawal. In the House of Representatives, Representatives Kucinich, Abercrombie, Woolsley, Jones, and Lee have introduced a resolution that advocates a withdrawal from Iraq and requires President Bush to develop the particulars of the plan but demand a plan be announced by December 31, 2005 with a withdrawal of the United States by October 1, 2006. The resolution mentions the sacrifice of US troops but makes no mention of civilian casualties or the human toll of the occupation on ordinary Iraqis, as is the case with most plans announced thus far.
Vietnam-era activist Tom Hayden has recently received press attention for his proposed “exit plan” for the war on Iraq. Like many other withdrawal plans, Hayden’s plan calls for a phased withdrawal that would remove some troops by the end of this year and remove the remaining soldiers in 2006. The plan contains provisions to end lessen the chance of a civil war, including measures to bring the Sunni population into the political process and seek a cease-fire with the Iraqi resistance groups and a provision that would allow for negotiations to allow the United States to secure its “legitimate interests in Iraq.” Columnist Juan Cole has also argued that the “US out now” mentality is too simplistic and will likely lead to a civil war. Cole has further argued that the best plan is for US ground troops to move from urban areas in the first phase and move out of Iraq in the second phase. Cole also advocates using US troops to prevent gureillas from staging large-scale attacks on Iraqi forces (read criticism of Cole’s plan).
Locally, the Institute for Global Education (IGE) has begun distributing leaflets calling for the end to the occupation of Iraq. The plan they are advocating, written by World War II veteran Dick Distelhorst refuses to acknowledge that the role of the United States is an occupier and instead clings to the notion that the United States presence is necessary in some capacity and is helpful to ordinary Iraqis. While the removal of US troops from the cities and the positioning of them on the border would be an improvement, it still would maintain a US presence for an indefinite time despite its claims that the move would show that the US has no long-term interest in Iraq.
Most of the plans presented thus far for an Iraq withdrawal do little to end the occupation and instead simply assign a timetable. They all convey the idea that the United States, despite a history of attacking the Iraqi population, can continue to serve an, albeit limited, positive role in improving Iraq. This attitude, almost naive in light of the very nature of the United States’ occupation, conveys the paternalistic notion that the United States owes any responsibility to the Iraqi people beyond the need to end the occupation. None of the plans acknowledge that the primary price of the occupation has not been the lives of US soldiers or tax payer dollars, but the lives of Iraqis. Similiarly, there is little acknowledgement of US wrongdoing in Iraq or the lies used to justify the war. Moreover, the plans seem to be designed to neutralize the mainstream opposition to the war and prevent the antiwar movement from exerting pressure on and threatening both Republican and Democratic candidates in the 2006 elections.
