1-11-07, 8:23 am

The Peace and Solidarity Commission prepared this memo for the National Board discussion on legislative priorities. Out of necessity, it is also an assessment of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report released on Dec 6, 2006. The 2006 elections and now the country wide debate on the ISG report provides new opportunities and challenges for the Party. Our aim within the peace movement and in mobilizing the entire Party organization should be geared to organizing a stronger grass roots movement to end the war/occupation.

Currently the main factor pushing forward the legislative process on Capitol Hill is the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report released December 6, 2006. Many Congress people and national organizations are issuing statements pro and con. The ISG report is now the frame of reference for the debate on how and when to end the occupation of Iraq. The Report will have long-term impact due to the objective need for a bi-partisan solution in order to move legislation.

The challenge for the peace movement is to on one hand push for the immediate end of the war and occupation, while on the other, working with anti-war Congressional allies for the best possible legislation to end the war/occupation as soon as possible. The peace movement must be extremely tactically flexible in the next period as various bills and proposals are introduced, amended and changed.

Iraq Study Group Report

The history of the bi-partisan committee, its members and the intent of their report have been widely discussed in the media. We need to assess the main points and the impact on the debate in Congress.

The ISG report has opened up political space to continue the debate on not if, but how to end the war. The debate on the ISG report is a mass educational opportunity. This is the starting point for mobilizing the Party organization in the movement to end the war.

In the Party’s analysis, we have to advocate for implementing the elements of the ISG proposals that push back the neoconservative policies on a basis benefiting the Iraqi people and the democratic forces. At the same time, we need to critique those elements that serve to impede the fight to end the occupation.

While the ISG proposals in general reflect the majority sentiment against continued occupation, they also seek to maintain US political and economic control in the Middle East. Its authors represent the “realist” sector of the US ruling class. They desire a way out of the Iraq War that salvages US hegemony in the region and protects US strategic interests especially access to oil.

The report rebuffs the Bush Administration’s policies in the following areas:

* It states that “staying the course” is not an option characterizing the dire conditions and the urgency for a change in policy; * It recognizes that there is no military solution to the spiral of violence; * It calls for an Iraqi reconciliation process that inevitably will lead to negotiations including representatives of the insurgency and the militias; * It advocates against the division of Iraq; * It emphasizes diplomatic efforts and engagement with Iran and Syria, and calls for the involvement of the UN Security Council, European Union, and other countries in the region; * It cites the need for US relations with countries in the region based on economic and political reform rather than regime change; * It acknowledges the staggering amount of money spent on the war; * It outlines why it is critical to address the Israel-Palestine crisis for stability in the region and the need to renew efforts to negotiate a two-state solution, acknowledging the potentially dangerous role that Israel could play in the region.

ISG Report Fails on the Basic Issue: US Troop Withdrawal

If implemented, the ISG proposals would mark a major change of Bush policy in Iraq, which has insisted that current troop levels and policies are working. At the same time, the Report does not call for an increase of US troops in defiance of some in the Pentagon and Sen. John McCain who have advocated an increase of 100,000 troops for a “surge” to bring the about a quick resolution of the spike in violence. But on the basic issue of troop withdrawal, the Report falls short.

The Report states that the long-term presence of the troops will not lead to fundamental improvements in Iraqi security, yet if implemented, its proposals would continue the occupation indefinitely. The ISG propose a gradual US troop withdrawal to be completed by the first quarter of 2008 but would maintain military trainers and a rapid response force numbering 70,000 to target Al Qaida in Iraq.

The Report also blames the Iraqis themselves and their government for the internal strife. It covers up the reason why the Iraqi government is not able to govern. We know the limitations on the Iraqi Government begin with the US occupation and limitations on real sovereignty. The Iraqi government will not be able to solve the problems in the country without ending the greatest threat to its legitimate rule: the ongoing US occupation.

The need for immediate Congressional action to withdraw the troops is the mandate of the 2006 elections. But the legislation on Iraq coming out of the new Democratically-controlled Congress and Senate must go well beyond the proposals of the ISG. The struggle for setting a timetable will be the cutting edge of legislative work between now and the fourth anniversary of the war, March 2007.

On Capitol Hill

Before the ISG report was released on Dec 6, there were a number of consultative meetings about Iraq War legislation on the Hill.

The Democratic Party House Caucus held a briefing with a number of former government officials. The Out of Iraq Caucus began consultations with the peace movement to prepare for the legislative struggle to end the war and occupation.

The Progressive Caucus also hosted a Congressional briefing with former Sen. George McGovern and William Polk, who drafted a withdrawal plan. (See http://www.harpers.org/TheWayOutOfWar.html) And the Progressive Caucus staff has urged the peace movement to request a meeting with Pelosi, which is in process.

Although many meetings and briefings are happening in the wake of the election victory, the staffers for the key pro-peace Congressional representatives say there isn’t a push yet for a Democratic Party consensus position on the war.

A few Congressional staffers have urged that the peace movement bring together several Congressional representatives to discuss introducing one major peace of anti-war legislation while others are skeptical. The peace movement will take steps in January to see if it is a possibility.

Sen. Levin and others have advocated in the weeks since the election for setting a July 2007 deadline to begin US troop withdrawal. The Out of Iraq Caucus, with 73 members, is soliciting input on legislation. The caucus members range in opinion from immediate withdrawal to a phased withdrawal.

Rep. Maxine Waters, the chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, has participated in two briefing sessions with UFPJ leadership and other peace movement leaders in the last week. The UFPJ legislative network organized one. Rep. Waters initiated the second for input into the next steps the caucus should take.

In the last meeting she asked, “What does the peace movement mean when you call for the troops out now?” She acknowledged the need to separate the role of the movement and its slogans and demands from the positions that Congressional allies will take. She spoke about the need to have a vocal, organized, vigorous movement to support their efforts on the Hill, noting that the 2008 elections is a powerful motivating factor.

War Appropriations A debate is emerging on the role of war appropriations legislation in the struggle to withdraw the troops. Some in the peace movement believe we should demand that the Democratic-led Congress should vote down the war appropriations bill that is coming early in 2007. The peace movement needs to approach the various war appropriations proposals tactically. The Democratic Party leadership will not support voting down the war appropriations because Bush and the Republicans will appeal to public support of the troops to ridicule them.

Some newspaper articles are now saying, however, that the Democratic leadership is considering a drive for amendments to qualify the type of war appropriations they are willing to support. Some are saying they want a withdrawal plan to be attached to any appropriations as an amendment. There is continued opposition to new funding for US military bases in Iraq. Measures cutting funding to permanent bases passed two times on a voice vote in the last session of Congress although it was added back into the war appropriations bill during the reconciliation process the first time around.

As of this week, only two Congressional representatives have taken concrete steps on new appropriation legislation. Rep Kucinich, without consultation with peace allies in Congress has prepared a briefing paper and is beginning a campaign to completely end the funding for the war. Rep McGovern is reintroducing his bill that would limit war funding to those that ensure the safe withdrawal of troops.

The January 27-29 actions in Washington DC called by UFPJ will be the beginning of a highly motivated peace lobby. The close working relationships with the Out of Iraq Caucus and the Progressive Caucus will give the peace movement both an inside and outside strategy that can make the difference in some of the crucial debates that will unfold in the new Congress.

Our Party’s Role

The Communist Party’s approach should be to discuss within the peace movement and as a part of general mass educational efforts why elements of the ISG report are rebuffs to basic neo-conservative foreign policy tenets. We also must clearly point out that the bottom-line solution to the crisis in Iraq and it’s domestic impact is a plan for US troop withdrawal and the end of the occupation.

We have to support the calls by the movement for immediate withdrawal while supporting Congressional efforts to set deadlines. We must curb legislatively the Bush administrations attempts to stall the Iraqi reconciliation process and to reduce the involvement of international institutions and multilateral support for the Iraqi government.

The Party’s emphasis is the fulfillment of the election mandate for ending the war. Sixty-two percent of the people support withdrawal immediately or within a year. “Immediate withdrawal” means that a decision and a plan must be made coupled with diplomatic and political initiatives that help the Iraqi government, democratic forces and the people regain control of their country.

Although the ISG report calls for diplomatic and political initiatives, we must fight for the Congress to undertake policy support for diplomatic efforts based on international law and national sovereignty. Another problem is the ISG maps out a path to privatize Iraq’s national oil industry. We must emphasize that an end to war profiteering and US corporate control of Iraqi oil together with support for Iraqi-led reconciliation and reconstruction are key elements to any solution in the country.

Discussion by both Republicans and Democrats has begun to blame the Iraqis for the problems in Iraq. Some right-wingers argue that we have to demand that the Iraqis lead or the US will leave altogether. The racist argument that blames those under occupation for the crisis in Iraq is being used to argue against funding the reconstruction. We have to challenge this rationale in order to prepare for the struggle for Iraqi-led reconstruction and ending war profiteering. We must also help struggle with sections of the anti-war majority that might fall for these arguments as the basis for immediate withdrawal.

The Party should help fight for comprehensive legislation that incorporates all the key concerns:

1) Ending the occupation as soon as possible, leaving no bases behind; 2) Funding for rebuilding Iraq under Iraqi control; 3) Support for an Iraqi-led reconciliation effort to end sectarian violence and regain control of the country; 4) Support for a broad political, diplomatic effort involving the UN and countries in the region.

If no single bill can achieve these ends, we should support all those bills that most advance these principals in the weeks and months ahead.

We also should support calls for hearings to expose the Bush Administration’s preemptive war policies, war profiteering, drive to privatize and control Iraq’s oil and the continued violation of international laws especially in regards to Guantanomo and the rendition of prisoners.

We need to discuss the funding of the war as the budget debate begins in March. We need tactics connecting the trillions spent on the war with the unmet needs of our communities and the need for reconstruction funds for communities destroyed in Iraq. We should support efforts to amend the war appropriations with withdrawal plans. Congressional hearings leading up to the appropriations debate will set the atmosphere for how we approach the issue. We should prepare a comprehensive analysis of the economic costs of the war.

Our approach has to be flexible and responsive to the swift changes that will go on in Congress as the mass pressure mounts for fulfilling the 2006 mandate to end the war.

Addendum: Key Legislation on Iraq introduced in the last Congress

H.CON.RES.35, Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq. Sponsor: Rep. Woolsey

H.CON.RES.184, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding additional steps to expedite the success of the United States in Iraq, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Skelton

H.CON.RES.197, Declaring that it is the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq Sponsor: Rep. Lee

H.CON.RES.321, Providing that the new permanent Council of Representatives of Iraq is encouraged to debate and vote on whether or not a continued United States military presence in Iraq is desired by the Government of Iraq Sponsor: Rep. Kucinich

H.CON.RES.348, Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to accomplishing the mission in Iraq Sponsor: Rep. Thompson

H.CON.RES.402, Requiring certain committees of Congress to review and evaluate the activities and progress of the Government of Iraq in securing and stabilizing Iraq Sponsor: Rep. Gerlach

H.CON.RES.417, Expressing the sense of Congress in support of a broad-based political settlement in Iraq Sponsor: Rep. Mark Udall

H.CON.RES.442, Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant blanket amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq Sponsor: Rep. Jackson-Lee

H.CON.RES.492, Urging the Government of the United States to declare that it does not intend to establish a long-term or permanent military occupation of Iraq, and to work with the United Nations to convene an international conference on Iraq's future Sponsor: Rep. Hinchey

H.RES.82, Disavowing the doctrine of preemption Sponsor: Rep. Lee

H.RES.571, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Sponsor: Rep. Hunter Note: This is the Republican response to Rep. Murtha’s proposal to redeploy US troops.

H.RES.861, Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. Sponsor: Rep. Hyde Note: This is the Republican response to Democratic calls to debate the Iraq war. It dealt with the war on terrorism, rather than a clean debate on the Iraq war.

H.RES.984, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war since the February 22, 2006, bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, one of the holiest places for Shiite Muslims. Sponsor: Rep. Waters

H.RES.990, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the original authorization for use of force against Iraq contained in Public Law 107-243 is outdated and Congress should vote on a new use of force resolution that reflects the current situation in Iraq. Sponsor: Rep. Waters

H.J.RES.55, Withdrawal of United States Armed Forces From Iraq Resolution of 2005--Homeward Bound Sponsor: Rep. Abercrombie

H.J.RES.70, Requiring the President to submit to Congress a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and for other purposes Sponsor: Rep. Price

H.J.RES.73, To redeploy U. S. Forces from Iraq. Sponsor: Rep. Murtha

H.J.RES.90, Disapproving the granting of amnesty by the Government of Iraq to persons known to have attacked, kidnapped, wounded, or killed members of the Armed Forces of the United States or citizens of the United States in Iraq. Sponsor: Rep. Larson

H.R.871, War Funding Accountability Act Sponsor: Rep. Mike Thompson

From CPUSA

-- Judith LeBlanc chairs the Peace and Solidarity Commission of the Communist Party USA.