Straight talk

Ibrahim Izzat al-Douri, leader of the part of the Iraqi Baath party, says he is planning to call together Baathists and Iraqi islamist groups to consider forming a united front to "escalate the military resistance" to the occupation, on a common program of defeating not only the occupation itself, but everything that has been derived from it, including the government and the constitution, in order to make a clean start under occupation-free conditions. This was conveyed to Al-Quds al-Arabi by unnamed sources, who added that a rival Baath figure Ahmed al-Yunis, isn't being invited, but that another big Baathist name is expected to attend, namely Fawzi al-Rawi, leader of a wing that is said to be close to the Syrian Baath party. It is hard to know what to make of the internal Baath comings and goings, and similarly it is hard to know what to make of the list of a half-dozen Iraqi islamist groups, none of which are familiar names. Overall, as Marc Lynch noted in his thumbnail tag on this item, it appears al-Douri is responding to the fact that he and the Baath party were left out of the group whose existence was announced yesterday in the Guardian piece. The program is identical: Defeat of the occupation and all that it brought with it, while at the same time being prepared to negotiate the withdrawal process.

Awni Qalamji, a resistance figure who writes regularly in Al-Quds al-Arabi, notes in his op-ed piece today (pdf, bottom of the page) that there has been a recent wave of meetings and conferences and common fronts, although he doesn't specifically mention these latest two (the column may well have been already written when these last two common-front ideas were announced, but it applies just the same). He does mention a recent series of meetings held in various foreign capitals, for instance one Nuri al-Marsumi, organized a series of meetings with "[Iraqi] figures preaching nationalism and leftism, coming from London and other places", and he refers in a similarly dismissive way to a recent series of meetings by the better-known Iyad Allawi, including a meeting in Cairo with the participation of a Kurdish figure opposed to Talabani, and with people from the Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian Mukhabarat. This whole meetings fad is based on expectations of an American withdrawal, Qalamji points out. This isn't the first time rumors of an American withdrawal led to a flurry of this type of meetings, and he refers specifically to mid 2005 and a meeting in Beirut (which if I knew something about it I would insert it here). Qalamji's point is that there isn't going to be an American withdrawal, so this whole conference fad is based on a mistake.

It is true, he writes, that Bush is under a lot of pressure, not only from Democrats, but from his own generals, who have often indicated skepticism about whether they are having anything you could call success. That is all quite true, he says,

but it is even more true that what is being proposed by the Democrats, under the heading of a plan to withdraw US troops by the end of 2008, is nothing but a scam to convince American public opinion, which is pressing for the return of their boys to their country safe and sound, and not in the black bags, in order to obtain votes in the coming presidential election....

These are points Qalamji has made before, but he thinks this is the time to re-emphasize them: What the Democrats are out to defeat is the Republicans, not the project for control of Iraq. The expression "withdrawal" is merely a cover for re-assigning troops so that the troops themselves are safer; Iraq will still be occupied. It is difficult for some to face this situation, and there is a temptation to cling to fantasies about an easy victory, an early withdrawal, or at least the idea that what Bush and the Democrats are focused on is finding a way to make an honorable withdrawal.

Consequently, says Qalamji, the times require us to re-emphasize the point that the role of the resistance is to fight the occupation and not to dick around with negotiations based on idle dreams, something that (as the heading to this op-ed piece puts it) risks "distorting the image of the resistance". And not only the image.

The resistance should aim toward the formation of a unified fighting organization, with joint leadership, and similarly on the political level the establishment of good relations with all of the bona fide nationalist organizations and movements, so as to arrive at a common political program that has the genuine support of the broadest possible popular base. This can't be done from outside the country, neither on the military side nor on the political side. Secondly, negotiations, if they are to come about, are themselves part of the struggle between the occupation and the resistance, and they can only begin when the occupation is no longer capable of defending itself and has to sue for an honorable exit, which would be on the terms of the resistance, not on their own terms. This implies things like negotiating damages at the same time, negotiating from a position of full sovereignty, and so on. And it implies the continuation of military operations right up until final agreement.

The thing everyone should keep in mind at this point is that when the Americans talk about an honorable withdrawal, their idea is to convince the resistance to lay down their arms, and by joining the political process and joining in the governing authority, actually help ratify the occupation [by the Americans] who, when they first came, came to stay, and not to leave voluntarily. If we put these discussions [about negotiating and joining the political process] to one side, and take up instead the language of reality, then what we hear from the American politicians with respect to Iraq is the exact opposite of what is actually happening, because the American forces, on the one hand, while continuing to talk about withdrawal, are in fact launching ever more violent attacks against Iraqi cities, using the worst weapons of killing and destruction, including banned weapons, while on the other hand you have Bush explaining that among the American options there is not the option called "failure", and that he is determined to break the back of the Iraqi resistance.

Qalamji, as I mentioned, doesn't talk about the latest two common-front-resistance announcements, that of the seven groups mentioned in the Guardian yesterday, or that of al-Douri and others mentioned in Al-Quds al-Arabi today, but I think his point would apply, and it is a cautionary one: Beware Americans talking about an honorable withdrawal.