What does it mean to "leave Iraq"?

Most of the Democratic candidates

come smack up against that hard place

There's a bipartisan consensus

in the foreign-policy establishment

that the U.S. must control every

strategically valuable region of the world

America's ruling class feels a sacred obligation

to maintain "stability" throughout the imperial domains,

which now means most of planet Earth

-- regardless of what voters may think

The Democratic front-runners know that "order"

and "stability" are code words for American hegemony

They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones,

see the price of hegemony in Iraq

and just don't want to pay it anymore

Democratic Doublespeak on Iraq

Start with the simplest, most basic fudge.

Newspapers and the TV news constantly report on various plans for the "withdrawal of American troops" from Iraq, when what's being proposed is the withdrawal of American "combat troops" or "combat brigades."

This isn't a matter of splitting hairs; it's the difference between a plan for full-scale withdrawal and a plan to remain in Iraq in a different military form for the long term.

American combat brigades only add up to perhaps half of the troops we presently have in that country.

There is quite a gap between withdrawal from that embattled land and the withdrawal of some American troops.

Those that remain will hunker down on the enormous, all-but-permanent military bases the Pentagon has built there over the last four years.

The clearest signal that the America military is there for good is the largest embassy on the planet, now nearing completion (amid the normal woes that seem to go with American construction and "reconstruction") in Baghdad's heavily fortified but distinctly insecure Green Zone.

Most Americans who don't make it to the fine print or who don't wander widely on the political Internet, would have no way of knowing that withdrawal isn't withdrawal at all.

This is thanks to the carefully worded statements of leading Democratic (and Republican) politicians now criticizing the Bush Regime, as well as generally terrible reporting in the mainstream media.

Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party's nomination in 2008.

But what does it mean to "leave Iraq"? Here's where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place.

There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the U.S. must control every strategically valuable region of the world -- and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet.

That's been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.

So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate.

The powers that be just wouldn't stand for that. They see themselves as the guardians of world "order."

They feel a sacred obligation to maintain "stability" throughout the imperial domains, which now means most of planet Earth -- regardless of what voters may think.

The Democratic front-runners know that "order" and "stability" are code words for American hegemony. They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones, see the price of hegemony in Iraq and just don't want to pay it anymore.

So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts.

While they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else).

In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

No worries, it turns out. Fluency in doublespeak is a prime qualification for high political office. On Iraq, candidates Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson don't meet that test.

They tell anyone and everyone that they want "all" U.S. troops out of Iraq, but they register only 1-4% in the polls and are generally ignored in the media.

The Democrats currently topping the polls, on the other hand, are proving themselves eminently qualified in doublespeak.

Running for the Imperial Presidency

The top Democrats agree that we must leave significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq, not only for selfish reasons, but because we Americans are so altruistic.

We want to prevent chaos and bring order and stabilization to that country -- as if U.S. troops were not already creating chaos and instability there every day. But among the foreign policy elite, the U.S. is always a force for order, "helping" naturally chaotic foreigners achieve "stability."

For the elite, it's axiomatic that the global "stability" that keeps us secure and prosperous is also a boon for the people we "stabilize."

For this to happen in Iraq, time must be bought with partial "withdrawal" plans.

(It matters little how many foreigners we kill in the process, as long as U.S. casualties are reduced enough to appease public opinion at home.)

This is not open to question; most of the time, it's not something that even crosses anyone's mind to question.

Well, perhaps it's time we started asking such questions. A lost war should be the occasion for a great public debate on the policies and the geopolitical assumptions that led to the war.

Americans blew that opportunity after the Vietnam War. Instead of a genuine debate, we had a few years of apathy, verging on amnesia, toward foreign affairs followed by the Reagan revolution, whose disastrous effects in matters foreign (and domestic) still plague us.

Now, we have another precious -- and preciously bought -- opportunity to raise fundamental issues about foreign policy. But in the mainstream, all we are getting is a false substitute for real public debate.

With an election looming, the Democrats portray themselves as the polar opposite of the Republicans.

They blame the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush and the neocons, conveniently overlooking all the support Bush got from the Democratic elite before his military venture went sour.

They talk as if the only issue that matters is whether or not we begin to withdraw some troops from Iraq sometime next year.

The media report this debate in excruciating detail, with no larger context at all. So most Americans think this is the only debate there is, or could be.

The other debate about Iraq -- the one that may matter more in the long run -- is the one going on in the private chambers of the policymakers about what messages they should send, not so much to enemies as to allies.

Bush, Cheney, and their supporters say the most important message is a reassuring one: "When the U.S. starts a fight, it stays in until it wins. You can count on us."

For key Democrats, including congressional leaders and major candidates for the imperial Presidency, the primary message is a warning:

"U.S. support for friendly governments and factions is not an open-ended blank check. If you are not producing, we'll find someone else who can."

The two sides are hashing this one out in a sometimes strident, sometimes relatively chummy manner.

The outcome will undoubtedly make a real difference, especially to the people of Iraq, but it's still only a dispute about tactics, never about goals, which have been agreed upon in advance.

Yet it's those long-range goals of the bipartisan consensus that add up to the seven-decade-old drive for imperial hegemony, which got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever we fight the next large, disastrous war.

It's those goals that should be addressed. Someone has to question that drive. And what better moment to do it than now, in the midst of another failed war?

Unfortunately, the leading Democratic candidates aren't about to take up the task. I guess it must be up to us.

Ira Chernus @ Tom Dispatch