12-07-06, 2:40 am

Though the report presented by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is a sharp criticism and rejection of the Bush war policy, its recommendations simply 'continue the occupation in a new form,' said Hany Khalil organizing coordinator of United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), the largest antiwar coalition in the U.S.

During a telephone press conference, spokespersons for UFPJ criticized the report for failing to provide a truly new direction for the Iraq war. Phyllis Bennis, a co-founder of UFPJ, pointed out that the report is a reflection of the weakness of the Bush administration and the failure of its war policy, but, she added, 'despite the hype, there is a great deal missing.'

Bennis said that the ISG's report and recommendations are aimed at getting the war off of the front page in time for the November 2008 elections without actually ending the war.

'The report is not a set of new ideas to end the war. It is an attempt to transform the war into a sustainable occupation,' she argued.

She pointed out that the recommendations included in the report, though calling for withdrawal of thousands of combat troops, also call for embedding troops in Iraqi military units and keeping tens of thousands in place – as much as 70,000 – in Iraq.

Antiwar activist Tom Hayden added that while it is clear that the ISG's report was a response to the elections last November, widely regarded as a referendum on ending the war, the specific proposals 'look a bit like the endgame of the Vietnam War: turn things over to the Iraqis and blame them for the collapse.'

Hayden predicted that one positive benefit of the report, despite its drawbacks, will be the 'society-wide discussions' on the need for a political solution to the war that will follow, adding that the peace movement has to be ready to make specific alternative proposals.

Nancy Lessin, an organizer of Military Families Speak Out, an organization that claims more than 3,000 member military families who oppose the war, described the report as a 'giant step sideways rather than a step forward.'

The ISG's plan for partial withdrawal will not effectively bring regional powers to the diplomatic table and will put remaining troops at greater risk than they already are, Lessin stated.

'The best solution,' she insisted, 'is getting all U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. The real way forward stems from the November 2006 elections when the people of the U.S. made it clear that they want the war to end.'

Lessin called on Congress to use its authority to cut off funding for the war.

Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator for UFPJ, added that the most important thing about the ISG report was that it has signaled that 'this administration has been forced to retreat from its policy of 'stay the course.''

But Cagan sharply critiqued the ISG recommendations. 'We do not believe that the recommendations, if implemented, will lead to the things that need to happen in order to end the war. The most immediate thing that needs to happen is that the U.S. must withdraw all of its troops.'

Cagan added that provisions for permanent bases and advisers (as suggested by the ISG) are just another form of occupation.

Cagan stated that UFPJ has called a march on Washington for November 27th in order to tell the incoming Congress that it must do its job and end the war. 'Congress has the power to end the war. They control the money,' she noted.

'On November 7th, the voters gave Congress an unmistakable mandate for peace in Iraq – not for continuing the occupation in a new form,' Cagan continued. 'On January 27th, as Congress begins its work, United for Peace and Justice will bring that mandate for peace to Washington to press the new Congress to implement the voters' will.'

Cagan also stressed the importance of real reconstruction efforts as part of the U.S. responsibility for its involvement in the war.

Lessin echoed the call for funding cuts and added her support for proposals in Congress that would eliminate funding for combat operations except to protect troop withdrawal.

Bennis also rejected the widely disseminated claim that U.S. withdrawal would lead to increased levels of violence. 'It’s already a bloodbath,' she said.

Anyone who claims to be able to predict with certainty what is going to happen after troop withdrawal is lying, she continued. 'But we know what will happen if the troops stay.' Iraqis will continue to be killed in large numbers, and U.S. troops will also die and get injured.

Because the presence of U.S. troops helps provide cover for terrorist forces by legitimizing anti-occupation sentiments among a majority of Iraqis that favors violence against U.S. troops, the best solution to curbing terrorism is to take away the occupation issue by withdrawing all of the troops, Bennis argued.

It is possible that terrorist forces would then be isolated and be more easily corralled by future Iraqi government security efforts. Maintaining the status quo, however, ensures terrorists will continue their activities with popular support.

Hayden also called for a serious examination of the personal and corporate interests behind the ISG report. Hayden cited James Baker and Vernon Jordan, two prominent members of the group, as having links to corporate interests directly involved in the war.

Aside from his personal friendship to the Bush family, Baker's investments in Texas oil companies and his relationship to Halliburton likely motivated his contributions to the ISG report. The report's recommendation that Iraq privatize its oil industry as part of the peace plan, for instance, could be interpreted as a demand for the 'multinational corporate takeover of the Iraqi oil industry,' Hayden said.

For more information on UFPJ’s January demonstration see: United for Peace and Justice

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at