At this very moment, the big or perhaps dominant issue in US politics seems to be the vicious and savage legislative and executive struggles, mainly between bourgeois liberals and bourgeois reactionaries and their respective auxiliaries, to get US troops and US mercenaries out of Iraq in a few months. The legislative struggle for a quick military pullout seeks the passage of a non-binding resolution or ... less likely ... some kind of a binding bill in favor of an immediate pullout.

Executive struggle, on the other hand, tries to sweet talk or seduce or otherwise persuade George W. Bush into unilaterally modifying his policies on Iraq in favor of a pullout without the necessity of legislative intervention.

The reactionaries in the USA, about a third of the US electorate and people (also called GOPs, right-wingers, scum of US politics, conservatives, etc.), stand tenaciously in opposition to both the legislative and administrative struggles in favor of a quick US pullout from Iraq. In addition to these reactionaries, the mainstream of the US capitalist media also seem to oppose the idea of an immediate pullout.

The four principal options for both of these forms of struggle � legislative and executive � include (1) "cut and run," a strategy of immediate withdrawal of US armed forces and mercenaries from Iraq; (2) "cut and hide," a strategy of keeping US forces in Iraq but restricting most of them to secure positions within Iraq while pro-US Iraqi traitors under US "advisors" (more correctly, US commanders) do most of the fighting against Iraqi patriots or the Iraqi resistance (sometimes called "insurgents); (3) "cut and crawl," a strategy of slow and prolonged pullout of US troops and mercenaries over many years; and finally (4)  "stay the course," a strategy of keep doing the same thing that has been done by the USA for the last three years in Iraq, but perhaps do it better.

THE LEGISLATIVE STRUGGLE

The time is ripe for a legislative struggle or fight for a pullout because the results of the Nov. 7 US legislative elections shifted the balance of power from the reactionaries to the liberals in both legislative chambers of the United States.

(Interestingly, many US progressives, with something of an anarchist bent, opposed participation in electoral struggle that went down on Nov. 7, but are vociferously involved in the legislative struggle in favor of the proposed pullout. Some anarchists view electoral fights as "politics" which is utterly repugnant to them, but they view legislative and executive struggles as something other than "politics" and thus worthy of their participation.)

The legislative struggle seeks to pass a resolution, especially in the US House of Representatives where US Cong. John Murtha (D-PA) has already introduced it, that will repudiate the October 2002 concurrent resolution of the US Congress that approved the use of US armed forces to commit aggression against Iraq and its people. If the liberals and the Democratic opportunists in the House can pass a non-binding resolution against the US aggression in Iraq, they may then stick their necks out and go for some kind of binding bill that hinders the appropriations for the aggression. But if they can�t get a resolution passed, they don�t have a shot at getting a bill passed.

Only radical daydreamers will go for a bill when they can�t get a resolution.

Representative Murtha has been denounced by the despicable reactionaries, like George W. Bush and Bush supporters in the House, as someone who advocates the "cut and run" strategy for US forces  in Iraq.

John Murtha is the point man for the liberal/moderate caucus in the House for this legislative struggle against the continuation of the infamous and contemptible US aggression against Iraq. Murtha was beaten recently in his bid for a key position in the majority or the Democratic leadership of the House. But, importantly, Murtha had Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi on his side during his unsuccessful bid for a spot in the Democratic leadership.

Although Murtha serves on the potentially omnipotent house appropriations committee, he is not the ranking member, so he will not become its chairman in January 2007. But Murtha is the ranking member of the House subcommittee on appropriations for defense, so he will chair the subcommittee. This subcommittee will likely become Murtha base for attacks on the vile and immoral US aggression against the Iraqi people.

In the US Senate, the point people in the legislative struggle against US imperialist crimes against the people of Iraq or, more correctly, against humanity seem to be US Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) and Russ Feingold (D-WI). Both senators boldly voted against the October 2002 resolution that attempted to legitimize US imperialist aggression against Iraq. Both Byrd and Feingold have been widely condemned by right-wing degenerates in the USA as advocates of "cut and run."

At the moment, Sen. Byrd is attacking the October 2002 resolution as something that should undone or, at least, redone. Sen. Feingold is energetically attacking the report of the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group as a fraud.

The GOPs, now the minority in both the House and Senate, are picking reactionaries who support the stupid "stay the course" strategy to oppose or neutralize the moves of Murtha, Byrd, and Feingold.

The strength of the advocates of "cut and run" arises mainly from the broad and deep support that they get from the liberal and independent sectors of the US electorate and people, the majority of the US people.

THE EXECUTIVE STRUGGLE

The executive or administrative form of politics tries to get the executive branch of the state to perform some act or to stop performing some act.

In this case, a range of political and ideological forces are lobbying or calling for George W. Bush, the consecutive US presidential election thief, to pullback or to pullout of Iraq, that is, to "cut and run."

So far, the main forces in struggle for administrative reformulation of US policy on Iraq include (1) retired US military generals, (2) Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group, (3) the military chiefs of staff at the Pentagon, (4) the US field commanders on the ground in Iraq, (5) the new appointee to the office of secretary of defense and (6) the top officers of private US mercenary recruitment firms and other military contractors, (7) so-called "reconstruction" contractors, (8) the mass of the US troops deployed in Iraq and (9) public opinion of the reactionary, independent and liberal sectors of the US electorate and people.

(Here, the idea of "people" differs from the idea of the "electorate" because some people don't vote, but all of the members of the electorate vote and this distinction is significant from the point of view of politics.)

The reactionary sector of the US electorate still seems to support the imperialist aggression by the US against Iraq, but some reactionaries seem to lament that the aggression or the war, as they prefer to call it, is incompetently managed by White House and top-ranking civilians at the Pentagon.

Within this broad array of political forces prominent in the executive side of the struggle, only the (8) majority of the US troops deployed in Iraq and (9) independent and liberal sectors of the US electorate support a "cut and run" strategy.

As for (8) or the majority of the US troops deployed in Iraq, in Feb. 2006, an opinion poll of US troops in Iraq found that 72% of US troops in Iraq supported total withdrawal within 12 months. Since ten months have subsequently passed since the released of the poll, we know that at least 72% of US troops in Iraq now want to get out of Iraq within two months ... or, more likely, two days. Although the evidence indicates that no more than 28% of US troops in Iraq want to stay there, the Bush regime still tells the lie that US troops in Iraq solidly support "stay the course."

As for (9) or the independent and liberal sectors of the US electorate, the results of the Nov. 7 elections call for a "cut and run" strategy although the reactionaries spin the Nov.7 results in favor of a "cut and hide" or a "cut and crawl" strategy.

Currently, the US troops in Iraq are signing petitions begging George W. Bush, the degenerate liar and election thief, to get them out of Iraq immediately. The US capitalist media, contaminated by journalists, editors, and publishers with foul GOP proclivities, either ignore the petitions and the cries of US troops in Iraq or bury the story about their petitions and pleas in the back pages of their propaganda tools.

The US imperialists "patriotically" urge the all sectors of the US electorate and people to "support the troops." But by "troops," the imperialists mean only the 28% of the troops who want to stay in Iraq, not the 72% who want to "cut and run." 

The celebrated Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group advocates a "cut and crawl" out of Iraq strategy or, in other words, a pullout pointlessly stretched over a 2-year period in which perhaps hundreds or even thousands of US troops will pointlessly lose their lives.

Clearly, it's best to "cut and run."

The other prominent forces, listed above, in the executive struggle in the USA over Iraq policy want, in the main, a transfer of all operational authority and most authority for policymaking over US forces in Iraq to US commanders in Iraq or at least to the top uniformed military personnel at the Pentagon. Presently this authority resides in the White House and in the high civilian officials at the Pentagon, like the secretary of defense. In addition to "stay the course," these reactionary forces advocate a "let's hit Iraq harder" strategy and some of these crackpots and bestial characters desire to expand the war by additional US invasions of Syria and Iran.

On the one hand, the legislative struggle is really between "cut and run" liberals and "stay the course" reactionaries. On the other, the executive struggle is substantially between disgusting and flagrant reactionaries and closet and apologetic reactionaries.

(The above does not suggest that apologetic reactionaries are not disgusting, too.)

"We can't 'cut and run' ... oh no, for God's sake ... because Iraq will drown in a bloodbath if we leave," both the flagrant and closet varieties of reactionaries in the USA warn us.

US PULLOUT AND THE IRAQI BLOODBATH

Between March 2003 and October 2006, over 650,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US aggression. This staggering Iraqi bloodbath is a consequence of US presence, not US absence.

An unchallenged study released in October 2006 by John Hopkins University found that over 650,000 Iraqis ...  pro-imperialist and anti-imperialist and military personnel and civilians ... have perished as a result of the US lies about WMDs and about Iraq's complicity in 9/11, US invasion of Iraq, and the US occupation of Iraq, between 2003 and 2006.

The George W. Bush, the leader of the imperialist regime in Washington, said that the John Hopkins study "wasn't creditable," ... as if he ... of all persons ... was a suitable person to talk about credibility.

In Dec. 2005, ten months before the John Hopkins study, this George W. Bush said that only 30,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war between March 2003 and December 2005. After Bush told this  big lie about only 30,000 Iraqis dying as result of his lies, his aggression, and his occupation, the US capitalist media repeated Bush's lie about 30,000 dead Iraqis at least a thousand times, to brainwashed the people of the USA that the USA had not already wreaked a bloodbath in the neighborhood of 650,000 casualties on Iraq.

It's too late to prevent the monstrous bloodbath that US imperialism has already produced in Iraq.

The 30,000 figure of Bush can be viewed as a bloodbath, too. But by the standards of bestiality of US imperialism, only 30,000 "enemy"  casualties is a very small bloodbath, hardly worth mentioning. The liberal and independent sectors of the US people ... about two-thirds of the US people ... in the November 7 legislative elections recoiled from the bestiality of US imperialism which is on ostentatious display in Iraq.

But the perverted and deranged reactionary sector of the US people was stunned by the Nov. 7 results because these reactionaries see nothing wrong or even improper with Bush beginning a chain of events that results in over 650,000 deaths of human beings, a result that was foreseeable or even probable. But, unbelievably, even some of this right-wing trash has deserted or abandoned Bush, insisting that Bush isn't smart enough to properly do his job of killing people by the hundreds of thousands.

(This bit about "right-wing trash" correctly suggests I am not yet moved by the spirit of political civility. But salvation, I believe, awaits all of us.)

If it wants to, the genocidal regime in Washington can secure a ceasefire with Iraqi patriots fighting the imperialist aggression and occupation in two weeks if the bestial regime in the USA announced a reasonable date for the completion of the withdrawal of its troops and mercenaries and began to withdraw � now � some of the idiots in US military uniforms who fight for Bush and his lies about Iraq. The US imperialist will not do this because, at this time, it does not want the so-called "civil war" to end.

The indiscriminate and insatiable killing of over 650,000 human beings as a consequence of US aggression does not provide the US imperialists with a sufficient degree of gratification. Of course, the bloodthirstiness of the US imperialists is not the only motive or even the main motive for the US aggression. The main motive for the aggression is greed for Iraqi oil which is now being stolen by the US imperialists at the rate of over 2,000,000 barrels per day. These US imperialists have recently promised the Iraqi traitors in the Baghdad regime a cut � a very small one � from the oil revenues to divide among the traitors.

The US regime has more control over the pro-US Iraqi death squads than the impotent pro-USA regime of Iraqi traitors in Baghdad, If the genocidal and imperialist regime in Washington wanted the reactionary death squads to shut down their operations, the US only has to give the death squads an order to stop killing people.

At the moment, the future of Iraq is being planned in Washington, not Baghdad, because the quisling regime of pro-US Iraqi traitors in Baghdad is powerless, respected by neither the Iraqi people nor the US imperialists. 

While openly deploring the slaughter of Iraqi civilians in its customary two-faced manner, the imperial regime in Washington covertly promotes "civil war" and "sectarian strife" in Iraq, hoping that the divide-and-conquer strategy will lessen the military pressure on US troops and mercenaries.

And again "We can't 'cut and run' ... oh no, for God's sake ... because democracy in Iraq will disappear if we leave," both the flagrant and closet varieties of reactionaries in the USA warn us.

THE US PULLOUT AND THE FALL OF THE  "DEMOCRATIC" REGIME IN IRAQ

The regime of Iraqi traitors  in Baghdad is neither elected nor democratic nor even a government.

As for being "elected," the campaign committees for the contenders in the "Iraqi elections" were the current death squads which compelled some of the Iraqi people to participate in the electoral farce that now "legitimizes" the despicable regime. If the people refused to participate in the farce, the death squads threaten to exterminate the people. And, in fact, these death squads have exterminated many of those who refused to participate in the farce.

Only reactionary degenerates like George W. Bush and Tony Blair, Bush�s water-boy or eunuch in the UK, call such an exercise an election.

As for being a "democracy," sovereignty, the electoral principle, accountability, and the rule of law are presuppositions of democracy. For it appears that democracy is a form of state where supreme power resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote, where these citizens elect their representatives to exercise power, where these representatives remain accountable to the citizens, and where these representatives exercise  power in accordance with the rule of law.

But not one of the principles exists in Iraq.

First, sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme power over a people and territory. No nation under foreign military occupation can possess it. Second, we already disposed of the electoral principle in a previous paragraph. Third,  accountability is the power and right of the citizens to reverse certain executive, legislative, or judicial acts by the representatives in power. In Iraq, the US trained, financed, and managed Iraqi death squads � as well as US Special Operations forces � make sure this doesn�t happen. Fourth, the rule of law only applies when all are below the law and none above it. In Iraq, every US troop, mercenary, contractor, and official � about 170,000 US citizens � are above the law, immune from prosecution for their crimes and outrages. Many of these troops and mercenaries are the scum of the earth.

The US-imposed regime in Baghdad lacks even a semblance of democracy.

As for the so-called "Iraqi regime" being a "government," to govern requires power and the Iraqi traitors in the Baghdad regime don�t have power. They are a fa�ade or a front for a brutal and rotten US military dictatorship over Iraq, which governs or tries to govern the country. Everyday the US regime in Washington talks or boasts to the US capitalist media about what it is going to tell the so-called "Iraqi regime" to do. And the so-called "Iraqi regime" does it, if it has the competence and the rottenness.

The fall of the so-called "Iraqi regime" in Baghdad is a good thing for democracy in Iraq.

PROSPECTS

Murtha will reintroduce his resolution for a quick pullout. Pelosi will likely refer it to the House Appropriations Committee. The chairman of this committee will likely refer it to John Murtha's subcommittee which will almost certainly pass it. The resolution will then return to House Appropriations Committee where it's passage is more problematical. If the electorate and people show a keen interest the proposed resolution, the Appropriations Committee will likely toss the hot potato on the floor of the House where the leadership skills of Nancy Pelosi will be sorely tested. To get the House to pass the "cut and run" resolution, the Speaker may have to take the issue of the pullout directly to the liberal and independent sectors of the electorate and people, hoping that the peace forces in the USA will organize a big walk (that is, a march, demonstration, protest, etc.) demanding the pullout. This, if it happens, should scare enough of the cowardly Democrats in the House to vote for the resolution.

The GOP reactionaries will vehemently oppose each one of these moves.

Thereafter, the contingencies of the struggle are so many and so fuzzy that I can't even guess what, if anything, will happen.

� Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com