I see Juan Cole has blogged today about our debate/discussion Sunday, and he has responded to the complaint I expressed here yesterday when I wrote that I found it “a rather worrying cop-out” for someone in his/our position to look at the situation our government’s actions have created in Iraq and say, as he did Sunday, that he has “no plan.”
I apologize to Juan that I hadn’t found a friendlier way to express and frame that complaint. But I’m really delighted that he has chosen to continue to engage with, in particular, that part of our discussion. Long-time JWN readers will, I hope, be quite aware of the esteem in which I continue to hold Juan and the value I give to our continued friendship. But friends can and do look at some things differently. Hopefully, by exploring those differences we can all come to a richer and more informed analysis of the situation and of our responsibilities within it.
Juan writes this today:
- I’m just being realistic. It is increasingly silly to dream up ten point plans to resolve the Iraq crisis. It would be nice to see a multilateral approach, but we should not fool ourselves that the Bangladeshis can succeed in al-Anbar where the Marines couldn’t. It would be nice to see Maliki’s reconciliation program broadened to include neo-Baathist guerrillas and Salafis, as it must if it is to succeed. But that isn’t going to happen because Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Kurds would veto it, as would the US Congress. I actually think that offering glib solutions like “Complete US withdrawal in 3 months” is the cop-out, because they seem to offer hope but are no more substantial than a desert mirage and about as likely to quench any existential thirst.
It is better just to admit to people when there are not good options, and be honest with them about the various likely scenarios that would ensue from what realistic options there are. That is what I try to do. It is not a cop-out.
I want to engage with that a bit. I would say:
- (1) I believe I am realistic. He believes he is. That’s good. At least we are holding our discussion is in the realm of realism, not ideology.
(2) I don’t have a ten-point plan. He once did. This was the nine-point plan I articulated in July 2005. It actually still looks pretty good to me. Check it out.
(3) I have never argued that, “the Bangladeshis can succeed in al-Anbar where the Marines couldn’t.” Indeed, I do not envision any role for the UN or any other outside forces inside Iraq post- a US troop withdrawal except at the invitation of a duly constituted Iraqi government. When arguing for a leadership role for the UN in the negotiations around a US withdrawal I am suggesting that the UN play mainly a “holding the ring” role, providing the best format within which the negotiations over the modalities of the withdrawal can take place (as in the S. African withdrawal from Namibia, etc etc), and being the organization best-placed to secure and then hopefully monitor the non-intervention of outside forces in Iraq after the US withdrawal. But if there are UN forces, say, along some of Iraq’s borders in the peri-withdrawal phase, then maybe the Bangladeshis could do an excellent job in that blue-hat role, I don’t know. I did find Juan’s reference to them there faintly derogatory.
(4) Regarding Juan’s very firmly expressed prescriptions rgearding intra-Iraqi political matters, this is precisely the area in which I firmly believe the Iraqis must be left to work out their own internal arrangements; and neither the US government nor any US citizens, however well-meaning, have any legitimate standing to issue diktats (or even, really, to express preferences) in these matters. See #5 in my 9-point plan there. This is a deep disagreement between Juan and me.
(5) He writes that he thinks, “offering glib solutions like ‘Complete US withdrawal in 3 months’ is the cop-out, because they … are no more substantial than a desert mirage.” I do not consider making a statement like this– though perhaps, with a time-period a little longer than 3 months– to be either glib or a mirage. (In my 9-point plan, I’d written “4-5 months.”) What I’m talking about here is the total time needed between Date D, the date of the US President’s announcement of a firm intention to undertake a withdrawal that is speedy, total, generous (and orderly), and Date D + X, the date of the last US serviceperson exiting Iraq by boat or truck.
If we’re talking about a speedy withdrawal, what is the minimum value of X? If Centcom is even 50 percent as diligent as it should be, it must have many contingency plans on the shelves in Qatar for contingencies up to and including catastroiphic contingencies requiring a total emergency evacuation of all forces from Iraq. What is the “X” value in those plans? For an orderly withdrawal, you would need a bit more time, because you would not be blowing up the ammo dumps and many of the facilities as you go, but would hope to transport a lot of the materiel as well as all the troops out of Iraq. You also need, at the beginning of that “X” period, rapidly to conclude the negotiations with other relevant parties that allow for the orderly withdrawal. But having a defined value of X from the get-go would wonderfully focus the minds of all those participating in those negotiations.
At the forum Sunday, Juan said the military would need “at least 12-18 months” to achieve this. I still think that with the right degree of focus, a total X value of less than 6 months would be achievable. But okay, let’s say you’d need even 12 months. Does Juan think it would be a bad idea to call for this withdrawal to be initiated right now? I think he does, for the reasons discussed in #4 above. As I said, that is a very serious disagreement. (And in that case, his disagreement with me is not one over the length of the X time, but over something completely different.) But I would be delighted to learn that he thinks a plan for a total withdrawal “over 12-18 months” should be initiated now.
(6) He writes: “It is better just to admit to people when there are not good options, and be honest with them about the various likely scenarios that would ensue from what realistic options there are. That is what I try to do.” To this I would respond as follows:
I have never said at any time since March 2003 that there are any good options for the US in Iraq. They all look highly imperfect. But there are some options that seem significantly more doom-laden than others. Looked at purely realistically, “Staying the course”– e.g. by choosing not to take the quite available path towards a speedy and total withdrawal– looks like a choice that will bring results significantly more terrible than opting for a speedy and total withdrawal. Announcing and then implementing a speedy and total withdrawal is entirely realistic. Staying the course in the hope that things may get better in Iraq looks to me, based on the entire trend-line from 2003 through the present, to be an entirely Quixotic expectation.
However, I note that Juan nowhere expresses any expectation that things will get better in Iraq. Therefore, his position seems to me to be not Quixotic so much as a counsel of deep despair. It seems he sees no way out of the current awful situation. I think that is really, really tragic.
Anyway, let’s continue this discussion…
If you have the slightest doubt about whether murdering more people is a necessary or helpful thing to do, then you should stop murdering people. That’s the way I see it. I guess that makes me “soft on terror.”
Bush and Cheney don’t have any doubt. They’ll just keep up the slaughter as long as they’re able. While we’re still debating with each other over what to do about Iraq, they are preparing for the assault on Iran. I think this is why we are seeing the US military pull back from Anbar and other volatile areas. They are consolidating forces into a smaller number of defensive positions, in anticipation of what is to come.
Like most of your readers, I have enormous respect for both you and Prof. Cole. But in this case, “realism” is admitting that no one in the Bush administration is going to pay any attention to either of your proposals.
I actually think there is going to be a draw-down before too long, as the administration becomes aware that it does not have the personnel to maintain forces in Iraq indefinitely. They will turn over more and more territory to Iraqi “forces” and let the chips fall where they may. Things will be grim for quite a while, but the same is true if the troops remain.
The realistic answer to the question of how to get out of Iraq? Don’t invade in the first place. The damage has been done, and there is really not much any of us can do to turn things around. Policy will therefore be decided based on things like logistics (lack of troops and equipment) and domestic politics (the need to appear to be doing the right thing).
“Top U.S. general in Iraq sees no troop withdrawal soon”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060919troops,1,3296271.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Lets not draem and put planes for withdraws US troops….
No need for a ten point plan, or a nine point plan or a five point plan. I have a one point plan:
1) Get out. Just get out. Completely, and as quickly as possible. No official presence of any kind, including that abomination you call an embassy (read command and control center). No “help”, no “assistance” no “training” no “negotiating the terms” (since when does the criminal get to negotiate terms with his victim? What next? The rapist gets to negotiate the terms for staying away from his victim? And he is the one who will teach her “self defense for women”? And he should act as his victim’s therapist and doctor, too. After all, she will need a lot of physical and psychological treatment to recover from being raped – oh yes, and of course he should also have full parental rights to the baby that results from the rape!). And above all no “help” with security. Now the rapist is in charge of protecting his victim from further assaults and violations? What kind of idiotic thinking is this?!
That’s it. One point. Get out, get completely out, take with you those hyenas who rode in with you on your tanks, or who followed you and grabbed your skirts in the hope of getting some of the spoils. Stay out and let the Iraqis sort out, for good or for ill, the mess you have made. Iraq should get a restraining order against the U.S.
And we don’t need the Bangladeshis or the anythingelse’s, and it’s a sure thing we do not need you for anything. Just leave Iraq to Iraqis, finally, leave it to Iraqis, please. It is as simple as that.
in this desperate situation where no one, but no one is in control (Rogers) I find some light at the end of the blood tunnel : seems that the US agrees to talk with Tehran. Be it from sheer exhaustion or from successful EU’s diplomacy, it’s good news. Le pire n’est pas toujours certain…
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/
What in the hell is that look on Bush’s face??
Does he have something in his eye?
Is he winking at his girlfriend Condi?
Or does he just have a giant gas pain and needs to ….?
he is an incredibly large source of shame.
Juan’s lack of a plan may simply be a prelude to a major re-think. Someone has pointed out that the next president will need to be out of Iraq by 2012 if they intend to seek a second term. So, it’s a disaster that really is going to happen. How best to mitigate it, Juan?
Don’t misunderstand, I agree totally with anyone who says, “Just get out NOW.” But the reality is, the war criminals in charge of the US government are not going to be swayed by such calls. Even if the Democrats were to come into power, they would also take their time about withdrawing from the quagmire.
I also feel that n-point plans can easily be mistaken as somehow legitimizing an entirely illegitimate occupation. Where Helena is correct is in pointing out that if, practically speaking, it will take five months or ten months or whatever to withdraw all US forces, then it’s better to start now than later.
Ultimately, the US will be forced to withdraw because it simply does not have enough troops, and will want to use what it has for other mischief in other parts of the world.
May US selfinterest should be considered as well: John Robb writes: US forces are now surrounded a sea of militias and insurgents. Within Baghdad itself, where the current pacification effort is focused, US troops are badly outnumbered in extremely difficult urban terrain. Worse yet, the opposition is growing in numbers, sophistication, and aggressiveness at a rate more rapid than the static number of US troops can build up the Iraqi military. It is now only a matter of time before either a misstep or a calculated event pushes the countryside into full scale warfare.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/09/whats_next_in_i.html
“it’s a disaster that really is going to happen”
I could not disagree more with this statement and the point of view it represents. The disaster is everything that has been going on in Iraq since March, 2003. The American withdrawal will be anything but a disaster, except, of course, for those who have not achieved their grandiose goals, and frankly I could not care less what happens to them. No, that is not true. This is one of the very, very rare cases in my life in which I actually wish ill on someone, and I hope each and every one of them suffers in hell for the rest of their lives.
To me it’s quite simple. The Americans occupy Iraq, but they don’t own it. They are not there at anyone’s invitation. They have no right to be there. They are not welcome. They have killed, they have destroyed, and their presence has only brought misery and destruction. They shouldn’t be there. They should leave. The sooner the better. Without conditions. Just leave.
Cole is hanging on to a delusion: he wants to believe the United States retains the capacity to shape the looming US exit. It/we don’t have that capacity. We will get out of Iraq — the only question is when and how long we will punish the survivors of the aftermath for booting us out.
All things being equal, it could be awhile. We’re still completely irrational toward Iran.
I have a two point plan:
1. Get out. Get out now. GET OUT RIGHT NOW.
2. The USA pays 100% of all of Iraq’s foreign debt RIGHT NOW.
And then those countries who just got a bunch of cash can go invest in Iraq, if Iraq wants them to do so. Iraq is quite capably of running itself – it did a fair job under the brutal sanctions and after the last war, it would do an amazing job if we let them.
Now, a plan for fixing the USA would be a hundred point plan, because we are way f**ked up here. We can choose non-violence or non-existance here, and all signs point to continued violence.
now surrounded a sea of militias and insurgents.
Did any one ask himself from where this SEA of RESISTANCE came from?
Why you keep closeting you eyes and your ears of the reality that 90% of Iraqi do not like your troops on their land and they like to fight your gang running wield in Iraq?
One show just a week in Baghdad, a group of US solders went to Al-Amriyah (west Baghdad) entered a house shoot two people in front of their Mum and took the third one and hooked him to their Hammer dragged him in the streets of that area him Mum running after her third Son crying and shooting seeing him his blood and his body pieces she can handle all this she died….
Tell your dam Congers all what they done they sent the “bravery and disciplined, professionals” criminals and gung their on name of Freedom….. Hope the sea will be Tsunami and overcome your troops in Iraq and the region…
Then you understand what its means “militias and insurgents” the fake name you invented….they are people just like to live in peace and they do not like you…
Withdraw from Iraq? Sorry who is planning to?
How would the War of terror look without Iraq?
What if the only destruction in the last five years was a few hours of horrific terrorist strikes on the US in 911 2001, carried out by a few dozen Saudis and Egytpians, plus a few smaller equally isolated terrorist strikes by small extremist groups overseas?
How would all the terror alerts and nebulous reports of alleged foiled plots look then?
What if Osama bin Laden and the others responsible for 911 and still alive had been captured by intelligence operatives and faced justice, instead of still being at large 5 years later?
What if there were no US troops still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to support?
What if there was no steady stream of American military casualties to grieve over?
How could George convince disaffected Islamists all over the world that its them or us if a number of their countries weren’t occupied by the US army?
What could George II do to your freedoms then?
Who would the enemy of freedom seem to Americans to be? Would it then be the same one the rest of the world sees?
What tyranny on American soil would you tolerate then?
How would you react to and resist King George’s domestic policies, if he couldn’t call himself a “war president”?
So America will stay the course, though everyone who cares to can see where this long and winding road is leading, and it’s clear this war will never end. It’s just the right size for a US war and very comfortable for the people that started it.
The enemy is so disciplined and well trained you might as well call it housebroken. Sure the war costs ongoing billions, sure innocent people die, many at our hands, but that’s really a small price to pay for what we get. Hell there isn’t even a draft yet.
Don’t worry, Jim Baker’s Iraq Study Group will find a way out of this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901341_pf.html
I was at Helena and Juan’s lecture on Sunday, and I agree, it was a very interesting and valuable exchange. I am glad that Helena is putting Juan on the spot on these issues, because I really would like to hear him say he was wrong about supporting (or not decrying) the invasion in the first place, and that since our presence isn’t creating peace and democracy, we really should just get out asap. But I also think there’s a deeper disagreement between the two of them: Juan, perhaps because he comes from a military family, supports the idea that war, well planned and executed, is a reasonable way to solve human problems, while Helena does not, and in fact is looking for ways to phase out war altogether. I’m with Helena on this one, as I think a lot of people are — or would be if there were any real, creative discussion of alternatives. However, this said, I am wary of the idea that now that we’ve wrecked the neighborhood, we should just leave the Iraqis to sort out all the hatred we’ve unleashed. What we owe Iraq is not just monetary reparations, we also need to work proactively to improve relationships and heal wounds in the region, through enlightened diplomacy in Israel/Palestine, for example. Another thing that bothers me about immediate withdrawl, especially by this administration, is that all of a sudden we’d have the troops and resources to invade Iran. How convenient! Just when Iran is getting ready to blow up the world (irony alert)!
hear him say he was wrong about supporting (or not decrying) the invasion in the first place, and that since our presence isn’t creating peace and democracy,
Person like Juan firstly supporting and believes its right to wagging war against a nation in ME as he is ME specialist, then changing his position, to me there is no much difference from those people supporting Bush and now they turns their back and become more against this war.
Where is the moral values, where is his specialty in ME?
So there is no surprise people like him searching for fame and opportunist under the skies….
Pew Poll: 72% GOPers say Iraq war is going well
Democrats Hold Solid Lead; Strong Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Bush Mood
Terrorism Focus Increases, But No GOP Boost
So for the dreamers of withdraw troops from Iraq read the reality from inside your nation and from inside your political system.
These data from your people not from the nation on the Moon, enough dreams …….weak up
Helen (not Helena), with all due respect kindly descend from your well-meaning, paternalistic great white father American liberal tower, look Iraqis directly in the eye, take a look at things from the same ground level we look from, and get a clue about what you are suggesting. How would you respond to someone who suggested that the very criminals who have spent the last 15 or so years robbing you, holding you prisoner, torturing you, systematically and violently destroying your life, your family, and your home are just the ones to heal your wounds and guide you in rebuilding your life? What would be your reaction if someone told you that the best thing for you would be for those who have violated you, and robbed you of your rights, and your very life to stick around and “work proactively to improve the relationships” they destroyed – relationships that were, by the way, just fine until they came along – and to “heal the wounds” they themselves inflicted on you? Might you feel, among other things, just the slightest bit insulted?
Here is what you owe Iraq: 1) Get your criminal government, your murderous troops, your greedy corporations, and your well-meaning “advisors” out. Immediately. Get them out, get them 100% out, keep them out, do not let them anywhere near the place for any reason whatsoever, and do not allow them to meddle either directly or indirectly in our business. 2) Force your government and the responsible corporations to pay reparations, but do not allow them to do so directly, and not by their own arrangements. Pay through arrangements made by a third party that is preferably an enemy of of yours, that will set the amount, that will force you to pay, and that will bar your government and corporations from setting any conditions whatsoever – you know, sort of like Iraq has been forced to pay all these years reparations for its aggression against Kuwait, even as your government was strangling it economically with one hand while bombing it with the other. And make sure it is absolutely clear that what is being paid is not aid but reparations for massive crimes. Do not allow your government to pretend for one moment that it is helping Iraq or the Iraqi people.
Helen, I am sorry if I am being harsh, but honestly, I am sick to death of paternalistic, well-meaning American liberals who think they know what is good for us, and do not even realize that they are nothing better than the other side of the imperialist coin. I did not used to understand when American Blacks complained about white American liberals, but now I do. American liberals are overall no less arrogantly paternalistic, and yes, even racist, than are those on the flip side of the coin who are openly so. There is no difference except for the method. Both of you are sure you know better than we do how we should live and conduct our affairs, both of you feel entitled to impose on us what you know is best for us. Both of you view us as childish and primitive beings desperately in need of your help and guidance. Neither of you bothers to consider the possibility that if you really wanted to help us then you would understand that you do not decide for us. We are the ones who decide and tell you what to do for us. Both of you see yourselves as the great white father bringing enlightenment and guidance to those of lesser capabilities. You are both the same except for the method. While the war mongers kill us with bombs, the well-meaning liberals would kill us with “kindness”.
I respect the work of Helena Cobban and Juan Cole and encourage them both to continue informing us of events and attitudes in the Middle East. Still, as a victim/veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) I have to side more with Helena’s views as she expressed them on her blog “Just World News” than with Juan Cole’s excerpt of them on his blog “Informed Comment.” Helena and Juan both operate from well-established and admirable humanitarian impulses, but they part company here, in my view, primarily because Helena means “acceptable” when she says “good” and Juan means “perfect” when he says “good.” We have a classic verbal dispute here, not a debate. Yet, as a university professor once told me when he insisted I wrap up my master’s thesis and stop stalling for time to make it even better: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
As I wrote as a comment on Professor Cole’s blog:
“Doing nothing” does constitute a default “option” in the absence of doing anything else, but so what? Who would wish to claim the proud paternity of just another euphemism for helplessly acquiescing in a steadily disintegrating status quo? Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting future, magically different results has a name — not “realism,” but “fanaticism.” Calling oneself a “realist” for offering no plausible alternative to a perfectly plausible withdrawal of American forces from Iraq does not make one “realistic” but rather “fatalistic.”
Juan Cole does not engage Helena Cobban’s basic point that America has “no damn business” in Iraq. Juan Cole obviously and paternalistically thinks differently and has on many occasions frankly endorsed the continued violation of Iraqi “sovereign” airspace by American (and other foreign) air forces for the express purpose of bombing Iraqi military formations at or above the company level. Obviously, although he does not say this openly, Professor Cole has no confidence in the Shiites and Kurds to defeat (or negotiate a peaceful settlement with) a reconstituted Sunni national army. So the good professor just conveniently assumes and supposes that America will go on indefinitely serving as the Kurdish-Shiite Air National Guard even after we stop stupidly serving as their mercenary militia — and all at the helpless American taxpayer’s expense.
This unwarranted, unauthorized, illegal, and ruinous use of America’s military assets against one, both, or all sides of the ongoing Iraqi civil war simply cannot continue. It can’t continue because, as Hezbollah demonstrated in Lebanon (and like the Vietnamese demonstrated in Vietnam) the forces fighting the American occupation can easily get more — and ever more lethal — weapons to use against American armor, aircraft, and infantry. Worst of all from the American point of view, whoever wants to emerge with any sort of political credibility at the end of the civil war will most assuredly have earned that credibility by killing the most Americans. What fame and renown Nasrallah earned in Lebanon against the Israelis will seem as nothing compared to what Moqtadr “Just call me Saladin” Al-Sadr can earn by unceremoniously booting America out of Iraq. As Zbigniew Brezinski said recently, the people who keep begging us to stay will probably leave with us when we go — in a panicked helicopter evacuation off the Badhdad Green Zone Castle rooftop, probably.
As a former Israeli general and Prime Minister told Seymour Hersch years ago, America now “can only choose the size of its humiliation.” Thanks, Ehud. Like Donkey told Shrek: “Only a true friend would be that cruelly honest.” The longer we stall, the uglier and more expensive the exit.
As with the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent in which I served, the Cheney-Bush Buy Time Brigade only fights and dies in Iraq so that those disinterested and uninvolved Americans who profit from this obscene warfare welfare can go on milking the make-work militarism for all its worth. Now as then, “We are the unwilling, led by the unqualified, to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful.” The time has long since passed for this shit to stop. The “realistic fanatics” can say what they want, but I agree with Helena Cobban that America has “no damn business in Iraq” and, from this Vietnam Veteran’s point of view, we Americans would do much better putting our own Vice President, President, and Secretary of War in a cage and on trial than worrying about what, if anything, the Iraqi people want to do with Saddam Hussein. We don’t have any damn business involving ourselves in that question, either.”
Getting more into what Helena Cobban said about her admittedly imperfect but certainly possible withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq:
Withdrawing American military forces from their illegal, immoral, and counter-productive — not to mention marooned and untenable — occupation of Iraq makes perfectly “good” policy sense. True, it does not solve all problems — hence its imperfection — but it does solve the most egregious of them: namely, military occupation of a Muslim country by a non-Muslim Western imperial power. As with all seemingly intractable problems, we first have to break the big problem down into a series of smaller problems until we get to one we can solve. Then we solve that relatively small problem and go on to deal with the other tractable problems, one at a time, till we arrive at the best possible approximation to an overall solution. People who really want to solve problems proceed in this way. People who prefer having the perfect problem rather than any good solution to it proceed by dejectedly claiming that the big problem’s apparent complexity leaves no “good” (i.e., perfect in all respects) options for its solution. Nonsense.
The flagrant flogging of self-paralyzing rhetorical conundrums (i.e., “we have no good options,” etc.) leads nowhere because apparent paradoxes, by definition, close off all rational analysis from the very beginning. Apparent paradoxes — the staple of political demagogues in America and everywhere else — stem directly from their own faulty formulations and disappear immediately once we expose the ludicrous illogic and slippery semantic sophistry upon which they depend. The withdrawal of American military forces from their occupation of Iraq makes not only “good” sense but the “best” sense for America: economically, diplomatically, culturally, socially, militarily, and — yes — even politically. True, withdrawing the American military from Iraq will rob George W. Bush and the Republican Party of their perfect, intractable problem, i.e., endless, “long,” politically exploitable “war,” but too bad for them. I don’t care about them. I care about America and Iraq. I don’t want to see any more Americans and Iraqis die or lose everything they value in life just so George W. Bush and the Republican Party can stay in power with their corrupt claws clutching the nation’s overdrawn credit card and key to our depleted blood bank.
Americans can and must solve their own imperial militarism problem first. The millennia-old Sunni-Shiite schism in Islam remains for the Sunni and Shiite Muslims to resolve themselves — peaceably or otherwise. This problem existed ages before America did. Nothing that America does or does not do will have any bearing upon its “solution” — to the extent that Sunni and/or Shiite Muslims even want one. They, too, have their demagogues who want and need intractable problems with no “good” solution.
I don’t suppose Juan Cole even knows this, but his advocacy of unlimited and indefinite American air bombardments in Iraq resembles the American War on Vietnam in its last-gasp stages. The substitution of blunderbuss vendetta air power for incompetent and unmotivated puppet infantry only assures that no one side of the civil war can win, thus extending the interregnum of violence and increasing the level of carnage. “Yellowing the Corpses” Vietnamization thus becomes “Browning the Bodies” Iraqification. Juan Cole, as I commented on his blog, simply fears that the Shiites and Kurds, if left to fight themselves for their own interests, will somehow lose to a superior-although-numerically-smaller Sunni national army allowed to reconstitute itself. Perhaps, though, once America’s military stops meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, the Shiites and Sunnis will recognize their common interests — as separate from America’s and Israel’s — and negotiate some modus vivendi. Perhaps. Who knows? In any event, America has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has no knowledge of Iraq nor ability to do any good in that country by shooting and bombing “democracy” into those unfortunate enough to reside outside the doomed and irrelevant Baghdad Green Zone Castle walls. Others with more knowledge and experience in the area can probably do better. They certainly can’t do any worse.
Finally, the American War on Iraq needs to — and can — end the same way the American War on Vietnam did. The Congress needs only do three things. (1) Cut off funding for any further American military activity in a country that never attacked or threatened America. (2) Revisit and revoke the ridiculously vague legislative “authorization” for executive war on a country that never attacked or threatened America. (3) Force the resignation of the corrupt Vice President and law-breaking President who will not uphold the Constitution and who will not voluntarily terminate a needless executive war of choice on a country that never attacked or threatened America. An American Congress did it before and an American Congress can do it again: in one step, two steps, or three steps. The Shiites and Sunnis will just have to settle their own differences themselves, in however many steps they deem necessary. They’ve done that before and they can do that again — if they wish.
With plenty of respect for Juan Cole’s academic knowledge and work and much appreciation for his blog and the huge contribution he makes, one thing has been very, very clear to Iraqis, including at least some of his fellow academics, and that is that he simply does not understand Iraq or Iraqis. With some exceptions, his analyses, conclusions, and recommendations just do not resonate with those who know Iraq from the inside, and sometimes they are quite clearly far off the mark.
This he said she said blogging about what he blogged about my blog of his blog is a Seinfeld like show about nothing. For some reason it attracts like minded minions and once in a while jewels like today’s Shirin venting her spleen with candor:
This is one of the very, very rare cases in my life in which I actually wish ill on someone, and I hope each and every one of them suffers in hell for the rest of their lives.
Great Shirin. How do express that in phonetic Arabic so we can visualize you uttering your curses more graphically.
Personally I also think the US should leave Iraq now and let them split the country in three pieces, or kill each other daily over nothing like they are doing now. Peace loving religion. Sure, just like Shirin said.
Dear God
They are off again.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/765579.html
Menno wrote :
To me it’s quite simple. The Americans occupy Iraq, but they don’t own it. They are not there at anyone’s invitation. They have no right to be there. They are not welcome. They have killed, they have destroyed, and their presence has only brought misery and destruction. They shouldn’t be there. They should leave. The sooner the better. Without conditions. Just leave.
I agree with you, but it’s not enough. The US actual government should be brought to trial, especially Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, along with the CPA (aka Bremer) and other neocons, like Wolfowitz, Pearle and Douglas Feith. They are all responsible of war crimes (aka attacking a country whith wasn’t threatening them, nor their allies). Plus the US should be held accountable and pay fair war compensation, so that Iraqi can rebuild what the US destroyed.
The same is also valid for Lebanon, where Israel should be held accountable and should pay for the reconstruction. And if Israel doesn’t have enough cash in the bank, let pay the US : they prevented a peace accord, allowing more extended damages.
Impeach Bush and his government and try Bush, Olmert and co in the Hague. That’s what is needed if there is not double standard morals on the international scene. Iraq is still paying compensation for its invasion of Kuwait and it is right. But the same should now be the case for the Americans.
It seems to me that the real questons are: 1) will our leaving Iraq stop the killing? answer: no. 2)Will our staying in Iraq stop the killing? answer: no. 3) Is there anything we can do at this point that will help the situation? answer: probably not. Once the dogs of intertribal war are unleashed, they seem to run until mutual exhaustion with the killing stops them, e.g., former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, etc. It seems like the least bad option is for the US to withdraw all forces as soon as reasonably possible. At least we can minimize the further loss of American lives. To paraphrase Kerry on Vietnam, How do you tell a mother that her son or daughter must be the last to die for a mistake?
First, I’d like to thank the participants in the discussion so far – your comments have helped crystallize some thoughts I have been mulling over since reading Juan’s and Helena’s posts this week and listening yesterday to James Fallows talk about his book “Blind in Baghdad” on the Diane Rehm Show.
My experience is that the world we must live in is still governed more by power than justice, so to achieve a just world I believe we must learn how to confront power effectively.
John de Hoog makes two key points: (my interpretation) 1) neither this administration nor any presently plausible 2009 Democratic administration will leave Iraq willingly, if only to avoid the “who lost Iraq” charge for the next 30 years; and 2) the US cannot sustain indefinitely (without resort to dramatic measures, such as a draft) the present troop commitment in Iraq, Afganistan, and other hot spots (Hans Suter and Michael Murry usefully underscore that point).
Michael Murry in addition points toward the task for the rest of us when he describes the three things the Congress needs to do to end our participation in the war. The rub is that the Congress only does – at least some of the time – what it believes is popular. So, the plan we need is one that persuades enough American voters that Congress needs to act to end the war.
Persuading enough voters is a huge — but not impossible — hill to climb. As Michael Murry says, when confronted with apparently intractable problems, we need to figure out the pieces of the problem that are actually doable.
That’s where discussions like this one can be helpful. We who are posting to this blog appear to have broad agreement on what’s right (US out of Iraq), but we desperately need to create ways to talk with and persuade all the other Americans who aren’t yet at the point of agreeing that the US must get out of Iraq. And then to get them to pressure Congress to end the war.
It seems to me essential to begin with the presumption that the person we hope to engage really wants to do the right and just thing about the war (and I say this as one couldn’t to do that in the late 60s after I got out of the army).
Helen (not Helena) makes a very important point that we must consider as we think about how to engage those who don’t yet agree on US out of Iraq: “But I also think there’s a deeper disagreement between the two of them: Juan, perhaps because he comes from a military family, supports the idea that war, well planned and executed, is a reasonable way to solve human problems, while Helena does not, and in fact is looking for ways to phase out war altogether.”
Like Helen and Helena, I believe that war is not the answer. Sadly, however, we are in the minority, and we will probably remain in the minority throughout our lives. At the same time, there are many very thoughtful folks who either believe that the world as it is presently constituted makes necessary the use of force, or that after the mess the US has made it would be even more irresponsible to leave Iraq to a worse fate.
I’d like to see us think together about how to speak effectively to those thoughtful persons – like Juan Cole – who feel we have a moral obligation to attempt to mitigate the effects of our invasion and occupation (reading his blog daily for three years, I think the moral burden motivates Cole more than a belief in the utility of force). And then maybe we could work on the ones (“Support Our Troops”) who could be persuaded by coldly “realist” arguments about the dire situation of our troops stranded in central Iraq if an even more vicious civil war breaks out.
Finally, in addition to our discussion here, I hope it is obvious that we can each work at the same time on other ways of ending the war. I understand that there are at least 264 communities in the US where there will be nonviolent civil disobedience and demonstrations in the next week, and many more opportunities beyond. If you are in the DC area, you can join us on September 26 (http://www.iraqpledge.org/) or check http://declarationofpeace.org/ for communities outside DC.
This is interesting, it turns out that the Iraq suicide bombers are not really martyrs but abductees that don’t know they have been rigged for explosion.
Curious minds are wondering, who gets the 72 virgins?
Check out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_kidnap_to_kill
Joshua,
I seem to recall Shirin cursing me in Arabic, so how can that be that she is a California girl with no Arabic background? Next you’ll tell me that Salah is an altar boy in Kalamazoo.
So who is she? A surfer gone bad?
(Editorial note here.) If Joshua and Vadim are wondering what happened to the extremely discourteous, ad-feminam comments they left here, wonder no longer: I deleted them. Could you please stay within the guidelines including writing about the topic of the post rather than making personal comments about other commenters– and most particularly, when these comments are very unfriendly.
Also, SamAdams, your comment addresses the topic of the main post not at all but seems to be submitted as a diversion.
I really appreciate all the many serious comments posted here, which are helping me think through this whole question even more. Thanks, friends! (And please, keep the discussion going.)
I appreciate reading that Helena and many people on this forum are working to eliminate war from a liberal perspective. I applaud your good intentions. But also remember that Democrats have also used the military for humanitarian goals (Somalia, Hati, Kosovo) and were cheered by liberals for their good intentions with disastrous results. Eliminating war and military adventurism abroad must also include those for humanitarian reasons. Remember, Bush tried (poorly) to frame the occupation of Iraq in humanitarian terms (and failed quite misrerably). Can we as liberals or conservatives just keep our hands off other countries’ business and avoid future Iraqs, Somalias, Hatis, Kosovos?
By the way, conservatives can be antiwar too.
Antiwar.com
Contrary to H.C.’s “nine point” plan to exit Iraq, it may not be mere scare mongering to fear that worse (yes, worse) chaos might ensue. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 is not a good parallel. Syria remained an occupying force, the IDF remained just south of the border, and the Shiite guerrillas never disarmed. Lebanon had a history of parliamentary coalitions, and its government had at least a modicum of Christian and Sunni support.
If Iraq turns into a theocracy, reverts to a Baath regime, or disintegrates altogether, I question whether anti-US folks would abide by the poasture that “it’s no damn business” of the US. I’m sure they’d insist that imperialism and capitalism had abandoned human rights for the sake of oil.
H.C. acknowledges that Kurdistan is a “can of worms,” but ignores the fact that Kurds may just want to have nothing to do with Baghdad. How to deny self-determination?
There may be a typo in H.C.’s 9th point. In 1991, after coalition forces withdrew, did Iraqis turn “on” their own lights? There was no coup against Saddam. A corrupt regime continued to build palaces, kill opponents, and fund Swiss accounts with skim from oil contracts. Seems more like the lights stayed “off.”
I might be convinced of the viability of an out-and-out US withdrawal if a fair number of Sunnis would support the Maliki government and abide by popular vote with a fair allowance for minority rights. However, I read in ABC News that a survey shows 75% support the insurgency. Most have a delusional belief they are the majority and, one supposes, would not be displeased if a civil war restored Saddam (or his clone) to power.
US “reparations” to Iraq? Money for Muqtada? This argument will get no votes in the US. Beware, lest the audience go wild. Many will insist that liberation from Saddam, plus 2,000 US soldiers’ lives and 10,000 maimed or wounded are a greater gift than warranted–especially in view of the blatant lack of gratitude.
Whoever hollers “Just get out” would have to bear responsibility for such an outcome. Whether one favored or opposed the war from the outset is irrelevant. And anyone who offers advice but disowns consequences cannot be serious. The downside of a flawed recommendation is definitely more onerous than saying, “Whoops. Why, I am shocked, shocked,” or “Not my war.”
To argue for quick withdrawal, tt would be necessary to prove that the downside risks are materially less than the risks and casualties of the present quagmire.
Trump card: 40% of Americans and perhaps 80% of US forces in Iraq think they are avenging 9/11. Another 20% or so subscribe to religio-eschatological views of Israel, Jerusalem, and the Other. If the kin of CSA Confederates went on believing for 100 years that their Cause was noble, beware of the cognitive dissonance of a calamitous withdrawal. The Right would want a scapegoat to burn, but certainly not one of its own. The disgrace would empower people more akin to John Hagee than Ralph Nader.
Realistically, some muddled mix of “stay the course” and “phased withdrawal” is the only option open to people running for Congress. It is the path of least resistance. Odds are this will remain the same into 2008. Pottery Barn rules apply.
Jack,
Is there anything we can do at this point that will help the situation? answer: probably not.
The Answer YES!!!
All agreed that the order of dismantle Iraqi military was wrong , just Sheikh Bremer thinks right, supply them with all accessories, Chops, Tanks and Fighters they easily can controls the borders, the cites and they will sweep all the criminals from Iraq, on condition that the 25,000.0 US Contractors (Killers) should sent back home those contractors no one charged till now for any crimes they doing inside Iraq from Abu Griab saga and others, also no one knows the real name of them just who hire them..
Then there is more possibility Iraq will come to peace.
I think a good target for all Americans (conservative or liberal) who have misgivings about Iraq and “bush diplomacy” would be to block Americas plans to attack Iran in the near future.
If you manage that, then you can turn your attention to Iraq and electoral reform in your own country. If not then with all due respect it probably is a little academic to discuss Iraq.
I call it the “first do no more harm” strategy. If thats too hard I recommed the new PC game Lemmings VI “Stay the course” in which the lemmings must negotiate burning sands until the oil runs out.
It is very hard to disagree with Shirin’s one-point plan that the US should simply get out of Iraq. She used to suggest that they should leave their cheque-book behind, but as far as I understand she has wisely abandoned that line.
Those of us westerners who have been in Iraq know that Iraq is perfectly capable of reconstructing itself, and doesn’t need outside intervention, either for pacification or reconstruction.
Much better to do so without an American cheque-book. There are always strings attached.
I was genuinely shocked when Joshua (now deleted) accused Shirin of not being Iraqi. Shirin and Salah are authentic voices of Iraq.
The issue, it seems to me, is not whether the US should get out of Iraq, but how to persuade them to do so. The internal case seems to me proved – the only solution for Iraq is for the external forces to get out. The problem, which is little discussed, is how to reassure the US, if withdrawal were to take place, that their interests would be maintained. Any Ideas?
OK, whether the US soon invades Iran is irrelevant to the continuing occupation of Iraq. Never mind then.
Anyway, to address your question Alastair, we would have to establish what actual and undisputed american interests have been created or somehow maintained or enhanced by invading and occupying Iraq.
I think your question is a sensible one but it’s going to be quite hard to adequately agree on that preliminary fact in order to progress such a debate further.
Helena, Alastair
First, thanks Helena for your support, in fact I did not read what wrote about me.
Alastair
Thanks for your kind words.
Those of us westerners who have been in Iraq know that Iraq is perfectly capable of reconstructing itself
I think you are very right in this and the prove for that Iraqis the built there country after two disastrous wars 1980 Iraq/Iran war, and 1991, although moat the experienced people have left Iraq right now because of the chaos and threaten to be killed if they do not leave happened to many Iraqis one of them my brother in law he left about a year ago.
Thanks to all for the many well-stated views; but let me put forward a blunt background item few seem willing to acknowledge: President George W. Bush has shot America’s wad. “If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride,” so the old saying goes; but the broke and increasingly indebted American beggar can’t go on much longer riding for free on nothing more fiscally sound than Deputy Dubya’s empty, vainglorious wishes. Tick. Tick. Tick. Time’s up.
Just as with the American War on Vietnam, the Law of Diminishing Returns has predictably set in with a vengeance. More and more input for less and less output. Thirty-five years ago we sent hugely expensive aircraft carrier battle groups halfway around the world to blow up inexpensive and quickly repaired bamboo bridges. Today we send an even more expensive — and rapidly disintegrating — military halfway around the world to pound mosques and residential dwellings into rubble. Two years ago I saw a news photograph of an Iraqi boy carrying a brick to repair a mosque that we had just destroyed the previous day. “Bamboo bridge,” I thought immediately. “Bamboo bridge.” Ruinous economic deja-vu does not wait up ahead somewhere in the far-distant future. It already happened. We have to stop the bleeding. First, just stop the bleeding. Therapy can come later.
To just put this ticking-time-bomb background in context, if I may: I turned to CNN International TV yesterday and discovered that some question had arisen about whether or not the space shuttle could successfully return to earth after its current mission to the International Space Station. It seems that once again the heat shield on the orbiter may have suffered some damage which could cause the craft to burn up on re-entry through earth’s atmosphere. Hopefully, this will not happen and we won’t lose another seven astronauts and their hugely expensive vehicle. Nonetheless, this “wing and a prayer” approach to our far-behind-schedule and way-over-budget space program cannot continue without needed funds and managerial attention spent to rectify glaring deficiencies. As a matter of fact, two months of this stupid War on Iraq (costing an average of 8 billion dollars a month) would fund the entire NASA annual budget for all programs. For what we have squandered on this needless bloodletting in just the last three years, we could have already put telescopes on the far side of the moon and colonists on Mars. Many of us Americans would simply rather spend our money on our space exploration program from which we obtain at least some scientific return on our investment. We do not want to completely waste our rare and vanishing dollars killing Iraqi and Afghan people, bombing their “bad weddings,” or demolishing their “safe houses.” Summarized bluntly again: We have any number of better places to put our limited funds.
President Bush broke the nation’s piggy bank. Like a busted deadbeat who mortgaged his paid-for home and parent’s retirement pension to “make a killing” gambling in Las Vegas, he faces the unpleasant prospect of taking the Greyhound Bus back home to “explain” things to his wife, mom, and dad: formerly persons of modest but comfortable means who now face the remaining years of their lives working part time for minimum wage as customer greeters at Wal Mart to pay the rent demanded by their Chinese landlord. And this bogus blowhard and his hoodlum friends have the colossal nerve to say that you should trust them to “protect” you?
Anyway, we all could multiply examples of the inexcusable waste and fraud, but really, the sand has almost run out of this hourglass. Trust me on this one, fellow Crimestoppers: We will see the White House mobbed and on fire before George W. Bush manages to hand off his “stay the curse” debacle to someone else in January of 2009. No one involved in this collapsing farce has anywhere near that much time to dawdle and dither. Mr. Toad’s wild ride has just about come to its crashing conclusion.
Finally, as a last illustration of dead-horse beating, I remember years ago when the California Highway Patrol would send officers to our Navy base just before we sailors departed on leave for some holiday. They would show us grisly pictures of car-accident fatalities in order to scare us into getting enough rest and driving safely. My favorite presentation involved a gruesome scene where a woman ran off an interstate freeway at high speed and then left parallel tire skid marks for three hundred yards as she steered straight across a wide open field of grass right into the only tree for miles around. As the Highway Patrol officer summarized the moral of this needless death: “Don’t forget that you can always turn the steering wheel to avoid immovable objects up ahead.”
One way or the other, we need to turn the steering wheel. Helena Cobban says we should. Juan Cole says — “realistically” — that we can’t. To George of the Jungle, swinging on his vine and yelling at the top of his lungs, we need to advise: “Watch out for that tree!”
Democratic Party Proposals on Iraq
1. Redeployment of forces
2. Timetable for troop withdrawal.
3. Support the president.
4. Decentralize Iraq.
“Some are calling for an immediate withdrawal. Yet “Bush is very likely to resist pressures for such deep troop cuts for much the same reasons that President Johnson did in 1968 during the Vietnam War,” CFR President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb writes in the Los Angeles Times. “[N]o president wants to be seen as losing a war.” Others are pushing for a timetable for a phased withdrawal. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) favors a redeployment of forces, a policy first put forward last year by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Both joined other Democratic congressional leaders in demanding Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. This new Backgrounder breaks down the Democrats’ plans on Iraq.”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11463/iraq_troop_levels_again_at_issue.html
Juan Cole has put forth so many different ideas about Iraq, that at this point one loses count. At one time he even supported this war to get Saddam out of power. That has really turned out well. I think that your usage of “cop-out” was right on the mark. Thought I do agree with Juan that thing are pretty much out of control and pretty much impossible at the moment.
Nothing much of any good is going to happen in Iraq until the Neo-cons are out of power. There are at least four reasons for this:
1. We don’t have Iraq’s oil yet.
2. Israel is not even a bit safer now; carving the country into a bunch of powerless warring ethnic provinces will keep them all killing each other – instead of forming a united coalition in support of liberating Palestine.
3. Allot of money is being spent, but more importantly – allot of money is being made. The neo-con’s cronies are making a killing on this venture.
4. A endless, un-winnable war against “Terrorism”, will keep the American populist, passive and malleable as long as the losses remain “low” and there is no draft.
This is probably a bit simple and cynical, but Cheney’s gang has been planning this stuff for years. Unfortunately, I think that Cheney was somewhat truthful with Tim Russet the other day, when he said something like – they wouldn’t do anything different if they were to do it again.
وفوجئ البدراني بهذا الضابط الاميركي حين . ولعل الأغرب من ذلك أن مضمون التحقيق دار حول . وكأن قوات الاحتلال بدأت تعتقل الصحافيين ل حول ورطتها في العراق؟
وفيما تستمر القوات الاميركية باحتجاز عدد من الصحافيين العراقيين منذ شهور ومن دون توجيه التهم إليهم، قال البدراني إن .
Interesting talk here
US Commander asked Al-Badrani (Iraqi Journalist who arrested last week) how the American can solve their US problem in West Iraq?!!!
Read this now Gange not Insergancey new name for Iraqi resistance, US for got thier gung runing wiled inside Iraq for three and half yeras now the problem Iraq can mirror amarican attiude in another way..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_fighting_kids
Shirin and Salah are authentic voices of Iraq.
Salah I have no doubt is Iraqi. Shirin… not so sure, and I’ve read things here and elsewhere that suggest otherwise and note how she’s not jumping in to dispute Joshua’s claim herself. On the internet, anyone can pretend expertise, pretend ethnic or national heritage, pretend a political posture (and quickly disown it like Cole the one-time war supporter.) Since Helena values ‘personal testimony’ of the colonised peoples so highly, you’d think she’d be interested in this question, emerge from her defensive crouch and not treat it (as so much else) as a personal attack. Unless she imagines the forces of darkness are best confronted through censorship and discourse domination. Not so Quaker-like if you ask me.
Friend Vadim, you are way off-topic in this important and serious discussion. You and some others here seem to prefer to engage in unfriendly speculation about the “identity” of other commenters rather than engaging with the substance of the discussion. (This, while telling us nothing about your own identity, life experience, or the other sources of your claimed expertise… but that is an issue for a separate discussion.)
Please desist from your diversionary tactics. If you have something to say about the topic of the main post, say it. Otherwise, I dare say the rest of us can survive you remaining silent on a topic every once in a while.
This, while telling us nothing about your own identity, life experience, or the other sources of your claimed expertise… but that is an issue for a separate discussion.
Friend Helena, unlike Juan Cole, I’ve never pretended to expertise in an unknown subject. & unlike Shirin (and yourself) I havent made a single claim based on my own expertise (financial mathematics and energy derivatives, in case you’re interested… no? didn’t think so) or personal details (I’m 35, 6′, 175 lbs, I live in NYC, Im a US citizen, I’m an Aquarius. Anything I’ve missed?) Personally I find verifiable facts more persuasive than subjective claims drawn from highly personal experience.
I dare say the rest of us can survive you remaining silent on a topic every once in a while.
I’m sure you can, and for that reason I try not to comment on too many threads. I’m more interested in the commentary of yours & others & cole’s than my own. but surely if anything is diversionary and hostile, it’s remarks like I hope each and every one of them suffers in hell for the rest of their lives … is this “on topic?” is it relevant? is it constructive? Maybe you think so, b/c unlike our tepid reply it remains undeleted…
[Editorial note from HC: I just found that quotation V. refers to– something Shirin wrote earlier here. It was not about fellow commenters, but generally about the authors of the US invasion of Lebanon. I wish that Shirin didn’t feel that angry about those people, but she does. However, this is significantly different from making hostile comments to or about fellow participants in our discussions here. And also, different from making comments that are a direct incitement to violence. It is the latter two categories of comments that I try to delete.
I also deleted a comment from Avis which was completely off-topic. Having said that, I thank you, Vadim, for the personal details you shared. I’d love to talk financial math with you sometime. But not here, not now.]
Friends, we seem to have trouble staying with the topic of this thread – how to help make it possible for the US to withdraw from Iraq. I’d really like to hear your ideas.
The part of that discussion which I am most interested in is how to persuade those who want a just conclusion to our occupation (or even just want a conclusion) but who have not yet accepted that a prompt withdrawal is necessary. What would be persuasive arguments to those not already in the choir?
In an earlier post Helena linked to Jim Webb’s position on Iraq, and Webb advises three steps which seem to me good initial candidates to persuade even those who believe we need to stay to prevent a more vicious civil war (my paraphrase of Webb’s steps):
*President Bush should announce that no US troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely
*The US should immediately stop construction of permanent bases
*The US should immediately begin discussions with Iraq’s neighbors to enlist their help in preventing further instability (as Helena pointed out, Webb does not mention Iran and Syria, but we can improve on his plan)
These steps obviously wouldn’t stop the war, but our task is to get the process started, and they have the virtue of being steps many could agree with and they are each eminently doable. What do you think?
Bob, those look like excellent steps, and the position that Webb has spelled out is a good reason to support him!
One common and helpful formulation that (temporarily) occupying nations use is to issue a public declaration that they have “no territorial claims” or “no claims to land or resources” of the occupied country. The Israelis used that, with general credibility and to generally good political effect, regarding lebanon– but have notably never done so w/ regard to East Jerusalem, the rest of the West Bank, or Golan. (It still took them 18 years to get out of– all or nearly all of– Lebanon.) The US government has never issued a similar declaration regarding Iraq, and should certainly do so.
Flowing from that, there would be zero need for permanent (or as they describe them) “enduring” military bases; and the construction of those bases should of course stop.
Re the discussions with the neighbors, I do think it’s important not just to include Syria and Iran, and not just to “include” the UN as another party, but to have the talks conducted under the auspices of the UN. If it’s the US that’s the “inviter” the politics of the whole affair would become almost intractable.
The Friends Committee on National Legislation has a great resource page on what to do to make progress toward withdrawal from Iraq. Look in particular at this page, which tells us that right now, “Congress has one final opportunity in this session to pass legislation barring the Pentagon from spending money to establish permanent military bases in Iraq”… and tells us how to lobby our representatives around this.
Oops, I’m feeling a new main post bubbling up here…
My response to Jim Webb’s three points:
“*President Bush should announce that no US troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely”
This is absolutely useless. First, announcing is not action, and what we need is action, not more empty announcements. Second, President Bush has made numerous announcements regarding Iraq (and now Iran), and his intentions toward it. Almost every one of his announcements has been a lie. How naive do Iraqis or Americans have to be to take seriously anything he says?
“*The US should immediately stop construction of permanent bases”
This is not completely useless. However, let me point out that if the U.S. leaves it will not be there to continue construction, so it will accomplish this step as part of the only really meaningful step it should take – complete withdrawal of all official and commercial presence.
And by the way, why does Webb not also suggest that the U.S. should stop construction on that American colonial command and control center (aka “embassy”) it is constructing in the so-called Green Zone.
“*The US should immediately begin discussions with Iraq’s neighbors to enlist their help in preventing further instability (as Helena pointed out, Webb does not mention Iran and Syria, but we can improve on his plan)”
Oh yes! Let us do as much announcing and discussing as we can – with each other, and with the neighbours, of course, and by all means let us leave Iraqis out of the discussion. After all, up until now we have excluded the Iraqis from as much real participation as we can, and we should keep up that policy. More useless talk is just what we need! After all, we can use all this discussion as a smokescreen while we continue our depradations against Iraq and its people. (Sarcasm – not mere irony – alert)
Really, this, like all the other plans I have seen from Americans, contains nothing of interest to Iraqis at all. It seems designed to satisfy everyone except Iraqis. It is mostly about making Americans feel better about the situation, and will do absolutely nothing to stop the bleeding – literal and figurative – of Iraq and its people.
Just one last comment on this subject.
Napoleon Bonaparte said: “If you want to take Vienna you take Vienna.”
I say: “If you want to leave Iraq you leave Iraq.”
We haven’t left Iraq because we don’t want to. We need to want to. Then we will.
Helena and al other friends.
Can you tell what the percentage of US citizens have the same thoughts or agrees with your idea of thinking about Iraq war/Withdraw troop now and all these things.
If you let me guessing 2%, 5% no 10% not more.
Is this 10% of US citizen can make their voice higher than 90%? Is their right what they believe be overcomes over the rights of 90% of Americans…
Let speaks the reality here instead of wasting the time in an idea that not can work may be after 2012 from now due to ‘stay-the-course’ strategy”
Iraq war spawned terrorism, radicals: U.S. report
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-09-24T044256Z_01_N23197513_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-TERRORISM.xml
more
http://declarationofpeace.org/
Salah, re the attitudes of US citizens towards the US occupation of Iraq, go here and scroll down to the “USA Today/Gallup Poll” dated Sept. 15-17 2006. Down there it says:
“Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq
immediately. Withdraw all troops by September 2007, that is, in 12 months’ time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq.” (Options rotated.) The answers were:
Withdraw imediately– 17%
Withdraw by Sept. ’07– 31%
Take as long as needed– 42%
Send more troops– 9%
Unsure– 2%.
Add the first two together, you get 48%. Not too bad! But still more persuasion is clearly needed…
Since Congress, not to mention the Administration, paid no attention to the massive peace demonstrations in the US before the start of the war, I’m not sure it would do much good to look for arguments to persuade more of the American people that we need to get out now. Our government isn’t interested in peace arguments, nor would they consider seriously for one moment voting monetary reparations for the damage we caused. Hope for a change in this atmosphere is dim, even if a Dem is elected president, because of the continued perceived need to look tough on terror. So what to do? I continue to look for arguments to persuade my students that we need to get out now….
Actually, now that I think of it, the only thing that would really make an impression on Congress (and the American people) would be a clear indication from the Iraqi government that they’d like us to get out now.
“the only thing that would really make an impression on Congress (and the American people) would be a clear indication from the Iraqi government that they’d like us to get out now.”
Helen, I really don’t think that anything coming from the Iraqi make-believe government would impress Congress at all. Not that the Iraqi make-believe government would EVER dare to indicate that they would like the U.S. to get out.
The reason I think Congress would listen to the Iraqi government (who, I agree, wouldn’t be quick to ask for US withdrawl) is because I think that many Americans, including some in Congress, feel guilty about the invasion and are looking for a way out “with honor.” Most — okay, at least half — know there never were any weapons of mass destruction or connections with 911. So to give some meaning to the nearly 3000 US troops dead and countless others maimed or deranged, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the same condition, we need to think we’ve done something positive. Even if we haven’t brought “stability and democracy” to a country that many imagine was hell under S.H., at least the Iraqi government would be giving the signal that they now can handle it themselves. This would give us a reason to withdraw with “honor” and imagine, at least, that we have re/gained respect and credibility in the world community.
Helen, you may be right, I don’t know. However, as you noted, I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. The Iraqi make-believe government may make faint noises about withdrawal timetables now and then, but the likelihood of their ever seriously confronting the U.S. on anything significant is for all practical purposes zero. They are a nonentity with no power or authority whatsoever. They are nothing more than a false front hiding the real structure. Their raison d’etre is to allow the Americans to make believe there are actual (democratically elected) Iraqis at least trying to run the show. Some people refer to them as puppets, but in reality they are less then puppets. They are an illusion.