> Yoshie (quoting from NPR):
>
> Dr. DEAN: Now that we're there we can't leave. We
> cannot allow chaos or fundamentalist regime in Iraq
> because it could be fertile ground for al-Qaeda.
> First thing I would do is bring in 40 to 50,000 other
> troops.
>
> *********
>
> Guilherme (quoting Kucinich):
>
> we broke the country,now we have to fix it -- with the
> UN of course.
>
> *****************
>
> <snip>
> I have yet to read a recommendation that the US simply
> leave these people the hell alone and provide
> compensatory aid - from afar.
seriously, would a 100% withdrawal today (let's suppose hypothetically that such a thing is even possible logistically, much less politically) not be utterly irresponsible? it seems to me like we run the risk, as leftist critics of US imperialism, of looking like we want to have it both ways, namely attacking the administration for hanging around too long and attacking them for their usual half-assed liberation programs, as in afghanistan.
>
> And the reason I haven't read this is simple: even
> critics believe in the notion of a great nation that
> can solve problems, if only the right people are at
> the helm. It doesn't occur to them that Iraq, a
> country of 24-27 million souls, has probably,
> collectivity, reached the end of its patience with the
> kevlar suited visitors and is expressing this via
> protests, angry interviews with (mostly non American)
> journalists and of course, bullets and RPGs.
but this is as much a question of the mission of continued US presence as it is of the fact of a US presence. the invasion itself establishes a powerful and problematic context, but the more bremer insists that iraqis don't get to do anything for themselves, the worse things will get, and rightly so.
that said, i think what you're seeing with dean and kucinich is people genuinely trying not to walk away from a mess -- and a huge power vacuum -- just because we would have been right to do the whole thing differently from the get-go.
>
> The stubborn insistence, even from 'liberal'
> candidates, that most resistance is coming from
> "regime dead enders" and 'Saddam loyalists" is a form
> of blindness. And of course, when you're blind you
> cannot see the obstacles in your path. Bad beliefs
> lead to bad actions.
agreed, but this is beside the point, i think. i'm still trying to get a handle on what we really ought to be doing in current circumstances, but i think the lesson to take even from an accurate appraisal of resistance to US troops is not that we wash our hands of having created a massive power vacuum. an immediate withdrawal of US troops (et al) hardly guarantees a healthy iraqi civil society, in either the short or the long run.
it seems obvious at this point that the administration has seen that handing power over to iraqis right away -- perhaps ever -- is quite likely to result in a government (and people) more deeply anti-american than the regime whose place it took. they really have gotten themselves into a quagmire, and they have no idea how to get out, now. perhaps they're even beginning to wish they hadn't pushed for this war in the first place . . .
based on their approaching iraqi generals, it really looks like pakistan is the model: look for an iraqi musharraf to keep down the restless fundamentalists.
oh, and btw, from your other post:
> I suspect that many will quibble over some of
> Wallerstein's points in this essay - for example, his
> insistence that the US is much weaker than appearances
> suggest (even many progressives tend to believe the US
> is a gleaming, unstoppable economic/military
> juggernaut). Nevertheless, it is irrefutable that
> while the US can initiate crises (Iraq occupation to
> name one) it cannot necessarily manage them.
i couldn't agree with you more.
j