> 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.
No, the point is that the means contradict the ends. It's about challenging the notion that an occupied Iraq is a liberated Iraq. Iraq isn't liberated; it's an occupied nation. The occupation is the problem, not the solution, just as in Gaza and the West Bank. The left challenge is how to, ultimately, bring about the withdrawal of the occupation. The hypothetical above assumes away the core problem at hand: the US has little to no legitimacy in Iraq, and will have to resort to repression to maintain and further its rule.
A left position could be elections, as the US-backed regional leaders in Iraq are abandoning while at least one southeren Shi'ite leader has issued a fatwa for elections, to establish an *independent* provisional government. Either that, or push for a national Iraqi referendum on US statehood. Seriously.
The left, rather than feeling the pain of US officials, should be outreaching to the Iraqi resistance in search of vaible allies, and provide them with a forum in the US & UK. Neither Kucinich nor Dean has nor will do this.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!