If masses of Iraqis demanded UN administration, you might support them. Otherwise, don't call for what they aren't calling for. -------------
Quite so.
Here is the problem:
The Bush Administration invaded Iraq to achieve certain, piratical goals and extract some perceived benefit. The precise details needn't trouble us at the moment.
Although total details of their planning are unavailable right now, we can logically infer that 'liberation', in any meaningful sense of the word, is not one of them. This means that the ideas that fueled the invasion and which sustain the occupation, are, by their nature, at odds with the interests of the Iraqi people.
People who insist, for humanitarian reasons, that US forces remain in Iraq to provide security are, in essence, demanding that the Administration change its plans from exploitation to genuine assistance.
The old saying about leopards and the difficulty of spot changing comes to mind. You can insert your favorite, related quip if you wish.
This is a tall order to be sure and perhaps unprecedented. Has any imperial power been, through protest and internal pressure of the citizenry, been compelled to change an exploitative project to one of aid?
I welcome examples.
Given the death and anger the occupation is creating, it would seem that a mangled application of Occam's razor (choose the simplest course, rather than explanation) is in order.
To me, this is withdrawal, followed by aid from a safe distance. A safe distance for both US GIs (who are only pawns after all) and the Iraqi people who must contend with the daily rampages of MechaGodzilla in addition to their other woes.
Would it not be more difficult (and, therefore, closer to impossible) to:
1.) Convince an Administration that has demonstrated its deafness to popular will to abandon its pirate expedition in favor of the humanitarian plans of people they detest.
2.) Convince Iraqis that the young men and women who were so recently firing heavy ordinance through houses, killing people at checkpoints, detaining loved ones and neighbors and generally behaving in baffling and deadly ways are now, after some protests and political activity in the US, their sworn protectors.
A beautiful dream to be sure, but so unlikely that it is impossible to produce a statistical value.
The division on the left over this question is between people who believe, even at this terribly late date, that they can transform the US into a responsible actor in international affairs and those who don't.
The believers are not dissimilar from jilted lovers who return, again and again, to the unfaithful and abusive mate.
But, on the other hand...
To be honest, I don't believe a peaceful withdrawal will be happening. Too much is invested for the boys in DC to give up now. Their lack of knowledge of the Iraqi people and wish (even if hidden from themselves - even the bad man believes himself to be good) to extract, exploit, control, manage, will keep the entire thing stumbling from crisis to crisis for years.
No, the Iraqis themselves will convince Washington, eventually, that it is not in the interest of whomever it's supposed to be in the interest of to maintain this effort. They will do it via protests and slowdowns and obstructions and sabotage and the creation of parallel governments and RPGs and AK47 fire.
To paraphrase the Buddha, this entire negative deed was bad in the beginning, is bad in the middle and will be bad in the end.
There will be no easy route of escape for anyone.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com