> That's unfair, John; I am certain that Nathan is not arguing for
> continued US occupation. He is rather pointing out that a simple
> withdrawal, without making some sort of arrangements through the UN
> or theArab League or someone for the provision of basic services and
> an interim administration in the nation whose govt we have now ruined
> would lkead toa narchy in the bad sense, mere chaos. jks
To argue against withdrawing the occupation forces is to argue for a continued occupation. As it is the occupation forces are daily killing (without judicial process) and daily are getting killed. It might get worse or it might get better were this lawless occupation immediately to end. There is nothing inadequate about the Iraqis that guarantees it would get worse. No-one can say they will permit their neighbors to starve. It's not up to Nathan (or Dr. Dean) to decide that it's in the best interests of the Iraqis that the occupation continue. The argument that such a decision has been made by the Iraqis themselves can't be made by anyone wishing to be taken seriously.
Of course no arrangements of the sort you suggest can be made without US agreement, so once the US decides to carry out a complete, immediate and unilateral withdrawal from Iraq such arrangements would follow as night the day. But to call for a continued occupation until such arrangements are made (which the US can prevent at will) gives a blank check to the aggressor states to continue the occupation.
john mage