>Justin's right -- there's no way the US is leaving anytime soon, but if it
>were on the verge (needing only a domestic push), would the self-described
>anti-imperialists wash their hands of Iraq? I got that feeling with the
>minor noise before the invasion about the "human shields" who would place
>themselves in front of advancing troops or under fighter jets in order to
>supposedly save the common Iraqi (which of course assumes that the average
>US soldier or Marine has a conscience, 'else it would be mere suicide). I
>asked then if these prospective shields would try to protect Kurds or Shi'as
>from Ba'athist attacks, and received the predictable answer -- no. I assumed
>that a true internationalist would try to protect the victim from the
>aggressor regardless of address, but I was corrected on this front. So,
>there's a strong current of isolationism in "anti-imperialism," at least the
>kind celebrated here -- which is fine, so long as it's conceded up front and
>not tarted up in "internationalist" verbiage.
>
This was one of the better points Christopher Hitchens raised against
the antiwar movement. Its concern for the Kurds seemed to stop with
Saddam's having used poison gas against them, and the U.S. rewarded the
guy with more weapons. I have no doubt that there were Kurdish-relief
and Kurdish defense efforts within the movement, but for the most part,
the antiwar movement didn't mobilize around this particular cause.
(Hitchens got a lot of mileage out of a "true internationalist" stance;
it wasn't hard to poke at the antiwar movement's platitudes, and as long
as he stuck to internationalism, human rights, and opposition to
theocratic fascism, he raised some good points. But his praise of the
Bush Administration was pretty revolting; if I wanted to see a man
pimping for state power, I'd read _Commentary_.)
I'm still not sold on the term "isolationism" in this context. I think the term's been applied to the antiwar movement as cheap irony, trying to align the movement with the America First movement of the 1930's. On this point, the analogy doens't hold because the motivations are very different. The isolationists of the 1930s weren't fearing for the suffering of Third World peoples at the hands of American might-- rather, many feared the U.S.'s suffering from foreign entanglements (and many others liked Hitler a lot).
Also, people in the antiwar movement generally don't seem to want to keep the rest of the world at bay. They're not calling for stricter immigration laws, or tariff walls, or restrictions of travel or cultural barriers. But when the antiwar movement uses arguments to_appeal_ to isolationism, one can't avoid noticing arbitrariness or opportunism; one senses that the arguments are being used not out of carefully-worked-out principle, but because they sway some people. And frankly, there is just good ol' local tribalism at work, where the Liberal tribe froths over someone else having power; I wonder what the reaction might have been if it was a _Democrat_ administration calling for regime change.
>In any event, it will be interesting to see how long the two large festering
>nationalisms, Kurd & Shi'a, can keep from smashing the pretty window
>dressing of the present "democratic" council.
>
I'm not optimistic. Let's say the Kurds, wary of a new government over
all of Iraq, attempt to establish an independent Kurdish nation. They
wouldn't have only Turkey to contend with; would the U.S. tolerate such
an example?