> 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.
It's not an inadequacy of the Iraqis. It's an inadequacy of the situation: there is no state. And yes, this very much does guarantee things will get worse, tremendously worse, immediately worse, if the occupation ceased tomorrow.
I'm a little baffled as to how you can even entertain this argument. You read the news. Iraq is in chaos. Little girls disappear everyday. Neighbors break into houses down the street and steal their vehicles and there's no recourse. Powerlines are dug up as if by copper-eating locusts. There's no electricity, so there's no clean water in many places, and no A/C and no fans in baking heat. And no food in a lot of places.
No food, no security, no water -- this is chaos. The occupation is not causing the chaos. The chaos is causing the occupation. The occupation is doing a bad job of fixing the chaos and as presently constituted may be unable to do so. But removing the occupation would simply unleash the chaos. Without a state, that is inevitable. Iraq needs an occupation until it gets a state. I think that's unarguable.
The idea that we could leave tomorrow and Iraqi society would be return to some peaceful equilibrium is the same kind of naive thinking that led our enemies to think an occupation would not be necessary. It's the idea that society is something that just coheres by itself, where the state is just dropped on top, and if you take away the state, everyday life carries on as before, and the only dispute is who rules. It's not like that. The state constitutes societies. And that's doubly true when it comes to such an extremely "external" state as Iraq's was. Take away the state, you have chaos.
So Iraq must have an occupation until it gets a state. It needs an occupation in order to get a state. The only question is what sort of an occupation and what sort of a state. What we want ideally is an legitimate occupation in which Iraqis participate and which they mold. Which would be very different than this occupation.
So Iraq needs an occupation that's the opposite of what it's got: legitimate, democratic, effective, and which delivers the goods. And for that to happen, it has to be multilateral on a large scale, which is the only way to increase all those things. And for that to happen, the US has to give up major control.
It's quite true that there is no guarantee this will work. It's never worked before. This was the main argument against the invasion in the first place: there was no known solution to the problem it would cause. And because the US didn't listen to the world, now the world's got this problem. If the world solves it, it will be unprecedented. It will require the creation of international political structures with more legitimacy and effectiveness than any that have previously existed.
On the other hand, co-participation in helping Iraq might give a substantial impetus towards creating those political structures which are much to be desired. The large scale participation of countries like India or Bangladesh as well as European countries while the whole operation is under UN control might change the balance of power in the UN. In that case, the impossible problem might contribute to creating its own solution.
Not since the second world war have we seen an occupation that provided peace and resources without eviscerating democracy. But it's not impossible to conceive. And that's what we have to demand: an approach that could conceivably succeed. As opposed to one that can't.
> 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.
The pressure for the aggressor state to give up the occupation comes from the occupation itself. It is tying up its entire armed forces. This will get worse over time. It is costing it $50 bln a year. This will get worse over time. And it is incapable of solving the situation itself. It cannot provide the legitimacy or the expertise or the resources necessary for a solution to be even conceivable. The world can. The US cannot.
The US is already trying to drag the world in under its authority. And its failing rather spectacularly. The rest of the world demands that effective authority be handed over to the UN. The peace movement should join them, just as we joined them before. We should want effective authority to handed over to the UN and the Iraqi people. It will be an ongoing struggle, not a one-off. The US will try to keep authority covertly through the UN, just as it did before the war. But it can lose that battle, just like it lost it before the war. And the odds will be better this time if the other parties outnumber it on the ground as well as in the UN. The battle is not for the UN as it exists, but for the UN as it should exist.
I totally agree with you that the invasion was illegal and should never have taken place. But what's been created in its wake can't be undone now just be stepping backwards -- it could only be made worse. We have to go forward into a future we've never seen before. It's the only one that could possibly work.
One last thing. Returning to your first point:
> To argue against withdrawing the occupation forces is to argue for a
> continued occupation.
No arguing with that. But there is an important thing being obscured by this tautology. Insofar as we are just talking about forces, the immediate demand should be for substantial US forces to be withdrawn and be replaced by other forces -- under a different overall civilian command. With the ultimate and not too far in the future goal of replacing them all with Iraqi forces under Iraqi command.
Michael