At this point, if the LBO cabal had complete control of the U. S. government and was able to dictate foreign policy, what would we do about Iraq? Escalating the war, regardless of the Bush/Kerry intent, creates anti-American sentiment and foments support for terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Complete withdrawal of U. S. troops at this point is tantamount to ceding control of the country to another brutal dictator or religious junta. I know there must be another alternative (UN swoops in and somehow saves the day), but right now I'm fucking stumped.
============
I must say that I'm no longer concerned about this "anti-American" sentiment so many go on about. No more than I would be about, for example, 'anti Fred sentiment' if it so happened Fred was a murdering son of a bitch who showed no intention of stopping his killing ways.
Fred would deserve to be hated and so it is with the lead nation of the 'free world'.
Beyond this, how can we be so sure a "complete withdrawal of U.S. troops at this point is tantamount to ceding control of the country to another brutal dictator or religious junta"? Virtually everyone seems to know, with an odd certainty, that the presence of US forces is keeping the lid on an even worse worse pot than we're presently stewing in from boiling over This sounds to me like a variation on the old line, often used by Americans, that US forces in this or that location provide 'stability' despite evidence of stability being created.
What is to be done the man asked? Well, I'm surely no expert but I believe the first step to recovery from imperialism is to admit we're not qualified to help the Iraqis.
Oh yes, I know, there are many talented Americans of deep knowledge and goodwill who have much to offer any genuine reconstruction effort but it's not these folks I worry about.
No, it's America -- defined here broadly as a cultural artifact -- which is completely unsuited for what's required. The desire to dictate, to institute, to control -- through neoliberalism, through the use of military force against resisters, through even absurd things such as dictating what cell phone standard Iraq will use (the American one of course, out-of-sync with the rest of the Arab world -- as usual), is too strong, too deeply embedded within our character. We are not ready, we don't have it -- whatever the 'it' is this maze demands for skillful navigation.
I hear you, polemics are all very well and good but what is to be done?
Americans love lists of 'action items'; let's create one to lay out a few ideas --
1.) Admit (openly, not on the down-low) we don't know what the hell we're doing. And by "we" I don't mean simply the dangerous jackasses who drew this bloodbath but even those of us who self-describe as 'anti-imperialist' or, more gently, 'anti-war'.
2.) Learn who all the players are. Get a white board and start mapping it out -- who knows whom, who's allied with whom, who's at each others throats. Of course, this requires talking to Iraqis a novel idea to some.
3.) Coordinate with these groups to take care of their folks -- provide them with capital and gear to repair roads, get power to acceptable levels, open schools and so on. Within each group there are probably engineers, teachers and other skilled professionals. These people can provide leadership for reconstruction projects from within their communities all contributing to the rebuilding of their nation as a whole.
Let's pause here to make a point: everyone's worried about theocracy flourishing in Iraq so we don't talk about Sistani and al Sadr except as influential roadblocks to 'democracy' or, even further afield, 'socialism'. So we focus on the trade unionists and communists hoping they'll be the vanguard of post-Baath Iraq. Well see here's the thing, Sistani, al Sadr and others I'm not even aware of are important men, commanding the attention, collectively, of millions. Any plan to assist Iraq must address them directly as part of the solution not as dangerous anti-moderns (a view shared in common by lefties and neo-cons it seems).
4.) There must be an overriding principle guiding all actions: America's only role should be to provide money and gear -- no peace keepers, no 'security forces', no training for the Iraqi police force or military -- none of that. It simply isn't possible for the United States to participate in any of these activities without trying to bend the process and outcome to its will. This is a fact we must learn to accept. No more hoping, wishing, dreaming that a great power will be forced to do the right thing by marches, speeches and clever essays. It's not going to happen. Since it's not going to happen the US must be compelled to leave.
Americans can help, America surely can't.
5.) The entire effort of rebuilding and mediation should be internationalized, with, as I stated above, America's role limited to writing reperations checks. The EU and other relatively powerful actors on the world stage can enforce American compliance by refusing to provide assistance if Washington lapses into old habits.
A sketch of an idea, full of flaws I'm sure but built, I believe, upon an acceptance of important facts which many seem reluctant to embrace.
.d.