[lbo-talk] [Fwd: no subject]

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Wed May 5 07:57:50 PDT 2004


Pfaff is hardly a dogmatic marxist. So much for the idiocy that the u.s. has to stay in Iraq to maintain order. I believe events have also confirmed my argument that the only part of the polls that counted was the 10%+ indicating active resistance, and that it mattered not the size of the merely passive support of a continued u.s. presence. It really is silly for those out of power (i.e. leftists) to promulgate in their heads elaborate schemes about what "should be" done.

It seems, also, that probably Yoshie was correct when she argued that the U.S. would leave Iraq with its tail between its legs.

And surely no one now seriously argues that the anti-war movement's slogan should be other than "U.S. Out Now. No Conditions."

Carrol

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: no subject Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:24:03 -0700 From: Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca> Reply-To: georgec.york at SYMPATICO.CA To: SOCIALIST-REGISTER at YORKU.CA

http://www.iht.com/articles/518225.html

International Herald Tribune May 4, 2004

An exit strategy based on Iraqi nationalism

by William Pfaff

[large clip]

Iraqi nationalism today is fueled by the American occupation. The political confusion and heavy-handedness of the occupation, and the toll of civilian victims, contribute to it, but fundamentally the current violent resistance to the United States is an inevitable reaction against foreign military occupation.

[CLIP]

The longer the occupation continues, the more powerful the nationalist reaction becomes, driving even Iraqis disposed to sympathy with America's proclaimed objectives into solidarity with the resistance.

[CLIP]

I wrote in this space last January that "no leader will be able to rally Iraq, or its major religious or ethnic components (except the Kurds), whose program is not national sovereignty, an end to the occupation and departure of American troops, and national renewal on Iraq's own terms. That means an Iraq in full control of its resources, its security, and its foreign policy."

The notion that American forces are essential to "stabilize" Iraq is illusion. American forces destabilize Iraq - as Iraqis themselves keep trying to explain to Americans.

The situation will almost certainly get worse next month when the time comes for the occupation authority to hand over "sovereignty." According to present reports, the United States has no intention of handing over sovereignty.

[CLIP]

To this basic program, in my opinion, a timetable has to be added, as retired General William Odom - now of Hudson Institute, who teaches at Yale University and Georgetown University - has recently proposed. Odom wants a unilateral American declaration that it will completely withdraw U.S. troops within six months - regardless of what happens in Iraq, or of what the United Nations and the international community do to deal with the situation.

That is drastic action. It also is essential, since as Odom says, "we have failed; the issue is how high a price we're going to pay."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list