[lbo-talk] [Fwd: no subject]

[Carrol Cox]

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."