Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I wish some of those who argue that "Out Now!" is "too simplistic" could
> >give some reason to believe that there is any possibility whatever of
> >the U.S. occupation remedying _any_ of the evil it has created
>
> Let me try this once more, on the charitable assumption that it just
> hasn't been made clear enough.
>
> The position held by many Iraqis, as far as people I trust report it,
> is that the U.S. should be replaced pronto by some international
> peacekeeping force THAT EXCLUDES THE U.S. There's considerable worry
> that, the U.S. having destroyed the Iraqi state, a very bad kind of
> anarchy might prevail otherwise.
>
And let me try this once more.
That policy will NEVER be followed. There will NEVER be an international peacekeeping force in Iraq.
The alternative is between absolute certainty of continuing and growing chaos and horror with _any_ kind of outside occupation or the possibility of stability with an unconditional withdrawal.
The position you state here is in practice an approval of indefinite u.s. occupation of Iraq.
In other words, for all practical purposes, you oppose the ending of the occupation. It seems to be an intellectual rather than a moral error, grounded in the detached perspective too many journalists and academics adopt.
Carrol