[lbo-talk] Out of Iraq

Dwayne Monroe idoru345 at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 3 17:19:07 PDT 2004


Mark Pavlick posted:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17470

from which...

Out of Iraq

By Stanley Hoffmann

As in Palestine, the occupation is the main cause of the current troubles. This certainly does not mean that the attacks will end if we leave; but whatever we do to try to resolve internal conflicts is likely to backfire. Continuing US military control, direct or indirect, will intensify anti-Americanism (as in post-1965 South Vietnam) and provide a training ground for terrorism, both indigenous and from other countries.

[...]

What would such an exit strategy mean, concretely? It would require a statement by the Coalition of its intention to withdraw its forces by a certain date—for example within six months of the election of a new assembly and the government that emanates from it. If elections can take place in January 2005, a phased withdrawal should be completed by the end of June. While the present interim government is in place, the US should take measures that have genuine political and symbolic significance: the US embassy would reduce its scale of operations; formal US advisers would be gradually withdrawn; the US would make commitments not to launch military operations unless they are requested by the elected Iraqi government.

[...]

============================

It's been awhile since the question of whether American forces should stay, 'to prevent civil war' or leave immediately has been tossed back and forth.

Maybe after all we've witnessed it no longer seems even remotely sensible, as it once did to at least some left leaning observers, to argue that the presence of American troops - illegitimacy notwithstanding - was providing some unintentioned barrier protecting the Iraqi people from a worse condition than violent occupation ("theocratic fascism" perhaps).

Now we appear to have entered the season of an informal consensus around the question of 'how do we get out?'

Mr. Hoffman's argument is as good as any other I've read from (mostly) conventional circles of debate. He makes several quite solid points.

But like similar presentations Hoffman's runs against a hard wall: the Bush administration did not invade Iraq to leave it to the Iraqis.

You don't have to accept any of the pre-war theories about control of oil or Israeli influence or fear of the Euro or whatever else was offered up to understand and accept this. It should be the foundation for all discussions about the invasion.

Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq? Everyone has a story, some of which contradict each other. My answer is that I don't precisely know but they surely didn't do it to simply pack their bags and leave. Bases have been built, plans have been made, money has been invested, equipment has been positioned, an unexpectedly high number of American lives have been lost (little mention of the Iraqi lives of course). In short, American involvement is clearly intended to last for quite some time.

Kerry, representing the more liberal arm of American imperialism, may, if elected, withdraw completely but nothing he's said so far suggests that's his intention. Indeed, the exact opposite is the often stated goal with the words 'win' and 'build a stronger coalition' tripping easily from his tongue.

So the Americans, conservative, neocon and liberal, want to stay and they want to win. It's difficult to imagine staying without continued military aggression - the air strikes, incursions into "no go areas" (followed by inevitable resurges of insurgency) and claims of steady progress. It's difficult to imagine 'winning' as Washington no doubt defines it, without the US retaining dominance of Iraqi politics and economic life.

Mr. Hoffman is recommending Washington abandon each and every one of its policy objectives in favor of an embrace of reality.

This is good advice but seems to me to be similar, in likelihood of seeing the light of day, to advising your dog to learn how to drive.

It's not within a dog's cognitive repertoire to operate a car. I don't believe it's in Washington's to admit, at the highest levels (plenty of technocrats face facts everyday but who listens to them?), that its dreams are out of reach.

At least, not yet.

Many more Iraqis and Americans will die I'm afraid before imperial exhaustion extinguishes the project.

.d.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list