>> How about handing over things in Iraq to "Muslim forces" as a
>> transitional step (as Italians seem to be suggesting)?
> Yes, this seems like a good idea to me though I must admit my opinion is
> built upon two ideas/assumptions which are, at this point, impossible to
> verify:
> (a.) that a replacement of mostly American troops with soldiers from
> Islamic countries would be accepted by active resisters and their
> supporters as a positive step
It's for Iraqis to decide which Islamic countries would be acceptable. The main Iraqi faction leaders can be consulted. But the point is not about working out a detailed plan here. The question is whether the Left needs a transitional demand on Iraq and what should that be. I have an open mind on this question.
> (b.) important practical matters are worked out such as who's paying for
> the deployment, what the rules of engagement will be if resistance
> continues (that is, would American bombing sorties to "root out
> terrorists" merely be replaced by Saudi and Syrian ones or would a more
> measured approach be adopted?) and a commonly agreed upon date and
> condition for complete withdrawal and the full restoration of Iraqi
> sovereignty.
Yes, all that is true, but we don't need a detail plan and can't have one.
> If Islamic troops are no better at performing "peacekeeping" in Iraq
> than Americans and indiscriminate force is used resistance will continue
> - only this time the Americans and Europeans will be out of harms' way.
That's a possibility.
> There is another problem...
> The total replacement of American forces with Arab troops will deprive
> Washington of its chief tool for influencing events - force.
> Even if the logistical and diplomatic problems could be resolved and a
> multinational Arab peacekeeping force created and deployed, I suspect
> Washington will balk because the loss of (perceived or sought) control
> will be clearly understood.
That's not our problem. Our problem is abstract anti-imperialist posturing. We need a transitional demand that the US may not or will not accept.
> There is another way to state this...
> Washington will not want to give up its approximately 14 bases. This
> means that American troops will stay in Iraq. Would these troops
> refrain from responding to inevitable attacks, deferring to the Arab
> peace keepers? Would there be peaceful coexistence between the two
> armed groups?
That's not our problem. Our problem is abstract anti-imperialist posturing without any concern for suffering of Iraqis and their neighbours. We can have a transitional demand that the US is unlikely to accept.
Ulhas