> It isn't
>entirely a, "Social Imperialist, " Democrat illusion to be very
>concerned that U.S. withdrawal, which I favor ASAP, as it feeds the
>insurgency and slaughter of masses of civilians, could, after we get
>the fuck outta there, lead to a an even more vicious (if that is
>possible! but, it is, if you are a realist)
>civil war.
>
Um how could a civil war, which if your analysis is correct already is
in motion, be more vicious sans US and British fire power? All things
being equal a pull out would mean that scenes like Falluja will not be
possible given none of the parties involved in the intercene violence
would have the capacity to launch such an assault. So if you are a
realist --i.e., you take into account not only the desire for violence
but the means for making violence, a pull-out reduces means through
which violence can be carried out. A realist would say that there is no
reason that conflict will look anything much different than what is
already going on minus the capacity of one group to call in
disproportionate levels of violence in an unsuccessful attempt to pacify
their perceived enemies. So to tar comrade Carrol here is a little
unfair given that we do not have good reason to suppose the level of
violence will be any greater and some to suggest it would be less.