By now it's an ingrained habit to say US out of Iraq. We of the anti-war movement have been saying it in one form or another every day for 3 years. The only (small) disputes have been over how fast to get out. But over time the proportion of the populace wanting troops out has gone up massively in every category. It now include 75% of the population, including the entire Democratic party and the entire left. The only dispute remaining is over Immediately or Gradually, and the longer it goes on, the more people say sooner rather than later.
It also seems pretty clear it's not going to happen. I think it's pretty safe to say that two years from now, in November 2008:
1) There will be a minimum of 80,000 US troops in Iraq (because that's the extrapolated minimum of the ISG report, and it seems clear the administration will never go below that baseline);
2) The civil war in Iraq will be worse -- visibly, obviously, worse; and
3) The proportion of the US populace wanting them out will be even higher.
The only arguable point to me seems to be (2), and I'd be glad to argue it (although I suspect most of the people who'd want to argue that point don't subscribe to this list).
So now, just as a devil's advocate, let me advance the following question: do we really want troops out?
I want to ask this question from three perspectives: (A) The Democratic Party; (B) Anti-imperialists; and (C) The welfare of the Iraqi people.
(A) The Democratic party. If most of our troops are still there, and the populace is even more against the war than now, then it doesn't it seem likely that the Democrats will benefit by following the same "We're not Them" strategy that served them so well so recently? They will plausibly be able to say We want troops out, We've said that over and over consistently for the last two years, and We've had zero power to change it. It's quite possible that could win them both the white house and bigger majorities in both houses of congress. It's even conceivable that they could win with Hillary (whom I consider their least electable candidate). On this view, the continuation of the war could very plausibly lead to two nationalized elections in a row, in which case 100-year-flood events (like a Southern state voting for her if her running mate came from there) could well happen.
Given that, do the Dems really any interest in the troops actually getting out?
(B) Anti-imperialists. It seems to me the main interest of an anti-imperialist is that the US should be weaker. And the US is weaker than it was 3 years ago. It's weaker in material force (despite half a trillion spent, we now have less bombs, armor and ready troops than we had 3 years ago) and it's weaker in being able to enforce its will. Every country in the world, from our worst enemies to our best friends, are less inclined to follow our lead than they were 3 years ago.
If most of the troops are still in Iraq in 2008, these trends will continue -- our army will be weaker, and our ability to impose our will on the world will be even further diminished.
So does it really serve the cause of anti-imperialism for the troops to get out, rather than continue to get ground down make the US look incompetent and untrustworthy?
On this view, the one group with a real interest in getting the troops out are the imperialists. Which may be why the DLC is finally for it :o)
(C) The welfare of the Iraqi people. For various reasons (which I'd be glad to go into) I think it is almost certain that the Iraqi civil war will be palpably worse in two years than it is now. And that this will be true whether we remove our troops or not. And further, that it is impossible to predict beforehand (or test afterwards) whether removing them will make it worse faster than leaving them in. Either is plausible.
Most of us feel quite strongly that removing US troops will make the Iraqi people better off. But I think that might just because it jibes so well with the vast majority of everyone (the Iraqis, the US populace and the world) wants. We want it to be true, we hope it's true and in a just world it ought to be true. But AFAICT, every causal explanation of how removing troops next month would make the violence less in two years is extremely speculative and based on assumptions that it is extremely easy to imagine going the other way. Although I'm totally open to someone who'd like to make the case that removing all US troops has a clearly higher probability of making the civil war violence diminish appreciably in two years.
So although it's a very unsatisfying thing to say both morally and theoretically unsatisfying, I'm forced to conclude that from the viewpoint of the welfare of the Iraqi people, it's a wash. The condition of their welfare is horrible, and in two years, it will be more horrible no matter which path we take.
The US has done an evil thing. Leaving might make it seem like we've stopped doing an evil thing and might make us feel better and feel less responsible. But it won't be true. The evil will grow, and we'll still be responsible.
So -- am I missing something?
Michael