> 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
Well there is the whole issue of the oil which could keep the US there, if only to make sure that Iraq's probably Islamist government doesn't end up with it. I also don't think the US will leave their significant investment in infrastructure in the Green Zone anytime soon.
On the whole, I think you've got the balance of the bad choices we're left with pretty accurate, but just to get this straight: you're saying that it won't be much better for the people of Iraq whether we stay or go but it will definitely be worse for the US imperial power if we stay. So it might be, in a contradictory way, better overall for the future of the world, if the US remains tied down there indefinitely. And, further, it is morally better for the US to be there trying to fix the mess rather than getting out and acting like they no longer have a responsibility for what has happened. I can see the logic to this.
I don't think it is exactly why the Bush administration wants to stay, but it seems like it will be a stretch to convince the anti-war movement that, in the long run, it's better if the troops aren't out now. My question would be, in so far as the anti-war movement had any effect on ending the vietnam war, was this a victory for that movement? Maybe this is a question with an obvious answer and it may be an inadequate analogy but it seems to be a similar situation in some ways, particularly in the political and military terms you've framed the situation in Iraq (though I don't mean to find any consistency in the comparison of "Islamofascism" and the Sino-Soviet bloc often made by neo-cons, except in so far as both are ideological bulwarks for their hawkish advice.)
In any case, this is the closest comparison I can think of and the answer to it might help give clues towards the question at hand: is it really a viable strategy for an opposition movement to support the actions advocated by the Bush administration because those actions are only irrational if the goal is the preservation of US Imperial power. I guess this also depends on whether the movement is actually anti-Imperial or if it is more of a Peace movement which, in some ways, is informed by the belief in the general benevolence of the US empire, which Vietnam and Iraq represent awkward counter examples. Undoubtedly the latter is more deeply engrained in the US psyche and is probably the primary reason for Bush's lagging support. As Doug has pointed out often, according to polls. the citizens of the US are pretty okay with war and mass slaughter so long as their side is successful (pace WWII). But I guess you're really talking about the strategy of the more anti-imperialist crowd regardless of the popular support for it.
I think the real problem with this as a strategy is that it somehow presumes that, in the vacuum created out of the absence of the US dominance in the world, some better form of power sharing and communitarian principles will take hold. (not to mention the somewhat problematic solution of letting the Iraqis suffer the balance of the effect of this defeat). I'm not a supporter of the US as an imperial power--just like I'm not a supporter, in general of the continued dominance of a global capitalist class, which is basically the same thing--but I also don't think it is necessarily an advance if those forces simply get toppled by their own avarice and overreach instead of being forced to accept the consequences of that condition by some other, more desirable, collective power.
I don't know which circumstance will be less likely to produce a violently flailing (nuke happy) US but it seems like the key point here is that, as many people say of the Democrats, the anti-Imperial movement needs to focus on projecting a positive message to fill that void before they help to create a void that can easily be taken over by someone else. This, of course, is all getting too hypothetical and I'm sure other people on this list have much more educated things to say about this.
I have been thinking that the US being forced into talks with Iraq, Iran, and Syria--which, whatever we think of their politics or culture, should be able to have a legitimate interest in a situation that so directly effects their countries--seems like a far more humbling consequence, even if the US doesn't suffer the kind of spectacular defeat that you suggest. But I'm sure there are plenty of problems with this scenario that I don't comprehend as well. (I'm definitely interested in hearing about them, by the way).