> So now, just as a devil's advocate, let me advance the following question:
> do we really want troops out?
>
> [WS:] I have been asking the same question for a while too. In the
> normative terms, I put this question in the framework of creating global
> governance, which IMO is a necessary condition for socialism. The
> question
> thus becomes one about what increases chances of global governance - and
> from that point of view, the US staying in Iraq is more beneficial than
> leaving it. I would go as far as saying that US military smashing little
> Third World nationalist dictatorships does more for creating global
> governance than these nationalisms being able to thrive.
Really? What interventions do you have in mind? The one aimed at Arbenz? Mossadegh? Castro? Lumumba? Allende? Maurice Bishop? In what way have these actions advanced what you call "global governance" leading to "socialism" (!) - what others call "imperialism"?
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, has written: "Between World War II and the present (2004), the United States intervened more than 35 times in developing countries around the world. But our research shows that in only one case-Colombia after the American decision in 1989 to engage in the war on drugs-did a full-fledged, stable democracy with limits on executive power, clear rules for the transition of power, universal adult suffrage, and competitive elections emerge within 10 years. That's a success rate of less than 3 percent." (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3021131.html)
======================================================
> [WS]...the US will stay in Iraq as long as the
> cost of changing the course will be higher than the cost of maintaining
> the
> current path. Since the cost of staying the path is relatively low, both
> economically and politically - as Iraq is really a low priority for most
> people here- while the cost of changing the course is relatively high,
> since
> it can be construed as an insult to US national pride and a threat to
> security which are relatively high priorities for most people - the chance
> are that the US troops will stay in Iraq for the next two to three years
> if
> not more.
You converge with Yoshie and Carrol in arguing that Iraq is a "low cost" affair which has not resulted in a deep split within the US defence and foreign policy establishment and that, as such, the US can afford to remain in the country for a long time. In fact, this seems to me to betray an underlying pessimism and despair and exaggeration of US power which the three of you share in common, and a profound misreading of how costly the occupation has been to the US in the military, political, and economic sense.
The US ruling class has been very divided - not of course over objectives, ie. whether the US should play a hegemonic role in world affairs, but over tactics. The Bush administration has violated two cardinal tenets of US imperial policy: a) never get bogged down in a land invasion but use the threat of punishing US air power to enforce compliance and b) act multilaterally and use diplomacy, including with adversaries, with American military and economic strength providing the leverage. The political process in the US since the invasion met resistance in 2003 has been about altering the unilateral and unsophisticated foreign policy of the Bush administration, the Baker-Hamilton report being the latest example. Iraq hasn't been, as you state, a "low priority" affair, neither at the upper or lower reaches of US society.
If you have access to today's Wall Street Journal, I recommend an op-ed piece by Abraham Sofaer as an good illustration of the differences at the top. Sofaer is a former legal advisor to the State Department who negotiated with Iran on behalf of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. You should take careful note of his succinct, if somewhat chilling, concluding reminder that US objectives are better pursued through "affordable wars of destruction instead of costly nation-building exercises." He means reliance on the use, or threat, to destroy infrastructure from above through the massive use of air power. Sofaer, like other members of the US political establishment, has a good grasp - better than your own and some others on the list - of what Iraq has cost and is continuing to cost, and why the US needs to cut its losses there as quickly and as expeditiously as possible so it can get on with properly maintaining the empire in a more cost-efficient way. It is always about cost, isn't it? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116658378080955371.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries).