[lbo-talk] The very worst custodians of empire

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Mon Jun 26 13:01:04 PDT 2006


At around 26/6/06 1:22 pm, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> On 6/26/06, *Colin Brace* <cb at lim.nl <mailto:cb at lim.nl>> wrote:
>
> a) the US has no business "sorting out" Iraq for the Iraqis and it is
> debatable whether it is even *capable* of doing so at this point;
>
> b) the Iraqis have made it abundantly clear that they want the
> occupiers OUT of Iraq.
>
> and
> c) The U.S. (and Britain, among others) owe massive reparations to the
> Iraqi people, (in money and in kind, to the government and to grass
> roots organizations, all to be decided by the Iraqi people and not by
> the "donors") and these massive reparations should be considered merely
> the starting point for reversing all of the destruction the aggressors
> have caused.
>

(c) is not an AND to (a) (or to the typical left slogans: Get Out Now, etc), but a response to it. Paying reparations is a way of sorting out the problem. It is one thing that the U.S is capable of doing at this point. It is one slogan that leftists can add to their placards or email signatures: MASSIVE REPARATIONS NOW!

Dwayne: thanks for your response on this thread (same to Colin and Jerry). Let me quote the last part of your message and respond to it:


> There is really only one way out: all parties must be
> brought into a negotiating framework. This includes
> people we don't necessarily admire (such as al Sadr)
> but is necessary because the alternative - suppression
> via military power - has failed. The most powerful
> (if not exactly the best) military in the world has
> poured billions of dollars into the problem and only
> manage to control the ground they stand on.
>
> Taking all this into consideration, the statement
> "...the Iraqis will figure it out for themselves" is
> not as callous as you think, but a realistic
> assessment of the situation.

It's callous in the sense that it does not seem to include any of what you claim to and do show in your message: some sort of detailed thinking. I think that thinking leads you to what seems to be a pretty good estimate on a solution: getting multi-party negotiations going. That's not going to happen if we just "Bring the troops back home now", followed by "Let the Iraqis sort it out" i.e., we make a mess, we bring our troops back "home" (the use of that word "home" with all its warm and fuzzy connotations, is what, to me, betrays callousness), and hey, its the Iraqis problem!

I don't get it. What's the issue? Is "Pan-Arabic negotiations now" not catchy?

I was reading a column by Nir Rosen (at Atlantic online, I think?) where he mentioned that the U.S military no longer has any sort of control over the country and is just one militia among many. He believes not only that this makes it impossible for the U.S military to have any impact but also that such a useless presence helps fuel Sunni anger.

These, if true, are probably good reasons for pulling out the troops. Nir believes that the civil war that we shall see when the troops are pulled out, will only be a continuation of an ongoing civil war. How this civil war, the direct result of our intervention, should be addressed, is the one question that always need to be posed, if not answered, with any calls to pull out troops. It is unfair (to the Iraqis) to feign modesty/humility at this stage.

--ravi

-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list