[lbo-talk] WSJ op-ed: let Iraqis vote on withdrawal

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Thu Nov 30 04:48:17 PST 2006


Lawyer/novelist Scott Turow's suggestion in today's Wall Street Journal for an Iraqi plebiscite on the US occupation is something which mainstream Americans across the political spectrum would readily accept as consistent with their own political tradition and as offering the least humiliaiting way of exiting the country. The politicians and their advisors won't treat the proposal seriously, although it's interesting the WSJ has seen fit to publish the Turow piece on its op-ed page.

What's more surprising is that the Sadrists, the largest coherent political force in Iraq calling for a US withdrawal, haven't floated the idea of a popular referendum, if only as a powerful tool to rally domestic and international opinion. They or other anti-occupation Iraqi groups haven't done so to my knowledge at least.

The outcome of a plebiscite, as Turow notes, wouldn't be much in doubt. The Washington Post reported two months ago that US State Department and other polls show "a strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country."

BTW, only an imperialist mentality could come up with a peculiar notion like the Pottery Barn rule, again cited below: "If you break it, you own it." When you damage a car or a home or a country, you don't own it; you pay for it =========================================== When Should the U.S. Withdraw? Ask the Iraqis. By Scott Turow Wall Street Journal November 30, 2006; Page A16

Now that we have a divided government, a new defense secretary and the Iraq Study Group prepared to issue its report, we appear ready to descend into a period of rancorous national debate about how long our troops should remain in Iraq. But before Americans go toe-to-toe with one another, I have a new idea. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think?

I'm not a foreign-policy wonk. I am merely one of millions of Americans who despairs over the news from Baghdad, and yearns to see this country as united as we were in the days after 9/11. The Americans who opposed the Iraq invasion -- like me -- and those who fully supported our military action now find themselves in accord on two fundamental points: First, the war has not gone well. Second, we are prisoners of an ethical dilemma of our own making, crystallized in the "Pottery Barn Rule" Colin Powell reportedly invoked to President Bush: You break it, you own it. Whatever the validity of our reasons for going into Iraq, we terminated not only a despotic government but a stable, civil society. It seems selfish and unjust for us simply to leave the country in chaos, and we will be required to spend billions repairing Iraq for years to come.

But that does not resolve the question of our military presence, which is sharpened by the young Americans being killed and maimed there every day. Many foreign-policy experts believe that a large-scale American force on Iraqi soil aggravates ethnic rivalries by forcibly enhancing power differentials between those groups, thus robbing the current government of legitimacy in the eyes of many citizens. Others, including many of our generals, say that the 140,000 American troops stationed in the country are all that stand in the way of a full-scale civil war. But why attempt to resolve this as a debate among our dueling experts when we can ask the genuine authorities -- the Iraqi people? They are there. They know their country and their countrymen. And naturally, it is they who care most intensely about their future.

So here's what I propose. Our government must urge Iraqi leaders to hold an immediate plebiscite on a single question: Should American forces remain in Iraq until a stable democratic order emerges, however long that takes, or should we instead withdraw in stages over a fixed period, say, the next 12 months?

I have a guess about which way the vote will go. Since opinion-sampling began a year after the invasion, one poll after another has found that an increasing majority of Iraqis would like us to pack our gear and leave. But who knows how accurate polling is in a society like Iraq, where so many citizens have reasons to be guarded about their views? And even if the results reflected opinions at the time, it's possible that an informed national discussion might change minds. Yet if the remaining rationale for our presence in Iraq hinges on our commitment to democracy there, what possible excuse can we have for not letting the Iraqis make the ultimate choice about our occupation? If a solid majority throughout the country wants us out, then we can leave knowing that we are not deserting a people eager for our presence.

And if instead a majority of Iraqis prefer that we remain, we can revert to our own national debate about the kind of commitment we are willing to make, knowing we have an open invitation. I am not proposing that we give the people of Iraq veto power over how long Americans must fight and die on their behalf. We must fix goals for our inevitable departure. But even the Americans who believe we should depart tomorrow will have to reflect twice if the beleaguered citizens of Iraq, 150,000 of whom have already died according to their government, say the future presence of our troops will be helpful. And attacks on American soldiers will perhaps slacken if it becomes fact-established that we are invited guests, not an occupying army.

The results of the vote would probably not be the same in the various ethnic regions of Iraq. In prior opinion polls, the Kurds have overwhelmingly favored the American presence that has freed them from the menacing hand of Iraq's central government. But a split verdict may suit our aims. American troops must continue to be stationed somewhere in the region to prevent active coercion by Iraq's neighbors, especially Syria and Iran, and to respond in case the direst predictions prove out and parts of Iraq become a lawless terrorist breeding ground, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. The emerging Kurdish canton might be the ideal place for our soldiers to wait out events, while removing themselves from the cross-fire in the rest of the country.

After the blood and treasure America has expended in Iraq, all Americans should hope that a stable society emerges there, governed by people who are not actively hostile to American interests. That is an ever more distant dream at this stage. But the longer we remain in Iraq without considering the will of its people, the more certainly we imperil the dwindling hopes we have by breeding enduring resentments.

Mr. Turow is author, most recently, of the novella "Limitations" (Picador, 2006).

* * *

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public By Amit R. Paley Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

"Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq," he said.

Recent polls show many Iraqis in nearly every part of the country disagree.

"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report, titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas." The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, which was conducted over the first three days of September for WorldPublicOpinion.org, found that support among Sunni Muslims for a withdrawal of all U.S.-led forces within six months dropped to 57 percent in September from 83 percent in January.

[...]

The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal. Eight-five percent of Sunnis in that poll supported an immediate withdrawal, a number virtually unchanged in the past two years, except for the two months after the Samarra bombing, when the number fell to about 70 percent, the poll director said.

[...]



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list