On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Doug Henwood wrote:
> This is true, but I think a lot of people in the higher circles are coming
> around to the view that the Iraq disaster is harming the imperium.
I agree with this. But my strong impression is that the ruling class's current evolving consensus is for partial withdrawal -- that we should withdraw to the perimeter as it were, allowing the Iraq war to "burn itself out," while somehow walling it off and keeping it from spreading to the rest of the Middle East. They are not yet clear how, but the RC consensus so far seems to be that troops will probably be needed in some capacity for this mission. Hopefully fewer, and hopefully serving as a non-fighting deterrent force. But my strong impression is that the RC is pretty unified in thinking that it has a paramount interest in keeping this from spreading by any means necessary. And so long as they are fuzzy on the How, at least some substantial fraction of troops will stay somewhere nearby just in case -- because if they are all taken out, it will be virtually impossible to bring them back.
I think the clearest sign of this is that it still seems universally considered more "responsible" to temper one's enthusiasm for withdrawal. (The Dem proposals all partake of this tempering -- they are all responsible. Except for Kucinich's, which is the exception that proves the rule -- he and his proposal define "irresponsible.") And defining responsibility, setting the bounds of what can be considered "serious," is one of the main ways the RC exerts its molding force.
I think it's probably important to keep clear what seems to be the apparent distinction between the current RC consensus and the current national popular consensus. Both of them are way closer to the Exit, and to each other, than either is to the current policy of the administration. And they've both changed hugely in the last 4 years, and closer to the positions of the left. But I don't think they are the same, nor heading to the same place in the next 2 years.
I think the most interesting RC (aka establishment) thing I've read on this topic -- assuming Iraq is utterly lost, and arguing what to do next -- is the "Things Fall Apart" paper from the Saban Center of the Brookings Institute:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/sabancenter_hp.htm
It's a dauntingly long pdf (140 pages) but IMHO the novel and intelligent heart of it is 13 pages long, pp. 13-26 (going by the numbers at the bottom of the page; pp. 29-42 going by the pdf numbering).
I think what's interesting about this paper is how forcefully it makes the case for expecting this to spread. It seems clear they're damned afraid of this outcome and not because they're stupid. And its troop proposals, while vague and thinly supported, seem to me paradigmatic. They are literally for a withdrawal for to the perimeter -- to making the US the border patrol walling off the country.
BTW, for those who are interested in such things, the second half of this document consists of 5 case histories of civil wars and how they spread to the neighbors. IMHO the one on Lebanon is one of the clearest short expositions I've ever read of that very confusing war -- which is likely the the template currently foremost in the minds of leaders in the region. FWIW, it's also by far the most sympathetic analysis of Syria's role in the Lebanese civil war I've ever seen in an establishment document; they seem to have taken whole the central perspective from Patrick's Seale's _Assad_.) Anyway, it's on pp. 81-101 (pp 90-110 if using pdf numbering) and thus perfectly sized for the bathroom library.
Michael