"The Withdrawal of Foreign Troops is the Only Solution: The Media-hyped Fiction of a Handover of Power in Iraq is designed for US Voters"

My preference used to be for 1) multinationalization of the occupation force, starting with a steep scaling back of American presence, 2)the setting of firm dates for U.N.-monitored elections and foreign troop withdrawal, 3)economic aid, including forgiving of debts, and technology transfer from countries perceived as having no economic or political takeover intentions.

Unfortunately, the situation has degraded to the point that this solution--which would have been workable as late as June--will probably fail. The resistance we are seeing now is exactly that: resistance. Not terrorism, not civil war (though that's certainly on the menu now). The leadership at one flashpoint (Najaf) happens to be a young firebrand Shi'ite cleric, and theocratic ambitions may be partially motivating him. The resistance however, is pervasive and popular. Whatever its scale, one thing is for certain: there are no Iraqis on the Americans' side. Which is completely unsurprising.

"The Withdrawal of Foreign Troops is the Only Solution: The Media-hyped Fiction of a Handover of Power in Iraq is designed for US Voters"

My preference used to be for 1) multinationalization of the occupation force, starting with a steep scaling back of American presence, 2)the setting of firm dates for U.N.-monitored elections and foreign troop withdrawal, 3)economic aid, including forgiving of debts, and technology transfer from countries perceived as having no economic or political takeover intentions.

Unfortunately, the situation has degraded to the point that this solution--which would have been workable as late as June--will probably fail. The resistance we are seeing now is exactly that: resistance. Not terrorism, not civil war (though that's certainly on the menu now). The leadership at one flashpoint (Najaf) happens to be a young firebrand Shi'ite cleric, and theocratic ambitions may be partially motivating him. The resistance however, is pervasive and popular. Whatever its scale, one thing is for certain: there are no Iraqis on the Americans' side. Which is completely unsurprising.

So let's do a quick recap. Iraq was unilaterally invaded and occupied by the United States despite opposition from the international community as well as a sizable chunk of the population. Iraqis were assured that this was necessary because Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and OK, he actually didn't but he was killing y'all so we had to take him out. (This from the same cadre of people that bitterly opposed and punished then-president Clinton for going into the Balkans to stop a genocide.) As for taking out Saddam to stop the killing, the argument grows weaker by the day as the Iraqi body count (steadfastly uncompiled and ignored by the U.S.) reaches past the 37 thousand mark. Add to that the widely-known fact that the U.S. leadership is dominated by dispensationalist Christians who use unfortunate words like "Crusade", blatant civil rights violations and hate crimes against Arabs in the U.S. and the Abu Ghraib snapshots-from-hell, and what inescapable conclusion can we draw?

The U.S. cannot do any good in Iraq. Not now, not through troops, and certainly not through a puppet government. The U.S. has such a massive credibility deficit in Iraq that there is nothing it can do to fix what it broke. Oddly enought, there is such a burning desire by a majority of Iraqis to see the U.S. leave that it can probably cut a simple exchange deal: We'll pack up and leave if all parties concerned will agree to work towards a U.N.-monitored election at a set date. After that, it's up to the elected Iraqi leadership and the international community to incubate a stable, democratic and hopefully secular Iraq. It's not going to be cheap or easy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: