Counter-factuals
The force of the Bush/Mc Cain/ neocon argument for a necessary "victory" in Iraq rests slightly on the percieved US national interest, slightly on the issue of future credibility and to a large degree on the emotional impact of a hypothetical "unimaginable bloodbath" if US forces were to withdraw. This has been effective in scaring democrats and others into their vague, non-committal stances but what is the factual basis of this "mass slaughter" argument?
Historical precedent has been used and abused by some victory-at-all-costs proponents. Some claim the US public is responsible for mass slaughter in SouthEast Asia following the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam. This line of reasoning suggests public pressure snatched US military defeat from "the jaws of victory" and that deaths in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam following withdrawal were directly attributable to that action. Both of these themes are pushed by the right-wing, which refuses to accept the fact that US foreign policy "experts" tragically mis-analyzed the social conditions of South East Asia. They are also both totally false.
Framed thus, it then becomes incumbent on proponents of withdrawal to "prove" that the action will NOT cause genocidal anarchy. And yet no such "proof" exists that it will, nor is it ever demanded. And if stability were to break out following a US withdrawal, that would be PROOF not only of the criminal nature of the current occupation but of the incredible intellectual poverty of the whole US foreign policy apparatus. The scare tactics used by "surgers" include "total regional war", creating a "base for alQaeda" and allowing the terrorists to "follow us home". Following their logic, any domestic act of terror, any terror cell discovered in the Middle East and any conflict in the region automatically was caused by US withdrawal. Yet any of those things happening while the US occupies Iraq only proves the need to escalate. The conundrum of illogical logic. I say the withdrawal and the transition to Shiite rule can be managed, although I can't prove it. Iran and the Muslim Caliphate can be contained. So can the US.
Labels: containment, Vietnam, withdrawal
posted by troutsky @ 7:20 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Following their logic, any domestic act of terror, any terror cell discovered in the Middle East and any conflict in the region automatically was caused by US withdrawal
That is a good point. I imagine, if we do finally pull out, knob jobs like Bill kristol and Joshua Muravchik will yammer on and on with this argument. i heard the latter on democracy now spouting that nonsense
It is a risk but also a moral obligation. I can't assure anyone there won't be increased violence following US withdrawal, but again, compared to what?
I believe once US intentions were made clear, those who felt endangered could be escorted out safely, those who risked staying could work out accomodations, a multi-national force could police and a lot of aid organizations could get back to work.Maybe Im wrong but somebody tell me why.
I think you're wrong on this one. Pulling out will cause the Iraqis to return to the status quo, fighting amongst themselves. Prior to our little invasion, it was only Saddam's despotism that kept everyone in line.
The only proof will come when we finally pull out. I can see your reluctance to trust people who have been wrong from the get go, but I still think that on this point they're correct.
Interestingly, Thomas Freidman suggests that the US should allow some of the Iraqis to come to the US to avoid the pending slaughter. As Vox Day pointed out in this week's column, it's ironic that the snookering of the conservative base will lead to thousands and thousands of Iraqis coming to the United States.
If the status quo is perpetual sectarian fighting, exacerbated now by revenge killing,the idea of a "cooling off" period seems fanciful.Maybe you can put children in a corner for an hour to get over a tantrum but do the Bush planners really think a forced calm (assuming you could achieve such a thing) and some political settlement will really end the fierce animosity? Do the Saudis believe this?
It is time to declare a winner and a loser and build a settlement on those grounds.Shiites will establish order and eliminate al Qaeda influence, Sadr will keep Iran at a reasonable difference, US does indeed end up with lots of new immigrants.US, Iran and Saudi Arabia need to start talks immediately.
Post a Comment
<< Home