michael perelman wrote: > > It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that > talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. The US has > created such turmoil that democracy at this time is probably impossible. From what I > understand -- and my understanding is limited -- a "democratic" outcome at this time > might be a Shi'ite theocracy. Another strongman might be able to institute some > stability, but a bloodless exit seems impossible at this time. > Of course, an exit is inevitable and the longer it is delayed the more blood will be > shed.
> No simplistic easy answers exist. Getting out is urgent. Look. The only questions we can legitimately ask and attempt to answer are questions as to the policy of the (still very small) anti-war movement. Any attempt by anyone on this list (or in any other left forum) to detail what the U.S. government should do (either now or next January 20) is, I think, in bad faith, though probably not consciously so. It is in bad faith because it implies that _our_ (leftists) opinion will have an immediate (i.e. in the next 12 months) effect on u.s. action. It won't. In that context, the question of what should be done can only refer to what the movement should do. And the answer to that question is simple: any claim that it is complex is avoiding the real issues. The answer is: U.S. Out of Iraq. Now. No Conditions. Any other demand is academic in the sense of _merely_ academic, having no linkage to human activity, and belongs in the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Carrol
