"Unrealizable" in the present circumstances, for sure, Carrol, so long as the US thinks it stll has a chance of building an effective puppet army to help it crush the resistance, and knows that an invitation to have the UN come in would be interpreted worldwide as a serious defeat. But if things continue to deteriorate and US casualties rise, it's not inconceivable that the US would quietly admit defeat and publicly support a UN "interim peacekeeping force" to enable it to withdraw its forces, while trying to save face by claiming victory at the same time. More likely in this situation, though, it would simply help cobble together a broad "national unity" government incorporating the dissident Islamist and nationalist resistance forces, and accept the new goverment's request that it withdraw, without any need for UN troops, which would only draw further attention to the US humiliation. The anti-occupation forces would enter the government on condition of a US withdrawal and in the confidence they would quickly come to dominate the state after elections. Both the resistance forces and the Americans, each in their own way, know this stage hasn't yet been reached. It doesn't matter, IMO, whether Kerry or Bush is in the White House to preside over this withdrawal if it comes to that. But I do think Kerry, if he wins, will probably be more inclined to move faster because he'll think his election will have given him that mandate. All this is predicated, of course, on the US being unable to crush the resistance, and fairly quickly, which is by no means a settled matter.
I wouldn't presume to involve myself in your internal antiwar movement debate, of which I know very little. Whether the demand for UN troops is a politically more acceptable way of calling for US withdrawal -- or whether it is a unrealistic perspective which obscures and weakens the effort to bring the troops home now -- is something for you to hash out. I know a UN force was never a serious option for Vietnam, though you probably recall that some - I think SANE and others -- called for it at the time. Ultimately it will be for the anti-occupation Iraqis to decide what form a US retreat should take, and for us to respect their choice. Marv Gandall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Najaf > Marvin Gandall wrote: > > > > A spokesman for Al Sadr meanwhile told Agence France Presse > > early today that UN troops should be brought into Iraq to replace US forces, > > an unrealizable demand indicating the Mehdi Army is anticipating a fight. > > Debate on demands of the anti-war movement has been frequently disrupted > by the inability of too many leftists to acknowledge that UN involvement > is an _unrealizable_ demand. The _only_ rational demand is immediate US > withdrawal without conditions. > > Al Sadr has, I believe, made this suggestion before, but it has always > been obvious that it could not be a serious proposal. It is becoming > increasingly obvious that the only military strategy which could > maintain the U.S. in Iraq is that of "We had to destroy the > [village/city/nation] to save it." And as the account Marvin attaches > note, that is not a politically possible strategy in Iraq. > > Leftists who look for complicated "solutions" to propose will look > increasingly foolish over the next several years. > > Bring the troops home now! > > Demand that now, and then we can boast in a few years of how prescient > we were, after all the complicated solutions turn out to be only > face-saving methods of disguising a u.s. retreat in disgrace. > > Carrol >
