|
Some of you
may have read Henry Kissinger’s OpEd on an exit strategy from Iraq in the WaPo
recently. It compares the insurgency today to that of Vietnam, and skillfully
manages to avoid using the phrase “failed policy” or “declare victory and leave”. Lessons for an Exit
Strategy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101756.html A must read is Prof. Juan Cole’s Ten Things Congress Could Demand from Bush on Iraq,
where he argues that the US military is “keeping a lid on” what could be much
worse, a full fledged civil war we’ve seeded, not the subterranean version we
critics of the war see. Cole argues that an Iraqi civil war now could spread
regionally, kill a million, displace millions more, trigger global economic
collapse. A “short take” of Cole’s list of ten is: 1.
Remove U.S. troops from urban areas immediately and from the rest of
Iraq sometime after that. However, continue to offer close air support and
other limited military assistance to prevent large-scale civil war between
massed troops and to help ensure the stability of the elected government. 2. In return, demand some changes in Iraqi
law that would encourage stability, and participate in regular 6+2 meetings of
surrounding countries "to help put Iraq back on its feet through diplomacy
and multilateral aid." http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html Norm Soloman
argues another point of view, one the once-confident preemptive warriors and
the growing anti-Iraq war public should be honest about discussing. KwC Don't Give Bush An
Exit Strategy
Norman Solomon,
tompaine.com, August 22, 2005
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and
Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For excerpts and other information,
go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com The Bush administration may ratchet up the Iraq war. That might seem unlikely, even
farfetched. After all, the president is facing an upsurge of domestic
opposition to the war. Under such circumstances, why would he escalate it? A big ongoing factor is that George W. Bush and his top
aides seem to believe in red-white-and-blue violence with a fervor akin to
religiosity. For them, the Pentagon’s capacity to destroy is some kind of
sacrament. And even if more troops aren’t readily available for duty in Iraq,
huge supplies of aircraft and missiles are available to step up the killing
from the air. Back in the United States, while the growth of anti-war
sentiment is apparent, much of the criticism—especially what’s spotlighted in
news media—is based on distress
that American casualties are continuing without any semblance of victory. In effect, many commentators see the
problem as a grievous failure to kill enough of the bad guys in Iraq and
sufficiently intimidate the rest. For example, bypassing the euphemisms preferred by many
liberal pundits, George Will wrote in a Washington Post column
on April 7, 2004, that “every door American
troops crash through, every civilian bystander shot—there will be many—will
make matters worse, for a while. Nevertheless, the first task of the occupation
remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence.” A lot of what sounds like opposition to the war is more like
opposition to losing the war. Consider how Philadelphia Inquirer
columnist Trudy Rubin concluded a piece on Sunday that disparaged Bush and his
war policies. The column included eloquent, heartrending words from the mother
of a Marine Corps Reserve member who died in Iraq early this year. And yet, the
last quote from her was: “Tell us what it is going to take to win, Mr. Bush.”
In a tag line, the columnist described it as a question “we all need an answer
to.” But some questions are based on assumptions that should be
rejected—and “What is it going to take to win?” is one of them. In Iraq, the
U.S. occupation force can’t “win.” More importantly, it has no legitimate right
to try. While leveling harsh criticisms at the White House, many
critics fault Bush for the absence of victory on the horizon. A plaintive theme
has become familiar: The president deceived us before the invasion and has made
a botch of the war since then, so leadership that will turn this war around is
now desperately needed and long overdue. Some on Capitol Hill, like Democrat Joseph Biden and
Republican John McCain in the Senate, want more U.S. troops sent to Iraq.
Others have different messages. “We should start figuring out how we get out of
there,” Chuck Hagel said on Sunday. He lamented: “By any standard, when you
analyze two and a half years in Iraq ... we’re not winning.” But a tactical
departure motivated by alarm that “we’re not winning” is likely to be very slow
and very bloody. In the Democratic Party’s weekly radio address over the
weekend, former senator Max Cleland said that “it’s
time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out.” Cleland’s statement may have been focus-group tested, but it
amounts to another permutation of what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the
madness of militarism.” All the talk about the urgent need for a strategy to
win in Iraq amounts to approval for more U.S. leadership in mass slaughter. And
the United States government does not need a “strategy” to get out of Iraq any
more than a killer needs a strategy to stop killing. “It is time to stand back and look at where we are going,”
independent journalist I.F. Stone wrote. “And to take a good look at ourselves. A first
observation is that we can easily overestimate our national conscience. A major
part of the protest against the war springs simply from the fact that we are
losing it.” Those words appeared in mid-February 1968. American combat troops
remained in Vietnam for another five years. It matters why people are critical of the U.S. war effort in
Iraq. If the main objections stem from disappointment that American forces are
not winning, then the war makers in Washington retain the possibility of
creating the illusion that they may yet find ways to make the war right. Criticism of the war because it isn’t being won leaves the
door open for the Bush administration to sell the claim that—with enough
resolve and better military tactics—the war can be vindicated. It’s time to
close that door. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050822/dont_give_bush_an_exit_strategy.php |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
