I was surprised to find that at the end of the current semi-popular economics magazine CHALLENGE, there is a short note "from the publisher," Mike Sharpe. (I thought his name was Myron.) He's arguing that the US should get out of Iraq: "I wonder why a single woman, Cindy Sheehan, must bear the brunt of the anti-war movement without any help from American political leaders."
Sharpe has always been some sort of liberal or social democrat. The limits of his perspective show: "The only bargaining power left to the United States [given the conditions limned in the previous paragraph, the three-way geographic split in Iraq] is to get some concessions in return for reparations and leaving Iraq." It's unclear to me who would be paying reparations here: Iraq or the US? (Since the US is losing, it would pay reparations?) It's clearer what he means by concessions: "equality for women, acceptance of the Sunni area as an autonomous region, and per capita distribution of [ownership of?] oil reserves." Sharpe should know that equality for women is something that can't be imposed by an outside power using high-tech weaponry. The other two concessions don't seem likely either. If the US is pulling out, how does it impose this solution? In any case, the Bushwhackers aren't going to listen to Sharpe. More realistic is A.K. Gupta's article, "New Exit Strategy for Iraq: Civil War" in the current Z MAGAZINE (vol. 18, no. 9). He says what's going on is a US-sponsored Civil War, in effect that the US wants Iraq to split. Though a lot of his analysis is spot-on, I think that the US elite would rather have Iraq stay together. But since it's falling apart, they'll take advantage of it. As long as the US elite gets control over oil and crucial military bases, the splitting of Iraq would be a "second best solution." Issues of equality for women are irrelevant to the Bushies. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
