Julio wrote: "Maybe you're right and Bush will be forced to pull the troops out of Iraq soon. But that would be a crushing and complete defeat of what has become the signature of his administration. That's why I cannot take for granted a *full* withdrawal. I just don't think we're at the tipping point yet. It's not only hubris clouding their judgment, their belief that -- given time -- Iraq can be "fixed." No. I think that they understand very well what's at stake. The consequences of reversing course and pulling the troops out are things they simply cannot contemplate. Those consequences are totally adverse to their interests and to those of their (ruling-class) constituents and can be very large in Iraq, internationally, and even at home. So I take seriously Bush's categorical statements a month or so ago: (quoting from memory) "We won't cut or run. We won't give in. We won't accept *anything less than full victory*." They dread the idea of reversing course, and for "good" reasons. So, up to that tipping point comes and the troops are fully pulled out, we ought to operate under the assumption that Bush means what he says.
"Unfortunately for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc. not everything in war and politics is PR. No matter how the White House, the establishment, the media, etc. may spin it, if they withdraw soon, it will be a resounding victory for the anti-war movement in the U.S. and abroad, and -- of course -- for the insurgents in Iraq. If with a huge occupying force things are not going well there, it's not hard to imagine what will happen without such force in situ. The least we can safely say is that things won't go in the direction Bush and friends want. And time is not on their side. Time is on our, the antiwar opposition's, side. So, I have no doubt we will win, but that's not here yet." -------------------------------------- I probably should have been more clear what I meant when I wrote: "The Bush administration will almost certainly announce a drawdown of US forces which may be sufficient to persuade the American people before the mid-term elections that it is intending to quit Iraq and bring the boys home." I'm not expecting anything like a full withdrawal by the Bush admin for the reasons you state but I do think it'll have to at least make a gesture at withdrawing some troops (a "drawdown") in order to blunt the mounting criticism of the war which is threatening the Republican control of Congress. Maybe I've overstated the difficulties this will cause for the antiwar movement, and that any such gesture will be seen by the public as too little, too late, and an admission of failure which will cause the knives to be drawn further. It's possible, and I hope that would be the result. I agree with you the US at some point will have to withdraw its forces from Iraq - it's taken for granted even by supporters of the war - and that this will be seen as a great victory by antiwar and antiimperialist forces in the US and abroad. The current debate within the ruling class, which is reflected in Congress, is whether that point has been reached. I don't think the Bush administration - as you suggest and as is often supposed on the left - is faithfully representing US ruling class opinion and interests in this adventure. You'll recall a substantial part of the US ruling class was opposed to the invasion from the beginning. Veterans of the Bush senior and Clinton administrations saw it as the reckless project of ideologues, and an even larger part of the ruling class has since become convinced the Scowcrofts and Brzezinskis were right. Iraq has, like Vietnam, become a quagmire which has weakened rather than strengthened the US's overall international position and led to a growing loss of confidence in US institutions at home. These concerns outweigh the temporary "loss of face" and weakened influence the US might experience as a result of a withdrawal. American policymakers and politicians had to weigh the same considerations in Vietnam - when Third World revolutions backed by powerful nation states like the USSR and China posed a greater strategic threat to US interests than militant Islam does today - and it still sued for peace in the Paris negotiations with the Vietnamese. Getting out of Iraq will be easier because it will be able to negotiate the modalities of a withdrawal with a "sovereign" Iraqi government seen, unlike the North Vietnamese and NLF, as an ally - even if the Iraq delegation is necessarily broadened to include representatives of the armed resistance. So a defeat could be disguised more easily. I don't think we've arrived at this point yet because there is not the same ruling class unanimity over withdrawal as there was when the US decided to quit Vietnam. The divisions over Iraq are still pretty much along party lines, although the independent and Republican base of support for the war is quickly eroding. The Democrats are pressing the administration to announce a withdrawal "plan" now and set in motion the US and UN mechanisms which would effect it over the next six months to a year. The administration is balking - not only because of partisan considerations and because it represents the most reactionary elite and popular forces in the country - but because it still clings by a thread to the belief that the insurgency can be contained and US power consolidated in Iraq after a new Iraqi government is elected. It will take still more US blood and treasure and evidence that the Republicans will be routed in next year's election before the administration in desperation tries to coopt the opposition by announcing a limited troop withdrawal. But my sense is things seem to be moving in that direction.
