IRAQ: To Leave or Not To Leave

[Less troops in this case can mean more war, more wanton killing, more slicing up whatever remains of civil society there might be in Iraq.]

Given that US/UK troops have done much more of all of these things than the resistance, and continues to do them, this isn't really true.

Anyway, this is just typical political masturbatory activity on the part of American liberals tied to the Democratic Party. It's more for domestic consumption, and has little to do with the reality of the occupation in all of its paradoxical horrors.

Or, perhaps, for those with more refined sensibilities, it might be better to describe Cooper and Corn's views as having an Alice in Wonderland quality.

Because, events both here and in Iraq are making their views irrelevant. Here, young people are voting with their feet, and refusing to enlist for their purported humanitarian enterprise. (Will Cooper and Corn support drafting them on the basis of "fairness"?)

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the government is going to go the way of the South Vietnamese government if it doesn't quickly begin to assert Iraqi sovereignty over its territory, its economy and its administrative apparatus (all currently controlled by the US), and the process may already be irreversible.

--Richard

expansion of Iraqi prison facilities planned:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901072_pf.html

of course, they are under the control of US troops, not Iraqis

and, in about a year, we can expect more Abu Ghraib type photographs to emerge to show what has been done to the detainees

--Richard

It's pretty fucking funny listening to liberals like Juan Cole and Marc Cooper take their cues from the Islamist Sistani.

Coles' reasoning is incoherent. On the one hand, he opposes a US withdrawal because he fears a Ba'athist take-over; on the other, he says he'd favor an immediate withdrawal if the Ba'athists' former army hadn't been disbanded.

Cooper likes to think an anti-war stance can be reconciled with support for the occupation, but actions speak louder than words. One can not simultaneously support a continued occupation without opposing the resistance to it. If he's interested in being coherent (not a given), he must condemn GI resistors and others who refuse to fight on behalf of the US ruling class.

I say Cooper should lose some weight and enlist.

aaron, I think that this is a little unfair to Cole

Cole has provided an analysis within the overall framework of the occupation and its evils, and speaks from a position of trying to protect Iraqis while extricating them from the grip of the US

you may not find it plausible, but Cooper has, I believe, quoted Cole for the purpose of supporting a continued US presence, shorn of Cole's criticism of the imperial excesses of the occupation, which serves the Democratic liberal purpose of retaining the fruits of the war (oil, bases and geopolitical dominance) in the guise of humanitarian concern

so, conflating Cole with Cooper is unfair to Cole, although it's understandable how people would be tempted to do this, given Cooper's constricted presentation of Cole's views

--Richard

Hear's the latest CounterPunch article on the above topic:

"Ain't But One Way Out"

by Michael Neumann

May 10,

http://counterpunch.org/

"The courage to be serious means the courage to make hard choices."

Why America Needs to be Defeated in Iraq

The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It’s an issue that has caused anti-war Leftist’s the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who’ve never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American “Exceptionalism”.

For myself, I can say without hesitation, that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21-year-old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.

As Americans we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.” [Emphasis mine]

The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a “duty” to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people. Violence is not the issue, but the justification for the use of violence. The overwhelming majority of the world’s people know that the war in Iraq was an “illegal” act (Kofi Annan) of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. A recent poll conducted in the Middle East (released by the Center for Strategic Studies) shows that “for more than 85% of the population in four of the five countries polled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) thought the US war on Iraq was an act of terrorism.” Lebanon polled at 64%. (Pepe Escobar, “It’s Terror When We Way So,” Asia Times, April 23, 2005) Terrorism or not, there’s no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.

The argument most commonly offered by anti-war Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn’t defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that “We can’t just leave them without security” creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.

At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power. (Bush acknowledged this himself when he ordered Syrian troops to leave Lebanon) The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington’s “demonstration elections.” This may not suit the members of the Bush administration, but it’s a first step in the long process of reintegrating and rebuilding the Iraqi state. There’s no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the passed two years. The Bush administration hasn’t shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we’re nowhere near that period yet.
Who’s Killing Whom?

It’s not the insurgency that’s killing American soldiers. It’s the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world’s remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harms way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would, trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed. American’s would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration’s hands not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Expect another dictator or Mullah

We shouldn’t expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war. Regardless, it is not the right of the US to pick-and-choose the leaders of foreign countries or to meddle in their internal politics. (The UN, as imperfect as it may be, is the proper venue for deciding how to affect the behavior of foreign dictators) At this point, we should be able to agree that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein in every quantifiable way than they are today. Even on a physical level, the availability of work, clean water, electricity, sewage control, medicine, gas and food were far superior to the present situation. On a deeper level, the insecurity from the sporadic violence, the increasing brutality, and the gross injustice of the occupation has turned Iraq into a prison-state, where the amenities of normal life are nowhere to be found.

Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq’s publicly owned industries, banks and resources) an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, “the return-in full force of Saddam’s Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services.” (Pepe Escobar, “The Shadow Iraqi Government,” Asia Times, April 21, 2005)

Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam? (Rumsfeld’s unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn’t tamper with his counterinsurgency operatives, most of who were formerly employed in Saddam’s secret police)

We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don’t realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself. The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect that if it weren’t for the resistance the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, anti-war advocates should carefully consider the implications of so-called “humanitarian” objectives designed to pacify the population. “Normalizing” aggression by ameliorating its symptoms is the greatest dilemma we collectively face.

We should be clear about our feelings about the war and the occupation. The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination, ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence. The toppling of foreign regimes and the destruction of entire civilizations cannot be justified in terms of “democracy” or any other cynically conjured-up ideal. The peace and security of the world’s people depends on the compliance of states with the clearly articulated standards of international law and the UN Charter. Both were deliberately violated by the invasion of Iraq. Crushing the insurgency will not absolve that illicit action; it will only increase the magnitude of the crime. Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat would serve as a powerful deterrent to future unprovoked conflicts and would deliver a serious blow to the belief that aggression is a viable expression of foreign policy.

...that was the former -- finally ousted -- old General Manager (or perhaps Program Director) that sided with the old stealth regime that tried to take-over Pacifica Radio, back during the 1999 Pacifica crisis, sell of KPFA, and turn the remaining stations into NPR?

(Unfortunately, some of the remnants of those old regime elements are still lurking around -- and/or are trying to re-insert themselves and their old policies back into -- KPFA and Pacifica Radio.)

the old ousted NPR-oriented General Manager (or perhaps Program Director) at Pacifica's LA station: KPFK.

Let's sum up the arguments:
Cooper: Occupation is better than the resistance.
RWF: The resistance is better than the occupation
Aaron: Unclear but seems to have something to do with some anarco-commie fantasy.
JA: Uncritical support for the Iraqi resistance including the worst elements of both Baathism and Wahabbism.

My understanding is that both the Army and the Marines are looking for folks endowed with IQ's in the dull-normal range.

They have this little war going on that you apparently support.

Just think: you'll get to fight on behalf of your most deeply held convictions and earn the affection of Marc Cooper and other leading thinkers of our day.

aaron--Lying gets you nowhere. Where did I say I support the war? Point it out brainiac.

And I'm sorry you're stuck in the cul de sac of irrelevant political thought-- last I checked the workers in Iraq weren't forming soviets-- I think the Iraqi working class keeps getting murdered by the "anti-imperialist resistance".

Oh yeah yesterday some of the "resistance" suicide bombers blew themselves up in a place where day laborers gather for jobs. 33 killed 70 wounded. But hey I'm sure JA will pop in here to let us know that these migrant workers were collaborators.
Here's the story.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8457394

And by the way if you haven't noticed the "resistance" isn't mainly targeting American troops they're attacking other Iraqis in hopes of provoking a sectarian civil war than would surely be bloodier than the current bloody mess.

Black And White And Full Of Crap

Lies Run Big, Facts Small in U.S. Media

05/11/05 "uExpress" - - NEW YORK--One year ago the American media was pushing the Pat Tillman story with the heavy rotation normally reserved for living celebs like Michael Jackson. Tillman, the former NFL player who turned down a multi-million dollar football contract to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a centerpiece of the right's Hamas-style death cult when he lost his life in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan. To supporters of the wars and to many football fans, Tillman embodied ideals of self-sacrifice and post-9/11 butt-kicking in a hard-bodied shell of chisel-chinned masculinity on steroids.

Tillman's quintessential nobility, we were told, was borne out by the story of his death--a tale that earned him a posthumous Silver Star. Whether you were for or against Bush's wars, Americans were told, Tillman's valor showed why you should support the troops. Young men were encouraged to emulate his praiseworthy example.

Several thousand mourners gathered at Tillman's May 3, 2004 memorial service to hear marquee names including Arizona Senator John McCain called upon all Americans to "be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf." "Tillman died trying to save fellow members of the 75th Ranger Regiment caught in a crush of enemy fire," the Arizona Republic quoted a fellow soldier addressing the crowd. Tillman, said his friend and comrade-at-arms, had told his fellow soldiers "to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy" to draw enemy fire away from another U.S. platoon trapped in an ambush. "He directly saved their lives with those moves. Pat sacrificed his life so that others could live." It was, as the Washington Post wrote, a "storybook personal narrative"--one recounted on hundreds of front pages and network newscasts.

It was also a lie.

As sharp-eyed readers learned a few months ago from single-paragraph articles buried deep inside their newspapers, Pat Tillman died pointlessly, a hapless victim of "friendly fire" who never got the chance to choose between bravery and cowardice. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Washington Post now reports that Pentagon and White House officials knew the truth "within days" after his April 22, 2004 shooting by fellow Army Rangers but "decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after" the nationally televised martyr-a-thon.

It gets worse. So desperate were the military brass to carry off their propaganda coup that they lied to Tillman's brother, a fellow soldier who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident, about how he died. Writing in an army report, Brigadier General Gary Jones admits that the official cover-up even included "the destruction of evidence": the army burned Tillman's Ranger uniform and body armor to hide the fact that he had died in a hail of American bullets, fired by troops who had "lost situational awareness to the point they had no idea where they were."

"We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened," one soldier told Jones. A perfect summary of the war on terrorism.

The weapons of mass destruction turned out to be a figment of Donald Rumsfeld's imagination. The Thanksgiving turkey Bush presented to the troops turned out to be plastic, as much of a staged photo op as the gloriously iconic and phony toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad by jubilant Iraqi civilians--well, actually a few dozen marines and CIA-financed operatives. So many of the Administration's "triumphs" have been exposed as frauds that one has to wonder whether that was really Saddam in the spider hole.

We shouldn't blame the White House for producing lies; that's what politicians do. But we expect better from the media who disseminate them.

Case study: the Washington Post's dutiful transcription of the Jessica Lynch hoax. Played up on page one and running on for thousands of words, the fanciful Pentagon version had the pilot from West Virginia emptying her clip before finally succumbing to a gunshot wound (and possible rape) by evil Iraqi ambushers, then freed from her tormentors at a heavily-guarded POW hospital.

Like the Pat Tillman story, it was pure fiction. Private Lynch, neither shot nor sexually violated, said she was injured when her vehicle crashed. She never got off a shot because her gun jammed. As she told reporters who were willing to listen, her Iraqi doctors and nurses had given her excellent care. She credited them for saving her life. In a weird sort of prequel to the shooting of an Italian journalist, they had even attempted to turn her over at a U.S. checkpoint but were forced to flee when American troops fired at them.

In all of these examples, editors and producers played corrective follow-up stories with far less fanfare than the original, incorrect ones. To paraphrase "X-Files" character Fox Mulder, the truth is in there--in the paper, on TV. It's just really, really hard to find.

Readers of the American press and viewers of American radio and television are likelier to see and believe loudly repeated lies over occasionally whispered truths told once or twice. As a result of the reverse imbalance between fact and fiction, the propaganda versions of the Tillman and Lynch stories, the staged Saddam statue footage, and the claim that Iraq had WMDs are all believed by a misled citizenry that votes accordingly.

For journalists supposedly dedicated to uncovering the truth and informing the public, this is exactly the opposite of how things ought to be. Corrections and exposés should always run bigger, longer and more often than initial, discredited stories.

FOLLOW-UP: Readers who contacted their elected representatives in response to my column two weeks ago about the two 16-year-old Muslim girls detained by Homeland Security because one wrote an essay about suicide bombings (she was against them) have gotten results. Such pressure has prompted the feds to release the girl from Guinea, who has returned to her high school in New York City. But Bush Administration officials have decided to orphan her by deporting her father. The other girl, from Bangladesh, is also being released from prison but HomeSec plans to deport her along with her entire family. While the two girls' release obviously belies the government's claims that they are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States," your letters and phone calls to your Congressperson and/or Senator could help reverse these continuing acts of injustice.

<<aaron--Lying gets you nowhere. Where did I say I support the war? Point it out brainiac.>>

I said you *apparently* support the war.

As I have made clear, I believe those who oppose withdrawing American troops from Iraq *effectively* support the war, regardless what their view of the invasion was in March 2003. The thrust of your comments on this board lead me to believe you think the net impact of the US presence at this point is positive. This view is a baby-step away from supporting a continued occupation.

Nobody is stopping you from clarifying whether you support withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

As to your lame-brained line about soviets having not been established in Iraq--as if pointing that out undermines *anything* I've ever said regarding effective opposition to capital's wars--I must say I wonder whether you'd support them if they were. If you want to debate these matters, come up with something of substance (if you're able).

Apropro to workers councils, here's a recent David Bacon interview of a union leader in southern Iraq who opposes the "terrorists" and the occupation. Note that unlike you he doesn't treat all violent opposition as monolithic.

http://www.mltoday.com/Pages/Labor/Bacon-OilWorker.html

Aaron-- Actually I thought the Bacon interview was pretty interesting, If a significant section of Iraqi workers truely support the immediate withdrawel of US troops I 100% support that. However I have a few doubts. Clearly the Kurds don't support an immediate withdrawel. While I agree that the vast majority of Sunnis and Shiites want the US out-- I'm a not sure that they mean right now. Clearly Sistani is the most popular Shiite in Iraq and he hasn't called for immediate withdrawel-- though that doesn't mean we should necessarily support him. I'm opened minded on this point so any relevant information is appreciated.

I think your formulation of who in effect supports the war is too simplistic-- the logical conclusion of your thinking is that Sistani in effect supports the Occupation.

My criticisms of violence in Iraq aren't monothical. Their quite specific. I oppose the violence by the US military and also the intentional killing of Iraqis civilians by the "resistance". If I overstated my case its just a reaction to JA's ignorant formulations.

So now you clarify. Also if the US left immediately do you think Iraq would plunge into civil war with the possibilities of another Kurdish genocide. Be specific.

[So now you clarify. Also if the US left immediately do you think Iraq would plunge into civil war with the possibilities of another Kurdish genocide. Be specific.}

I'm not convinced that the immediate departure of the US will determine if a civil war breaks out, except that, if pressed, I would consider it a positive, because the US has played a prominent role in fomenting ethnic and religious unrest, through such actions as using the pershmerga in Falluja and arming militias independent of the government

In other words, the departure of the US would remove one of the elements that intensify the conflict, and increase the likelihood of a civil war along ethnic and religoius lines, but, ultimately, the Iraqis will determine whether it happens or not, based upon their domestic politics

In any event, the concept that the US is preventing it from happening doesn't look very credible to me.

Strangely enough, it appears that neither Zarqawi or the US like the Shia very much. Zarqawi attacks Shia under the pretext of an insurgency, and the US arms militias that support Allawi to destabilize the government, because of fears that the Shia will dominate it

Indeed, if a civil war breaks out, it may very well by triggered by armed combat between government forces and the Allawi militias, the very same ones armed by the US

along these lines, last year, Rahul Mahajan wrote very insightfully about how a colonial occupier creates the conditions of domestic conflict to justify their continued presence in the country, as the British did in India, for example.

As for the "Kurdish genocide", first of all, such a reference reflects the regrettable tendency to consider any substantial loss of life by a group as a "genocide", and, in this instance, there has been no genocide of Kurds anymore than there has been a genocide of Palestinians.

And, the Kurds seem to be doing pretty well for themselves right now, they control Kirkuk, and, if the Arabs and Turkomen there are to be believed, they are the ones engaging in intimidation and possible ethnic cleansing there.

Anyway, my understanding is that Turkey has brutalized the Kurds over the years far more harshly than Iraq ever did, killing and torturing a lot more people, with US weapons and financial support, and yet, this goes unremarked in the US media.

It's an important issue, because even now, there are reports that Turkey remains extremely displeased with the power of the Kurds in Iraq, and they are still threatening military action if they believe that Iraq is serving as a haven for Kurdish rebels.

So, the most immediate threat to the Kurds may lie elsewhere.

And, naturally, you aren't going to see people like David Corn and Marc Cooper write about any of this, because it would undermine their dogmatic effort to describe the occupation as a regrettable necessity to restore social order, a view that I personally believe is driven by their desire to persuade liberals and leftists to accept the Democratic Party's rock solid support for the occupation.

For more on the "civil society" that Cooper believes that the occupation is preserving, see the following:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481

It reads very much what like the US has achieved in the other countries around the world through the neo-liberal globalization process, in countries like Argentina, Ecuador, Indonesia and the Phillippines

Could it be that the Iraqis understand that this is what the US wants to impose upon them?

As for the labor issues raised, the US has no interested in Iraqis having labor rights, as they continue to enforce Saddam era restrictions on labor actions.

Furthermore, as I said about a week ago here, I can very easily see the US accepting a conservative Islamic regime that supports the US, permits permanent military bases, agrees to sell oil freely to the US and allows US companies to develop new supplies there, while prohibiting secular labor organizations and labor activities as being contrary to the Koran. Sounds a lot better than Venezuela, doesn't it?

--Richard

If all outside pressure from the US, Turkey, Iran, etc.. disappeared there wouldnt be a civil war but Iraq would break up with some conflict.

The majority Shia are upset that the Kurds have a veto in the government and as was seen in the last election an overwhelming majority of Kurds want a seperate state. If US and Turkish pressure ended both Shia and Kurds would most likley agree on a split where Kurdistan would become a seperate country. Kirkuk could be an issue but that's really a conflict between Turkmen and Kurds so while there could be some fighting it wouldnt be the civil war that's always talked about (because the Turkmen are such a small minority overall it would be a very localized conflict).

In terms of Shia vs Sunni conflicts its hard to know whats real. The most powerful Sunni group (the AMS) seems to get along pretty well with the most militant Shia grouping (those backing Sadr) so it seems unlikely that there would be much conflict between any large groups in central and S Iraq. If the US pulled out as things are there would most likely be some fighting until a less proUS government took form but betwen Sistani, Sadr and the Sunni militias it seems doubtful that any opposition would be able to continue once the militias took over as the police and army and anger over the occupation came to an end. I guess there could be issues with exBaath military being worried about getting punished by a Shia dominated state but the proBaath groups dont have much real support outside of their stance on US occipation, so once the US leaves their attacks would lose enough popular support they wouldnt be able to continue operating.

The US occupation creates instability in a way that essentially is delaying the real negotiations that need to take place in the country. The negotiations in the government have not been allowed to serve this purpose due to underrepresentation of Sunnis and US pressure. The clearest example of how US pressure has caused the government to look different from how it would be if it was allowed to take its course on its own is the choice of Chalabi to be in the government. Chalabi is the most hated person in Iraq (with polling showing strong dislike for him even more than strong dislike for Saddam) and his choice is solely a result of US intervention.

The other night ABC News reported on the aftermath of a suicide bombing that happened near an all-girls school in Baghdad. In addition to killing the intended target, several girls were injured and killed. The ABC News reporter interviewed girls from the school and found that all blamed the US for the carnage and said that the constant bombings would end if the US left their country.

This isn't the only time I've heard Iraqi's respond to the terrorists' mayhem in this way.

The obvious retort to this view is that the US shouldn't leave simply because it has incited the "evil ones" to do their evil deeds. The problem with this retort is that it works only if one believes a priori that the Americans are the "good guys," occupying Iraq in a disinterested quest to bring justice and freedom to it. But this isn't what the Americans are in Iraq for; you know it, and I know it.

I'm opposed to continued US presence in Iraq because the US is there to hand it over to American corporations, build forward bases, and prop up the US ruling class in the global system. The fact that the US' presence triggers (and metes out) far more violence than it contains only fortifies my opposition.

I truly believe that the wahabbist/jihadis would be marginalized pretty fast if and when the US leaves. On the one hand, they would be deprived of their number one US recruiting tool (the US presence), so many would stop the battle and others who might be brought along wouldn't be. On the other, I believe many Iraqi's who today sympathize with the "terrorists" and/or hesitate to combat them (by whatever means) would be far more likely to oppose them. This is important in a war like the one now being waged.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

To Richard:

You may be right that Cooper is quoting Cole opportunistically, but that doesn't change the fact that Cole is on record saying that he'd be for a US withdrawal if the Iraqi army hadn't been disbanded (this as the US is busy setting up a 5,000-strong El Salvador-style commando led by former Baathists!)....

Iraq's Political Transition
http://www.cfr.org/pub8090/qubad_talabani/iraqs_political_transition.php

IRAQ: Cabinet Ministers
http://www.cfr.org/pub8061/background_question_and_answer/iraq_cabinet_ministers.php

Power-Sharing in Iraq
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=8033

The Future of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4645834

interesting reading:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=5940

perhaps, the civil war is going to break out in a completely unanticipated way, with the US at the center of it

--Richard

Aaron-- you sound pretty confident that Iraq wouln't descend further into chaos if the US left immediately. Honestly I'm not sure. I believe Sisanti hasn't called for immediate withdrawel of the US because he can't take on the Iraqi resistance, yet. I might be wrong but your reasoning needs to explain Sistani's position. Why doesn't Sistani just tell the US to get the fuck out and reassert Iraqi soverignty right now? If he did, it would massively bolster the "Out Now" position.

Over 50% of America thinks that Iraq war was a bad idea. Yet the anti-war movement if anything is shrinking here in the US. If the "Out Now" position is correct why does it have so little traction with the anti-war majority of this country? Her I think Cooper raises a point. Most Americans don't want to leave Iraqis to have to face the Baathists and the Wahabbists alone. Yes I agree with you, aaron, that the American ruling class has absolutely no humanitarian aims. I think if you want to bring american people to your "out Now" position, flippant know-it-all responses just make you look like another dogmatic hard leftist that ordinary Americans just ignore.

"I believe Sisanti hasn't called for immediate withdrawel of the US because he can't take on the Iraqi resistance, yet."

Even though a civil war is unlikely whatever comes next in Iraq (whether the US stays or not) wont be pleasant and anyone in charge wont be remembered will by history. Sistani is cautious and figures that if the US is forced to leave by others and there is violence he wont get blamed and if the US stays and there is resistance but he doesnt support teh US occupation he wont gt blamed. Sistani isnt even from Iraq (hes Iranian) and had few supporters before a few years ago (and not just because of Saddam's repression); he has gained a lot by letting others fight while he appears to not say anything for religious reasons when in reality its just political posturing. Aside from the violence I dont think Sistani would want to get blamed for the loss of Kirkuk and a good portion of Iraqi oil which is the inevitable result if the US left now (the Kurds forming their own state with Kirkuk as capital). His best bet is to either hope that things stabilize and then call for a US withdraw after many of the major issues in the country are dealt with, or to let Sadr and the AMS force a US withdraw and take the flack for the division of the country whil he keeps his distance from possible blame.

The funny part about The Great And Powerful Sistani is that he is part traditional leader and part hukster who wont appear in public or make major speechs for the same reasons the wizard wouldnt in the Wizard of OZ. His site ( http://www.sistani.org/ ) looks a little too much like that of a new age guru to take him too seriously. Could you see the Vatican having pages devoted to whether anal intercourse between married couples is allowed (
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=38&page=1
) how chess is not allowed (http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=129&page=1) how masturbation is not allowed but hand jobs are ( http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=34&page=1 ) how temporary marriages are allowed ( http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=93&page=1 ) and how oral sex is allowed as long as nobody swallows ( http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=135&page=1 ). You may think I took those links out of context but most of the Q&A stuff on Sistanis site is like that. His own biography on his own site ( http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=1∂=1 ) talks of "His Scientific Genius". This stuff is as riciculous to Iraqis as to American readers and Sadr is a little more in touch with public opinion and less like an Iraqi version of L Ron Hubbard. Sistani mainly has power since people are religious and nobody has bothered listening to him yet (since he is so reclusive). One sure way to keep ones mystique is to never say anything, never take any political stands and let people make up myths about you. Perhaps Sistani cant ask the US to leave because there isnt really much to Sistani and he cant reveal that.

"All Alcoholic liquors and beverages which intoxicate a person, are najis and on the basis of recommended precaution, everything which is originally liquid and intoxicates a person, is najis. Hence narcotics, like, opium and hemp, which are not li quid originally, are Pak, even when a liquid is added to them."
What about LSD or things that existed at one point in liquid form before being transferred to paper?

"If dates, currants and raisins, and their juice ferment, they are Pak and it is halal to eat them."
So date wine is ok? That seems like a big loophole.

http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=3&part=1

Back to the Occupation. Sistani has said:
"107. An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards th e holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such.
As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. Ho wever, it is better to avoid them."
So that kinda says that since US troops are almost all Najis interaction with them is forbidden?