[Peace-discuss] rumors

[C. G. Estabrook]

Mark, what would we say to someone who argued, in the midst of the Second
World War, that Germany couldn't just pull out its occupying armies from
France and eastern Europe, and Japan couldn't just withdraw from China and
southeast Asia, because "chaos would result" (or "50,000 more civilian
deaths in the next six months")?

We'd probably suspect them of being disingenuous, because the argument is
obviously ludicrous.  It's therefore all the more remarkable that people
who are not being disingenuous are making a precisely parallel argument
about the US in Iraq.

I suggest that the American army of occupation should do just what the
German and Japanese armies of occupation should have done in 1944: Get
out. (And while we're at it, we should insist that our chief client's army
of occupation do the same thing.) 

Regards, Carl


On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:

> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> >There may have been a decision that the current situation can't go
> >on, and the only thing to do is escalate, because (as our liberal
> >Democratic candidate for Congress said the other night), "We can't
> >just pull out."  Why not?  --CGE
> 
>     I dunno, maybe fifty thousand more civilian deaths in the next 6
> months?  I keep hearing people voice this desire, but so far I haven't
> really followed the reasoning, number-of-dead-kids-wise.  So to avoid
> raising folks' hackles with a bunch of ill-informed armchair
> preaching, I propose a thought experiment.  Let's say all the troops
> were pulled out in a timely fashion, starting now.  I'm interested in
> what folks here think would happen to the Iraqi civilians next.
> 
>    Here's my own personal, sketchy, not-quite-worst-case timeline,
> just off the top of my head so you know where I'm coming from (lucky
> you, eh?):
> 
>    24 hours:  Attempted lockdown of roads leading to large tracts of
> Iraq by 'warlords' (actually, whoever has the weapons); seizure and/or
> looting of foodstuffs and medical supplies, closure of (and later,
> possible siege of) many hospitals.  Possible move for reinstatement of
> economic sanctions by US or UN.
> 
>    48 hours:  Establishment of first local Sharia courts; persecution,
> torture, execution of collaborators begins.  Formation of local
> militias.  Surge in vigilate activity among populace.
> 
>    72-96 hours: Troop movements in Iran and Syria, possible
> experimental border incursions, don't know what Kurds and Turks would
> do, but whatever it is, they'd probably be cranking up by this time as
> well.  Starvation, dehydration and cholera deaths begin to rise,
> medical care becoming nearly unobtainable.
> 
>    1-3 weeks:  Individual members of US-selected Iraqi council, 'new
> police', and other collaborators run to ground and executed.  
> Religious police, 'official' and/or self-appointed, appear on
> streetcorners and etc.  Surge in civilian deaths from disease.
> 
>    1-3 months:  Some sort of influx of troops from Iran, disguised as
> civilians or no; clashes with 'warlords' and/or any possible attempts
> to set up UN presence.  Terrorism exports begin/increase.
> 
>    3-6 months:  Establishment of religious patriarchy with attendant
> mass executions, or civil war, or border war.  Carnage continues.  
> Possible balkanization of Iraq, or ongoing theatre-wide religious
> conflict.
> 
>    I don't think I can express my fears for the Iraqi people much
> better than that.  And all that assumes Saddam is dead.  So yeah, I'd
> think an estimate of 50k civilian deaths might be very conservative.
> 
>    But I'm not married to this scenario, except as things to consider.  
> So, what do those folks here who argue for immediate withdrawal
> believe would happen?  Remember, the UN doesn't currently have enough
> equipment or personnel commitments to hold the whole country, IIRC,
> and if they did it would probably take 3-6 months to get them in
> there...  -cmb
> 
> p.s.  Carl, your comments didn't read as sarcastic to me.  Just my 2c.
>