[Peace-discuss] rumors (response to Mark Bee)

Fri Nov 14 12:13:18 CST 2003

Randall Cotton wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at uiuc.edu>
>Cc: <Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] rumors
>
>
>  
>
>>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?
>>    
>>
>
>Dude, you've been watching *way* too much Fox News or something.
>
>No one knows what would happen in Iraq if the U.S. began gradually pulling out
>troops and ceding power to UN-led peacekeeping efforts and leaders recognized
>by Iraqis (as opposed to U.S.-friendly puppets).
>

   Well now, I might know, or I might not, and either way, it's not the 
same list.  I don't find any of that stuff in the question I was 
responding to.  See for yourself; it's, like, 10 lines ago.

   Reading the rest of this response below, it rather seems that since I 
didn't state my own druthers, a status-quo position has been created for 
me in order to have something to attack.  What I advocate, as if anyone 
wants to hear my personal preferences, is that we turn almost all power 
over to the UN immediately, with *great* fanfare, help plan the 
transition in good faith, and specifically *not* turn tail and run until 
they/we're planted solidly enough to police the place until free 
elections can be run and the new Iraqi administration can cement the 
loyalty of their army.  In other words, probably be out next summer at 
the very earliest.  More likely next winter.  Sucks, eh?  One saving 
grace is that we should be able to reduce our presence at almost, though 
not quite, the same rate at which the UN takes position.

   Of course, whether we'll have to wait for an asteroid strike on DC 
before any of this happens is a side issue.  =)

   "Just pull out - why not?" was the question I was answering.  Should 
I disregard the rest of this response?  I do hate to let that utterly 
illogical WMD comparison slide.  You know, the one followed by the 
chicken-little-logic comment.  -cmb

p.s.  Still interested in what folks think will happen if we "just pull 
out".  Even more interested, of course, if anyone knows for sure that 
any particular item in my list of possibilities can't happen.  Or 
rather, knows for sure enough to roll the dice with that many innocent 
lives, none of which are ours.

> No one can say what internal
>Iraqi violence (or lack thereof) would result. Why are you assuming such a
>disastrous scenario? What is your basis for this?
>
>Apparently your logic is: Iraq might be taken over by warlords and might be
>invaded by other countries, Iraq might fall into unrestrained civil war and it
>might turn into a humanitarian disaster. Therefore, we must continue to rule
>the entire country by military force. Never mind that our presence has created
>50,000 resistance fighters and that this will only increase (as per the
>Baghdad CIA report leaked yesterday). Just imagine what might happen if we
>didn't stay!
>
>This kind of argument based on hypothetical apocalypse seems familiar - where
>have I heard it before? Let me see - oh yes, I remember now - Iraq might have
>horrible weapons of mass destruction and they might have close ties with
>Al-Qaeda and they might then give those weapons to Al-Qaeda and the next thing
>you know we'll have a mushroom cloud somewhere in the U.S. so we must invade
>and occupy Iraq! Never mind that we'll kill, maim, terrorize and impoverish
>untold thousands of completely innocent people in the process. Just imagine
>what might happen if we didn't invade!
>
>Your argument is precisely the kind of flawed chicken-little logic that got us
>into this mess in the first place.
>
>Of course, we'll never know what would have happened if we pulled out
>gracefully, ceding power to Iraqi-recognized leaders and the UN. It seems to
>me that the current administration would never have allowed it and never will.
>I think they've totally locked in now and will never back out. They can't -
>with all the tough talk so far about "staying the course" and "pulling out
>would mean the 'terrorists' win" and so forth, they would lose such face with
>their remaining supporters, for one thing, they could never hope to win in
>2004. From this point on, unless the resistance miraculously melts away,
>pulling out would be seen as saying "we were wrong". What are the odds of our
>macho Neanderthal president doing that?
>
>So the pattern is set. Increasing resistance responded to by bigger and bigger
>"Iron Hammers", which only alienate Iraqis further, causing even greater
>resistance. Violence begetting more violence (as it always tends to do) in a
>vicious cycle. Ultimately, this path will only lead to greater and greater
>chaos and instabity in Iraq until it gets so bad that US troops will have to
>pull out anyway. Then, since we stayed for so long and fostered so much
>violence, the chances of civil war, balkanization or foreign invasion of Iraq
>will be that much greater.
>
>This whole thing was a monumental clusterfuck from the day we set foot in Iraq
>and if we continue on the current course, I don't think we've seen the half of
>it yet. Things are bad enough as it is. Given our current administration, the
>longer we stay, the worse it will get. Given our current administration,
>whatever good we have done or will do in Iraq is far outweighed by the bad. I
>suspect that even pulling out immediately, leaving a power vaccuum, might even
>be better than "staying the course", which can only lead to much worse in my
>view (namely an extended period of ever-spiraling violence, followed by a
>power vaccuum).
>
>I also think that whatever "window" we might have had to salvage the situation
>after the initial invasion is gone. I've felt it was closing fast recently and
>when I saw the Al-Jazeera story today with the photos of U.S. soldiers tying
>up women and small children in their own home, that pretty much sealed it. Now
>maybe those photos were fabricated or something, but if after more than six
>months of occupation we're still tying up little kids, the "window" is closed
>and the blinds are shut. Those photos, which will be seen by perhaps millions
>of already angry Arabs and Muslims, might as well have had a caption under
>them saying "GAME OVER".
>
>R
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>