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

[Ricky Baldwin]

Actually, I think "what happens if we just pull out"
is only half the question here, the other half being
"what happens if we stay?"  To really be rational
about this, we have to compare at least these two
scenarios, possibly with some third option of leaving
the UN in charge.  (I'd argue that this third
collapses into the second.)

So: what happens if we stay?  Without getting overly
descriptive, I think we do pretty much know that. 
It's been happening since March: escalating violence,
directed at US troops, Iraqi civilian 'collaborators'
like the police we trained, and international
institutions (UN, Red Cross, etc.)  

We don't really know what would happen if we pulled
out -- Chas. 'Mark' Bee's crystal ball notwithstanding
-- but I think it's fair to assume that some of this
violence would actually taper off fairly quickly. 
Why?  Quite simply for the lack of targets.  No US
troops to shoot at, no new 'collaborators' being
trained, and if the international institutions leave,
too... well, you get the picture. 

There may of course, be some nasty 'settling of
debts', as there was in France & Italy among other
places in the wake of the fascists' demise, and we
should never condone or excuse such brutality, but it
is not the USA's place to police Iraq.  (We have to
note what a piss-poor job of it we are doing, by the
way.)  This brings up another question, implied I
think by Carl's allegory: "what RIGHT have we to
stay?"

Liberals keep asking what right we have to leave --
possibly none, because ethically we probably have very
few rights in the instant matter, given that we
created and/or contributed heavily to this mess many
times over the last 20 years -- and positing our
responsibility to stay.  But what I think few people
are asking is the reverse: not only what right have we
to stay, but what responsibility we have to get out
and how quickly!

And I think Carl's parallel is a pretty good one,
actually.  I think that many Americans assume the
Iraqis can't possibly govern themselves, perhaps in
the back of our minds for racist reasons, perhaps for
more liberal-Leninist reasons like "they have no
experience with democracy."  Well, where do you get
this experience?  By living under a foreign occupation
or their appointed puppets?  I believe it was Thomas
Payne, yes of the American Revolution (etc.), who
famously pointed out how people 'learn' to govern
themselves: by doing it.

If we really support democracy, self-rule, autonomy,
etc., then our only option is to get out now.  Of
course, if we instead support paternalism, imperialism
and world domination by US and allied elites, then it
makes more sense to "stay the course."

Ricky


--- "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree