[Peace-discuss] Paleocons: Get out of Iraq

[Morton K.Brussel]

I agree with Carl that the analysis by Polk is cogent in the main. 
Folks can read the full article at:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_01_17/cover.html

I would only add to Polk's solution/recommendations that the U.S., if 
it would "pull out", should offer munificent aid to undo (some of) the 
destruction it has caused. Such reparations might help salve the 
feelings of the Iraqis toward each other and to the external world 
(U.N.), for which it now has contempt. Finally, to rely on the World 
Bank to help out seems naive, given how badly they have "helped out" in 
most devastated nations of the planet.

However, given the initial goals of our junta government, it is not 
clear that one can expect those who promoted the aggression for their 
self serving ends (oil strategy, Israel),  to enact such a "solution".  
mkb


On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:46 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>
> 	Tuesday, January 18, 2005
> 	Why We Shouldn't Stay the Course
>
> This American Conservative cover story by William Polk is one of the 
> most
> persuasive analyses I have ever seen of why the US should get out of 
> Iraq.
> Polk considers three options,
>
>     "The first option has been called 'staying the course.'  In
> practice, that means continued fighting. France 'stayed the course' in
> Algeria in the 1950s as America did in Vietnam in the 1960s and as the
> Israelis are now doing in occupied Palestine. It has never worked
> anywhere. In Algeria, the French employed over three times as many
> troops -- nearly half a million -- to fight roughly the same number of
> insurgents as America is now fighting in Iraq. They lost. America had 
> half
> a million soldiers in Vietnam and gave up. After four decades of 
> warfare
> against the Palestinians, the Israelis have achieved neither peace nor
> security....
>
>     "The second option is 'Vietnamization.'  In Vietnam, America
> inherited from the French both a government and a large army. What was
> needed, the Nixon administration proclaimed, was to train the army, 
> equip
> it, and then turn the war over to it. True, the army did not fight well
> nor did the government rule well, but they existed. In Iraq, America
> inherited neither a government nor an army. It is trying to create 
> both.
> Not surprisingly, the results are disappointing....
>
>     "The third option is to choose to get out rather than being forced.
> Time is a wasting asset; the longer the choice is put off, the harder 
> it
> will be to make. The steps required to implement this policy need not 
> be
> dramatic, but the process needs to be unambiguous. The initial steps 
> could
> be merely verbal: America would have to declare unequivocally that it 
> will
> give up its lock on the Iraqi economy, will cease to spend Iraqi 
> revenues
> as it chooses, and will allow Iraqi oil production to be governed by
> market forces rather than by an American monopoly.
>
>     "The second step, more difficult, is to make a truce and pull back 
> its
> forces. If President Bush could be as courageous as Gen. Charles de 
> Gaulle
> was in Algeria when he called for a 'peace of the brave,' fighting
> would quickly die down. This is not wishful thinking; it is what 
> happened
> time after time in guerrilla wars."
>
> Too bad we will now probably have to wait until after 2008, when 
> whoever
> becomes President then can say of his predecessor, "He screwed up big
> time." The current White House occupant has already declared the
> re-election absolves him of all previous sins and stupidities. Waiting 
> for
> "I screwed up" is Waiting for Godot.
>
> posted by John McCreery 8:51 PM Comments (2)
>
> <http://bestoftheblogs.com/2005_01_18_bestof.html#110610015422756323>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>