[Peace-discuss] "Exit strategy" smokescreen

[C. G. Estabrook]

[This comment about Iraq three years ago seem to me to apply today to 
Afghanistan.  It's one war, the Long War, for control of the Mideast. --CGE]

Comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq are misleading.  In Vietnam, Washington 
planners could fulfill their primary war aims by destroying the virus and 
inoculating the region, then withdrawing, leaving the wreckage to enjoy its 
sovereignty.  The situation in Iraq is radically different.  Iraq cannot be 
destroyed and abandoned.  It is too valuable, and authentic sovereignty and even 
limited democracy would be too dangerous to be easily accepted.  If at all 
possible, Iraq must be kept under control, if not in the manner anticipated by 
Bush planners, at least somehow.  For the same reasons, the many proposals for 
an "exit strategy" are quite odd. Planners surely do not need the advice.  They 
can figure out these simple exit strategies for themselves. And no doubt hey 
want to withdraw -- but only once an obedient client state is firmly in place, 
the general preference of conquerors, leaving just military bases for future 
contingencies.

In discussing these matters, it is important to bear in mind some fundamental 
principles.  Crucially, occupying armies have no rights, only responsibilities. 
  Their primary responsibility is to withdraw as quickly and expeditiously as 
possible, in a manner to be determined primarily by the occupied population. 
Unless there is strong popular support for their presence, they have no right to 
remain.  If these principles are not observed, proposals for an "exit strategy" 
are more a reflection of imperial will than an expression of concern for the 
victims.