Bush says he favors democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Bushspeak means an Iraqi government favorable to US corporate interests.

Pouring money down the Iraq rathole weakens the US economy and strenghtens conservatives who wish to slash spending for social needs.

Why should liberals support a policy which strenghtens conservatives and US corporate interests?

I agree that it poses a real dilemma and that a democratic system in Iraq would be swell, but one of the major reasons I opposed the invasion in the first place was because the gang who couldn't shoot straight was inevitably going to fuck it up in the long run. Like every other project they started (Afghanistan, getting bin Laden dead or alive, stem cell research, $15 billion in AIDS money to Africa, Enron/corporate reform, etc. etc.), Bush/Cheney et al. were bound to half-ass Iraq, because they simply aren't competent people. So the question is: do we leave our troops to be picked off one-by-one in Iraq, with little or no hope of democratic reformation thanks to our moronic civilian leadership, or do we pull up stakes and cut our losses? While I appreciate the moral force of "you broke it, you bought it," I honestly wonder whether we and the Iraqi people wouldn't be better off with us just getting the hell out, particularly since there are at least fifteen months of Bush left.

I was talking with some friends about this over the weekend. One of the big reasons for opposing the war was that a reasonable exit strategy, once committed, doesn't exist. There's no "what do we do next?" which is just.

That's still true -- a magic route out of Bush's mess hasn't materialized yet. He's dug us in that badly by setting up a situation in which we're doomed to fail, and many of us on the anti-war side were arguing specifically against that.

As you say, the question is "what do we do now?" The only reasonable solution, as I see it, is to get the U.N. to set up Iraq as a sovereign nation (not the U.S. doing it) and then replace U.S. troops first with an international body and then with the Iraqi army. Unfortunately we can't do this quickly, no matter how much I dislike the whole occupation -- but we definitely can't afford to put things off as we have been doing. Down that path leads the Israel/Palestine conflict.

We can bring the troops home by helping to restore Iraqi control over their country -- but I agree that it should not be our main goal. We have to deal with the fact that our country committed an awful act against another nation, and now we've made ourselves responsible for them until we get the hell out. We owe it to the people of Iraq.

--Kynn

PS: "Iraqi oil for the Iraqi poor" is bad because it plays into the "Iraq will rebuild itself without help from us" notion. We caused the damage -- the loser should not be paying for their own reconstruction, let alone paying reparations to the victor.

PS: Plus, you know, the anti-war movement has EARNED the right to say "I told you so!" since we were right. Yeah, that's not immediately productive, but it needs to be acknowledged: WE WERE RIGHT, BUSH WAS WRONG, THIS WAR WAS WRONG.

While I do want the people of Iraq to live in a prosperous and free country where basic human rights are respected, the means the U.S. has used in Iraq up to this point in time is making it difficult for that end to happen. While I know it wouldn't have happened on its own as long as Saddam Hussein maintained his hold on power, I think the Bush administration was woefully ignorant regarding the task of bringing Iraqi democracy to fruition. The U.S. can not simply create a new Iraqi Constitution by fiat acting through the current provisional government, because this will not be seen as legitimate by the people of Iraq.

I don't know what else would work but the U.S. needs to find it, and soon.

I respectfully disagree,
You can't impose democracy...self-determination... on another country. It's illogical and unreasonable to believe that you can.

The good-intentions gambit was essential in masking the not-so-good-intentions of the principal actors, and is therefore not praiseworthy. It was too good to be true.

I believe that we should pull out our troops. They're undermanned and they're increasingly marginalized by the guerilla attacks they're suffering. Worse, they're worse than ineffective because of their propensity for shooting Iraqis willy-nilly.

If anything, the money now going towards maintaining our unsustainable military presence in Iraq would be better used funding whatever government the Iraqis cobbled together for themselves.

You have made the clear case for war from a liberal perspective: "but the desire for the Iraqi people to have a real democracy and human rights is an admirable one." It's a sentiment expressed in what's a fairly well-established "democracy by the sword" school of interventionist liberals. In fact, the whole last episode of the "West Wing" explored it.

To the degree that this view expresses the sentiment that democracy anywhere is good everywehre, I think most liberals will agree. Ironically, though, I think we starry-eyed anti-war types have a clearer vision of global realpolitik. Because, if you make the case that it's appropriate to invade solely on moral grounds, you've committed yourself to two things: a foreign policy based not on national interest but global democracy; an untenable agenda of trying to root out oppression, perhaps unilaterally, wherever you find it. For if the justification is moral, you can't avoid situations like Liberia based on strategic grounds. It's one or the other.

More, I think you have to ask the question of whether 1) democracy by the sword is the most effective approach, and 2) whether other US policies--like the market colonialism we establish after invasion--actually undermine nascent democracies. This was was based on contradictory and false rationales, and the goals were as confused; there was not hope for anything other than a quagmire.

(I should say I agree that we have to keep the troops there now. No matter how faulty or dishonest the rationale to get into Iraq, it's obviously immoral to leave without supporting the Iraqis first.)

I think that the argument against immediate withdrawal has 2 problems.

1) It presumes that it is possible or likely for conditions to improve while the US occupies Iraq. I think this would be unlikely even if the current regime were not in charge in Washington. I think we must recognize that conditions are going to deteriorate no matter what the US does now. If we get out of the way, perhaps the UN can reduce the harm.

2) The burden of our occupation is not being borne equally or fairly in our country. The composition of the armed services is not particularly representative of the US by race or class or probably any other measure you can imagine. Many of these people, especially those in the National Guard and the Reserves, did not enlist with this kind of committment in mind. (The following observation is not original) Arguing against bringing the troops home is reminiscent of Lord Farquaad (voice of John Lithgow) in Shrek: “Some of you are going to die, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.” Until those arguing against withdrawal pony up by enlisting and volunteering to go to Iraq...

My fear is that when we go, we'll do it quickly. Cheney and Rumsfeld should be fired if not indicted and Bush should be impeached, but if anyone is going to be get stuck with the bill, it should be us. The UN should lead, and we should follow, with $87 billion and our tails between our legs.
Many Americans may decide it's better just to cut and run. But in their ignorance they caused this mess, and they should pay for it.
And don't alk to me about Florida.

American troops will build support for
democracy in Iraq the same way Soviet
troops built support for socialism in
Afghanistan.

i think it is high time that "liberal hawks" admit that the world is not their moral playground in which they can self-referentially position themselves as amongst the righteous. this whole iraq war project, which began with an incessant drum beat from the establishment media about two years ago- (remember how war was already inevitable because saddam made it so?)- had a large component of stink to it from the beginning
and now has degenerated into an orgy of skunks.
the drastic mistakes that the bushies have made in post-war "planning", beginning with the thoughtless dissolution of the entire iraqi army, has already rendered the project largely irrecuperable- (y'all should check out the blog of steve gilliard for a suitably bitter and pessimistic take on the situation)-, and with each further step, they seem to be bent on worsening the situation. (did y'all see the recent pronouncements on behalf of the i.g.c. at the i.m.f. conference in dubai concerning the program of economic reform/privatization? this will make shock therapy in russia look like a stroll in the park!) one should take account of the coalition behind this project in evaluating its nature: goyish ultraconservative corporate/militarist hardliners, neo-conservative likudniks, and rightwing christian fundamentalist, whose "christian zionism" stems not just from a bizarre theology, but also from an identification with narrow, reactionary, ethnocentric, nationalist militarism. one can hardly expect any hermeneutic sensitivity, or even
just amenability to rational argument, from such economic/ideological fundamentalists. this was an anti-arab/ anti-muslim crusade from its inception and the object of "regime change" in iraq was to transform the whole middle east, very much as ariel sharon had "transformed" lebanon. (by the way, an implicit premise of those pushing this project, never spoken, but clearly stoking their eagerness, was that the saddam hussein regime was so rotted out that it would collapse easily, which, indeed, seems to have been the case. but if so, would there not have been other policy options for removing him from power? it was a state terrorist regime, modelled explicitly on stalin, and god-awful, but such terrorism is an "emergency" measure that must erode generationally as the need for normalization arises. remember khruschev?)
at any rate, the solution/way out of this mess must involve not just internationalization, but also arabization in some fair measure, for maintaining order with an army that can not communicate with the population is an impossble task- (remember about a year ago, how army intelligence had discharged some arab language specialist, when there was an acute shortage of such, because they were gay?)- and the only way for an interim government, leading to a new constitutional regime, to succeed is for it to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the iraqi people.
of course, the bushies will never agree to this, for it would amount to eating crow about the whole project, which we know they never do, since even when they admit to their own lies, they lie about admitting. (we can now all look forward to bush's eloquent speech at the u.n.) most of all, for the reconstruction of iraq, a "neutral" authority, not tied to profiteering u.s. multinationals, is needed, since native iraqi resources must be engaged- (at least 60% unemployment and iraq has the highest level of phd.'s per capita of any arab nation)- if it is to be effective and enduring as well as cost-effective. (to give an idea of the magnitude of the task, the damage from the first gulf was is estimated at $100 billion and from the 12 years of sanctions at $150 billion, in an economy with a gdp potential of perhaps $40 to $50 billion per year).
finally, in response to emma, it is a mistake, in my view, to dichotomously oppose "strategic" and "moral" considerations in foreign policy. to be sure, moral considerations are only a component part of political judgments and this is a forteriori the case in international relations.(anyone who wishes for a purely moral politics is indulging in a metephysical fantasy of a world without power, whereas power is necessarily generated from the collective condition of human existence.) moral considerations must be tightly reined in in assessing foreign policy situations and dilemmas, but eliminating them from consideration will likely produce even worse policy blunders, let alone morally intolerable burdens. the failure to intervene in ruanda lead fairly directly to the catastrophic situation in the congo now, and a similar argument can be made for the case in liberia now. of course, this is not an american burden/obligation alone, but rather amounts to advocating a robust regime of democratic multilateralism, which, of course, is another thing the bushies seek to undermine. just as much as one should avoid kissingerian brutal real politik reductionism, one should avoid crusading "idealistic" moralism, as a self-idealising belief in the collective virtue of the nation is not only more of a hope than a fact, but its self-referentiality is liable to blind to a real appreciation of the facts in the outside world. call this doctrine, if you will "wilsonian cynicism".

nathan,

i must also respectfully disagree. not the part about wanting the people of iraq to live in a prosperous and free country where basic human rights are respected - of course i agree with you there. i just think that ending the occupation gives the iraqis a better chance for genuine democracy and self-determination. i don't think there is ANY chance of iraq's oil wealth being used for the benefit of iraq's citizen's so long as US national and corporate interests are calling the shots.

i also think that the occupation is significantly increasing the risk of terrorist attacks against US citizens.

and that's not even taking into account the lives lost and money wasted (most of it is going to military expenses - not iraq reconstruction).

i think the occupation is bad for america and bad for iraq. that doesn't mean i think it would be all roses if we would withdraw... but i do think it would be best.

maybe i'm wrong... but, if you think so - please try to convince me instead of just telling me i am wrong and i don't care about what happens to iraq.

nathan,

If democracy for Iraqis is the goal, then getting US troops out and replaced with UN troops is no doubt needed. But the point is to change the rhetoric of the antiwar movement away from easy chauvinism and isolationism.

thank you for the clarification. i still think that the best way to get UN troops and UN control in iraq is to pressure US gov. to get US troops out. but, you've convinced me that i need to make a new sign for the tuesday peace vigil. yeah, i confess, my current sign is a variant of "bring them home". maybe i'm just too tired to see straight, let alone think straight... but, at the moment, i can't think of a short phrase to do the job... any suggestions? in any event, i'll give it some serious thought.

How about this?

Democracy for Iraq,
Truth for Americans

US Troops Out,
United Nations In

Iraq for the Iraqis
US is Not an Empire

nathan,

ah, 2 phrases! i'll need to make a bigger sign... ;-)

thanks for the suggestions. i like them all, especially the third one.

Nathan,

You touch here, eloquently, on something I've been bashing on about for months. As far as I was concerned, a case for war could be made, but if we were going in, we needed to be prepared to rebuild, in fact, to make Iraq a paradise. That's the only way we can achieve our greater goals internationally; make it clear that we aren't profiting off the war, but are putting our money (and the Army Corps of Engineers) where our principles are.

Of course, Our Only President did not make that case, nor does he appear to have any interest in either rebuilding Iraq or achieving international goals. That doesn't let the rest of America off the hook. We went in, whether we ought to have or not, and now we have to clean up the mess we made. It isn't even about democracy, necessarily, it's about water and roads and rails.

Just my opinion,
-Vardibidian.

What is missing from all of this is the actual French position as they themslves have said it. So far, Americans have only heard the translations provided by the bleeting sheep that we call our free press.

Powell has charactatured the French position as an immediate turnover of political autonomy to the Iraqis themselves. They never suggested this. They floated the idea of this tranfer in a month, but quickly backed off to three months, clearly indicating that they were quite willing to negotiate this specific timeline.

What our media has not reported is the rest of the French position, and in interviews Chiac has quite clearly spelled this out: Military control of Iraq was not an issue. The US would retain that, and would be the leader of any multilateral forces assembled. This is not now in the debate, and France has never suggested that it should be. Our administration's portrayal of the French position as such is simply a media event, meant totally for the American audience.

In fact, the French proposal allows all military authority for Iraq to remain within our jurisdiction there. It simply says (and I agree) that to make the Iraqi governing council (appointed by us) independent of Bremer's veto would send a major signal to the Iraq population that our stated goals were in fact our real intentions. While we would still provide the muscle (and leadership behind that muscle), the Iraqis would begin to see our presense as merely a police force to be replaced by their own until theirs came into function.

Could that work? Who could tell? But it is clear that what we are doing now is not, and the (real) French proposal has deinite merits.

I agree with the French suggestion, but I do no think the Bushies want to relenquish power over the oil like that. I know that people are not supposed to say this - for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist - but if you read the PNAC documents, it was clear that Iraq's oil was to be used as a political wedge. They want to make sure that America controls that oil - if it ever starts flowing to any appreciable degree. They will not relenquish control of it.

Oil is the only asset that Iraq has - and America will not cede control to European outsiders. The open market for investment in Iraq that was recently proposed was simply a concilatory gesture - a PR scam about creating democratic markets.

We need to get the notion that this war was about Iraqi Democracy out of our heads. This war was not about WMDs, Democracy, or a humanitarian need to free people from a dictator. This war was about strategic control of oil - and Europe knows it. Do you think they really want to bail us out? They can wait around a few years while we flail loudly - then pick up the pieces at a cheap price when we bug out.

The worst part about all of this is that it was SO utterly predictable. Why the supporters of this war could not see the obvious is beyind me.

Not only is "Bring the Troops Home" merely a "morally chauvinist slogan", the fact that the debate is framed in this country as to whether $87 billion is too much to shouldn't we get the Iraqi's and other countries to pony up some of the rebuilding costs, reveals more about the miserly attitude of Americans (and Europeans), and the impoverishment of the left (US & Int'l). Shouldn't someone TAKE A RISK and propose something like $500 Billion over the next 10 years (maybe 15?) to make sure Iraq comes out alright? Why not a real Marshall Plan in the Middle East? I think a future prosperous Arab nation that becomes an interantional model citizen like, say the Germans, would be a great thing.
Rob Grocholski, San Pedro, CA.

...oh, and a PS to Scott Fanetti...(poster #18)
actually I think the oil really is worth fighting for.
Rob Grocholski, San Pedro, CA

Grocholski,

So do I. I just think they did a really half-assed job of planning and executing the whol operation. If you knew their history, you could see it coming.