|
the trash "refutation" of the op posted by ustwo is not even logical--all it does is to repeat the main arguments of what it tries to crituqe in a snide manner and ends up by smearing the author. way to go: i'd expect nothing different or better from the right.
it seems to me, though, that lebell's interpretation is more interesting and raises some interesting binds/problems: i am short of time right now, so will only point out one of them--it seems to me that the argument you advance, lebell, amounts to a constant possible defense of any military action that finds itself in a parallel circumstance---the americans find themselves caught in a vicious circle, in which their attempts to squash an insuency legitimates and extends the reach of that insurgency. your argument simply repeats the character of that vicious circle and draws a logical conclusion from it: that american military credibility is at stake in this, no matter how self-defeating the situation may in fact be, and for that reason--and that reason alone--the mlitary should remain involved/enmeshed/entrapped.
this is a difficult problem. i do not see any elegant solution to it, short of a concerted effort on the part of the u.s. to internationalize the reconstruction, concede that it is hopelessly caught in occupation mode, and to withdraw as the transnational reconstruction effort gets put into place. sadly, this administration seems too arrogant--and too much a victim of its own ridiculous policies--to manage this change in its thinking, and so this circular situation is the one it faces.
two problems:
1. the political questions around this war are not a function of the military situation itself, but rather a function of the fact that the war was launched under false pretenses. given that, it appears to me that arguments for continued military engagement are motivated primarily by the administration's collective desire to avoid the political consequences of lying to itself, to the american people and to the international community about the reasons for war itself. as such, the real argument behind sustained military involvement come down to damage control: teh bush administration is willing to continue to sacrifice the lives of americans, of its meager pool of allies, and of the iraqi people in the interests of its own political survival. eXcellent, isnt it, this situation george w bush and company have created for all of us?
on the other hand, taken on its own terms, i think the article cited in the op is pollyana in its assessment of the situation in iraq: i do not think that everything will right itself immediately upon the american withdrawal---this seems to me little more than an inversion of the horseshit that wolfowitz peddled about the invasion. this war has created a real mess. it seems to me that unless the americans do something to shift the reconstruction away from its control, the mess will only get worse. there is no easy way out.
on the other hand, to worry about damage to credibility is to assume that the bush administration has credibility to be damaged. on questions pertaining to the war in iraq, i dont see that as a going concern--such credibility as the administration enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 internationally was blown to hell by its "case" for war.
either way, in the context of this fiasco, many many people will die and will in all likelihood continue to die based on political calculations that have almost nothing to do wth assessments of the military situation and everything to do with political survival for this administration domestically.
it is a debacle of the highest order
perhaps withdrawal in fairly short order is the only way to staunch the damage this war has done and is doing to the united states, but the withdrawal is going to be really ugly because of the policy orientation of this administration and for no other reason. but perhaps there is no other way to deal with such an unparalleled situation (well, since the spanish-american war and vietnam)---the bush squad would have to be prepared to therafter assume the full political consequences of the war it launched--which would lead to the total implosion of itself and the politics for which it stands. the way to repair this damage is not to kill more people as a function of dwelling on the circularity of the military sitation in iraq, but to get rid of the bush administration, replace it with a saner one that would necessarily have to repudiate everything about bushworld as a preliminary step to the longer-term process of restoring american credibility internationally.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|