![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
The Case for Withdrawal -- Nir Rosen
With the speech and the new impetus towards withdrawal from Iraq from several quarters, I think it's appropriate to consider the arguments in favor of speedy withdrawal, both from the U.S. and from the Iraqi perspective.
Nir Rosen is an American-Israeli (born in NYC, grew up in Israel, speaks Arabic), was an embedded freelance reporter in Iraq and Afghanistan, also lived in Mogadishu, and is a fellow with the New America Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan Washington think tank. He has written many articles about Middle East culture and politics (New Yorker, New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, Asia Times), and just wrote a short, informal piece for the current Atlantic magazine that outlines his argument for withdrawal from Iraq. Because he is dark-complexioned and speaks Arabic, he was trusted and was allowed access to many places and people that other reporters could not experience during his 15 months in Iraq, including the insurgency in Fallujah. Here are his main arguments: --Al Qaeda is an insignificant presence in Iraq. --The U.S. military is not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, they are fighting Iraqis, the very people they intended to liberate. This is not a "war on terror" at all; it's a war against an Iraqi insurgency that would dissolve if the U.S. withdrew. --The purpose of the insurgency is to fight the U.S. occupation. The targets are American soldiers and any Iraqis that collaborate with the Americans. --The main obstacle to recognition of and respect towards the current government in Iraq is the U.S. presence. Withdrawal would allow negotiations to proceed freely without negotiators branded as quislings of the U.S. occupation. [Note: this is also a major point of John Murtha's speech.] --Escalation of the current civil war is a possibility, but the sooner the U.S. leaves the less likely this is going to happen, because the core impetus of the current civil war is the U.S. presence. The longer the U.S. stays, the more the current civil war will escalate. Those are the main points, there are many details in his article (quoted below) worth reading. I'm personally interested in hearing any counter arguments, especially from people who have lived in Iraq, speak the language, or are as familiar with the culture as Rosen. But of course everybody is welcome to discuss the article and its thesis ![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) | ||
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
![]() I am not qualified to refute point to counter point, nor am I interested to google points and counter points. So in this case I will in fact attack the source, since I view the source as reliable and clear thinking as the left would view Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
These are interesting points. While i'm not fully convinced of his arguements he does raise some good questions. I have long believed that occupation leads to insurgancy and for every insurgent the US kills 5 more are created.
So how can the US pull out of Iraq without the risk of a civil war? I propose a stagged withdraw but not the type you are thinking. Stage one, hand over cities to local authorities, maintain military bases in the rural areas outside of the cities. The US does not enter the city unless violence errupts within the city that the local authorites cannot deal with. When a city seems to be able to patrole itself then redirect the troops near that city to problem areas. Eventually this will either work and most or all cities will gain sovernty and the US will be able to start withdrawing troups or it will fail and the US can quickly take recontrol because its troups are still in close proximity. Kurds deserve their own nation in my opinion and I think forcing them to be part of Iraq is only going to cause problems now and in the future. I don't really care what Turkey thinks, it is not its nation and if it wants to invade a soveregn nation then it better be ready for other countries to stand up against it. The US cannot win this war! This war can only be won by the Iraqis and as long as this war is the US against Iraqis we will loose it. We have removed Saddam from power, wasn't that our goal? We should not be afraid of a Muslim state and we should instead embrace them and make sure they know that we are not the enemy. A peaceful muslim society is better than a nation in chaos and war within its own boarders. As long as they maintain human rights we should not worry about them being a muslim nation. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
As Ustwo pointed out, the greater reality is that Americans are targets because of their support of Israel.
We KNOW from their own literature that many radicals believe we are paper tigers; bloody our noses enough and we will run. And they have been right up until now. This is not how you want to be perceived. The other troubling point is that the radicals attack those Iraqis that cooperate with us. In otherwords, anyone who disagrees with them is a viable target. IMO, this is another reason not to cut and run.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 (permalink) | |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Quote:
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
Quote:
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
There is a difference between dissent and treason. Some people are walking a dangerous line, that is close to mirroring what people did in Vietnam; providing aid and comfort to an enemy while we have troops on the ground in harms way.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
"Treason" or "Dissent" is a worthy discussion if you make clear your position and defend it. I honestly don't know where you are going with this line of thinking. You bring Viet Nam into the equation, but the comparisons to Iraq are usually poo-poo'd by those that support the Iraq war. Please tell me you aren't basing you opinion on what a silly, Hollywood actress said in the '70's? Publicity stunts didn't hurt our ground forces in Viet Nam, but our government certainly did. Mojo, please be more explicit about what you are charging here. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Nowhere
|
There was a story today on the NYTimes about how the US military is buying propaganda articles in the Iraqi press, and paying Iraqi journalists to write pro-US stories. I think that is very messed up, and shows, among other things, how desperate it has gotten in Iraq to change the direction things are going...
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 (permalink) | ||||
Born Against
|
Quote:
No matter when we withdraw the “radicals” will interpret that as a humiliating defeat. So we might as well do what’s in our best interests, and in the best interests of the Iraqis. Quote:
Quote:
But if Rosen is correct, then we can’t really wait three years for the next president. We need something substantial and valuable right now to offer the Sunnis that will provide an incentive to become a cooperative participant in the process. What they demand is withdrawal. Maybe though they will accept something less than that, something that we can afford. Whatever it is (and Bush rhetoric isn’t going to cut it with anybody anymore) it needs to be soon. Quote:
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#15 (permalink) | |
is awesome!
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Tags |
case, nir, rosen, withdrawal |
|
|