Post by Moses on Jan 22, 2006 13:00:51 GMT -5
Iraq: "Stay the Course" or "Get Out Now"
Erik Leaver is the Outreach director for Foreign Policy in Focus, which originally published this piece, excerpted below.
Won't a US withdrawal mean violence and civil war?
The US occupation isn't bringing security to Iraq. It is a source of insecurity. US military actions are responsible for most of the Iraqis killed and wounded since the US invasion. The armed resistance is a direct result of the US presence.
Iraqis, like people everywhere, do not want to live under foreign occupation. Yet the Bush administration refuses to commit to any "exit strategy" whatsoever. Instead it is constructing permanent military bases and refuses to say that US troops will ever completely withdraw. This is a recipe for never-ending violence, not stability.
The divisions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims and between Arabs and Kurds are not being lessened by military occupation. Leaders in all of these communities condemn sectarian violence and inter-ethnic strife. But they cannot successfully negotiate their differences as long as the US holds ultimate power.
But didn't the Iraqi election mean that the US is bringing democracy to Iraq?
In national elections, Iraqis took the valiant step of voting in order to change the course of events. While the jubilation in the streets was very real, it masked another reality -- exit polls indicated that more than two-thirds of the Shi'ites wanted US forces out of Iraq either immediately or once the elected government is in place.
The country is on the brink of ripping apart over a constitution process that was designed by the United States. Far too little attention has been given to creating space for a national dialogue and far too much focus has been on politics at the national level. And there has been little input from Iraqi citizens in the process and far too much influence by the US.
Plus, the new Iraqi government doesn't really hold power in its own country. One hundred laws put in place by former US administrator Paul Bremer are still in force and Iraqis have little say over US troops and operations. Iraqis want democracy and self-determination. Neither exists under occupation.
Still, doesn't the US have an obligation to stay and help the Iraqi people?
The US has both a moral and legal responsibility to help reconstruct Iraq. But continuing military occupation prevents rather than helps fulfill this obligation.
Most Iraqis - and most people in the world -- believe that George Bush is more interested in controlling Iraqi oil than helping Iraqis. [No, most see it correctly as a war for military control of the ME on behalf of Israel-- oil is secondary or gets in the way] The indefinite presence of US troops reinforces this belief. So does the fact that only a small proportion of the money allotted to reconstruction has been spent - while US companies like Halliburton and Bechtel make millions.
The Iraqi people are capable of rebuilding their country. The US should supply funds and expertise if requested. But control must be in the hands of the Iraqis.
Won't getting out of Iraq bring an increase in terrorism?
A new report by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank found that the majority of foreign fighters are not former terrorists and instead became radicalized by the war itself -- a troubling statistic given that the Bush administration's goal for the war is to stem future terrorism. The CIA-affiliated National Intelligence Council declares that, "Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalized' terrorists."
Data collected by the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center confirms this analysis. The number of "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004 reached 655, three times the previous record of 175 in 2003. Terrorist incidents inside Iraq also increased by a factor of nine -- from 22 attacks in 2003 to 198 in 2004.
The longer the US occupies Iraq, the more resentment builds against the US, increasing the danger of terrorism. The best way to reduce this danger is to get out now.
Won't announcing a withdrawal undermine and demoralize US troops?
Attacks on US troops in Iraq average several hundred each week. Frightened young GI's are shooting first, asking questions later. The best way to support the troops is to get them out of a situation where they are killing and being killed for no good reason. Iraq Veterans Against the War says: "We, the veterans of the war, now know…the reasons for invading the sovereign country of Iraq were false, and we have paid a heavy price for these lies….We call upon our President, the Congress, and all elected officials to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all US troops from Iraq and the Middle East."
Won't setting a timetable for withdrawal allow resistance fighters to "wait it out"?
Setting a time and date for withdrawal to start will likely decrease much of the strength of the resistance. The resistance is comprised of more than 40 different groups -- many of them united only by the US presence and occupation. By removing their chief recruiting tool, the occupation, most will be weakened. Foreign fighters, numbering no more than a few thousand, and a handful of hard core Baathist groups will remain, but as they are increasingly isolated, more and more Iraqis will turn against them, limiting their strength and power.
Erik Leaver is the Outreach director for Foreign Policy in Focus, which originally published this piece, excerpted below.
Won't a US withdrawal mean violence and civil war?
The US occupation isn't bringing security to Iraq. It is a source of insecurity. US military actions are responsible for most of the Iraqis killed and wounded since the US invasion. The armed resistance is a direct result of the US presence.
Iraqis, like people everywhere, do not want to live under foreign occupation. Yet the Bush administration refuses to commit to any "exit strategy" whatsoever. Instead it is constructing permanent military bases and refuses to say that US troops will ever completely withdraw. This is a recipe for never-ending violence, not stability.
The divisions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims and between Arabs and Kurds are not being lessened by military occupation. Leaders in all of these communities condemn sectarian violence and inter-ethnic strife. But they cannot successfully negotiate their differences as long as the US holds ultimate power.
But didn't the Iraqi election mean that the US is bringing democracy to Iraq?
In national elections, Iraqis took the valiant step of voting in order to change the course of events. While the jubilation in the streets was very real, it masked another reality -- exit polls indicated that more than two-thirds of the Shi'ites wanted US forces out of Iraq either immediately or once the elected government is in place.
The country is on the brink of ripping apart over a constitution process that was designed by the United States. Far too little attention has been given to creating space for a national dialogue and far too much focus has been on politics at the national level. And there has been little input from Iraqi citizens in the process and far too much influence by the US.
Plus, the new Iraqi government doesn't really hold power in its own country. One hundred laws put in place by former US administrator Paul Bremer are still in force and Iraqis have little say over US troops and operations. Iraqis want democracy and self-determination. Neither exists under occupation.
Still, doesn't the US have an obligation to stay and help the Iraqi people?
The US has both a moral and legal responsibility to help reconstruct Iraq. But continuing military occupation prevents rather than helps fulfill this obligation.
Most Iraqis - and most people in the world -- believe that George Bush is more interested in controlling Iraqi oil than helping Iraqis. [No, most see it correctly as a war for military control of the ME on behalf of Israel-- oil is secondary or gets in the way] The indefinite presence of US troops reinforces this belief. So does the fact that only a small proportion of the money allotted to reconstruction has been spent - while US companies like Halliburton and Bechtel make millions.
The Iraqi people are capable of rebuilding their country. The US should supply funds and expertise if requested. But control must be in the hands of the Iraqis.
Won't getting out of Iraq bring an increase in terrorism?
A new report by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank found that the majority of foreign fighters are not former terrorists and instead became radicalized by the war itself -- a troubling statistic given that the Bush administration's goal for the war is to stem future terrorism. The CIA-affiliated National Intelligence Council declares that, "Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalized' terrorists."
Data collected by the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center confirms this analysis. The number of "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004 reached 655, three times the previous record of 175 in 2003. Terrorist incidents inside Iraq also increased by a factor of nine -- from 22 attacks in 2003 to 198 in 2004.
The longer the US occupies Iraq, the more resentment builds against the US, increasing the danger of terrorism. The best way to reduce this danger is to get out now.
Won't announcing a withdrawal undermine and demoralize US troops?
Attacks on US troops in Iraq average several hundred each week. Frightened young GI's are shooting first, asking questions later. The best way to support the troops is to get them out of a situation where they are killing and being killed for no good reason. Iraq Veterans Against the War says: "We, the veterans of the war, now know…the reasons for invading the sovereign country of Iraq were false, and we have paid a heavy price for these lies….We call upon our President, the Congress, and all elected officials to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all US troops from Iraq and the Middle East."
Won't setting a timetable for withdrawal allow resistance fighters to "wait it out"?
Setting a time and date for withdrawal to start will likely decrease much of the strength of the resistance. The resistance is comprised of more than 40 different groups -- many of them united only by the US presence and occupation. By removing their chief recruiting tool, the occupation, most will be weakened. Foreign fighters, numbering no more than a few thousand, and a handful of hard core Baathist groups will remain, but as they are increasingly isolated, more and more Iraqis will turn against them, limiting their strength and power.
