I've been fairly skeptical of the "get out of Iraq now" crowd. While I strongly sympathize with those who oppose the war in Iraq, I think this position has been very badly thought out. In my own experience, very few people who support a withdrawal that I've talked to, or read, have made a good argument for why pulling our troops out would make the situation better, and not worse.
Juan Cole, however, writing in The Nation, makes one of the first strong cases that I've read for why the United States should withdraw from Iraq. The crux of his argument is that the repression and marginalization of the Sunnis by American forces has allowed the Kurds and the Shiites to resist compromise, leading to an escalation of sectarian tensions and violence. If the US were to withdraw, he argues, the Shiites and the Kurds would be forced to sit down with the Sunnis (perhaps out of the fear that, without US protection, Sunni attacks against Shia and Kurdish targets would dramatically increase) and work out a political solution. In his own words:
I'm still digesting his argument here, but my initial reaction is that Cole may be on to something. As always when it comes to Iraq, (and Cole points this out on his blog) it is far from clear that this plan would go as smoothly on the ground as it looks on paper, but this type of negotiated-withdrawal that he advocates may be the best option we have.The US repression of Sunnis has allowed Shiites and Kurds to avoid compromise. The Sunnis in Parliament have demanded that the excesses of de-Baathification be reversed (thousands of Sunnis have been fired from jobs just because they belonged to the Baath Party). They have been rebuffed. Sunnis rejected the formation of a Shiite super-province in the south. Shiites nevertheless pushed it through Parliament. The Kurdish leadership has also dismissed Sunni objections to their plans to annex the oil-rich province of Kirkuk, which has a significant Arab population.
The key to preventing an intensified civil war is US withdrawal from the equation so as to force the parties to an accommodation. Therefore, the United States should announce its intention to withdraw its military forces from Iraq, which will bring Sunnis to the negotiating table and put pressure on Kurds and Shiites to seek a compromise with them.
7 comments:
"I'm still digesting his (Juan Cole's) argument here, . . ." -- Jeb Koogler
Careful you don't get indigestion, Jeb.
In fact, if you researched your sources a little better you might know what you were about to consume (intellectually, that is) was indigestable before you wasted your time on it.
Uh, yonason, the one who's gonna have an indigestion is ME after reading the idiotic page you linked...
Peace
The sudden withdrawl of US troops could be devistating. I can't stand the fact we are there. However, I can't justify picking up and leaving. I don't know what the solution is. I need to research it more and forumlate my own opinion instead of being spoon fed the propaganda on both ends of the argument. All I know is that the American people have been used. We have had our fears played against us. For the most part we fell for it hook line and sinker. My brother is being sent out end of the month, I fear for him. I realize he is a Marine he signed up to defend his country. But I find myself asking, Is this really for our country? What good is this doing for the American people and the American way of life? What has all of this got to do with us? There is so much that needs attention here at home and our men and women are dying overseas, for a cause that is unclear and twisted up in personal agendas, religous intolerances, and money hungry politics. Having pride in your nation and dying for your country is one thing... This Iraq debacle is far from that.
Léo Martin
Ok, Leo, perhaps that wasn't easy to swallow. He really did get a little more over-wrought than he should have, despite Cole's dissembling. So, in the interrest of keeping this from turning into a shouting match, I have a couple of other refs that clearly demonstrate why Cole is utterly unreliable, only without all the hype.
First, Cole claimed the 9/11 report said things it didn't say. He also claimed that certain historical events (which he dramatically distorts) were causative when they didn't happen till well after what they were supposed to have caused. Also, instead of posting corrections to his weblog or appologizing for his errors, he simply deletes them and pretends they never occured. Honest scholars do NOT do that!
Second, he is just simply wrong on many issues Frequently the contorted "reasons" he postulates for events derive from his glaringly transparent anti-Semitism.
Here is an excellent and delightful sharp bit of humor at Cole's expense, and for which he was just begging. Note how the author reveals Cole's efficient use of the 'memory-hole' to conceal his foolishness.
Finally, Here and Hereare some more reference materials, in one of which you can read . . .
". . . error compounds error in the Cole-mine. Two weeks ago, while Britain's top forensics experts were just setting to work, Cole offered this: "Britain's South Asian Muslim community is almost certainly not the origin of this attack." In this latest posting, the professor again sends us to the wrong starting gate. The clueless Cole is the Inspector Clouseau of Middle Eastern studies."
Now please, if you think my references are wrong, I would appreciate it if you could give some factual evidence. Otherwise, how do I know you have actually thought seriously about what you say. All I have is your word that I'm wrong, with nothing to back it up. What's "idiotic" is for me to believe you (or anyone) without some proof, which you did not supply.
yonason: I just don't like the tone of the sources, such a "Bush policy in Iraq is the holy of holies if you disagree you are unpatriotic and an anti-Semite" kind of attitude.
Granted, Cole may be a bit willing to let his ideological stance blur some facts. But I haven't met someone on the other side of the fence who can't be said to be innocent of that charge.
That being said, I'm more inclined to agree with Elaine: I find it outrageous that the US went into Iraq to begin with, but I think it's too convenient for the troops to just put the house on fire and then walk away. Not that I see anyway the US will be of any help to fix the issue. Certainly vilifying Iran is not an honest path and it does nothing to address the issue of Iraq, but diffuses attention from it.
It's refreshing to see thoughtful people saying: "I oppose the War in principle, but don't think we can just up and leave. We need a strategy." There's a lot of that lacking in the American left, it seems to me.
I've always been sympathetic to the Iraq War. It was bungled in several areas, for sure. First, it was never coherently justified. It's justifications morphed over time, starting with WMD and ending with liberating Iraqis. And second, the prosecution of the Iraq War was poorly mishandled. Way too few troops. And third, no clear (or atleast obvious) diplomatic/exit strategy.
However...
It I think it is still possible that history will come to view the Iraq War as a wise strategic move on the part of the US. By that, I mean that the US chose the battlefield where the main battle against extermists was to be fought. It toppled a dictator in the process and laid the groundwork for democracy.
I think it is still possible that the United States and its principle allies (of which my fellow Canadians would be wise to consider our country one) has achieved and maintained the strategic, high-level advantage over malicious, radical, non-state actors.
Is this not possible in your view?
Cheers,
Matt
http://dominionpages.blogspot.com
Léo Martin said... "yonason: I just don't like the tone of the sources, such a "Bush policy in Iraq is the holy of holies if you disagree you are unpatriotic and an anti-Semite" kind of attitude."
Léo, if that is what they and/or I were saying, then you would be correct. But it isn't, at least not as far as I can see. (Help me out here, and give me some examples.) There is no logical reason to see Cole as 'bad' just because he disagrees with the Iraq war. Approval or disapproval of Bush policy, admittedly flawed in some (many) of the details, is NOT the standard by which I or they are judging Cole. He has to stand or fall on his own merits. And the sad facts are that, apart from his original thesis work years ago, they are seriously lacking.
Also, perhaps you mistake our dislike of him for the WAY his disagrees, with our mere disagreement with him for the FACT that he disagrees? They aren't the same thing.
The following are among the assertions I've amply documented in my above references (as well as those on Moderate Voice), and you can see them there.
Cole is,(to put it mildly) -- paranoid, persistantly dishonest, very sloppy, highly biased, and frequently terribly wrong. It's not just that he, like others, "blur some facts." Anyone who "blurs the facts" as consistantly and duplicitously as he should not be taken seriously, let alone be trusted.
So, all I'm saying is that if you want to take a side on the Iraq war, you need to find an honest critic. They do exist, but Cole is NOT one of them.
Again, I don't know how you got the impression that the authors I quoted were saying Cole was wrong just because he opposed Bush, rather than because he indulges in so many sleezy methods that serious scholoars eschew. Maybe if you could give some specific example(s) that would help me see what you mean.
regards
Post a Comment