A Case for Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq

[Darranar]

It is hard to see how the Bush administration is going to win the war in Iraq. Despite all the official bravado, a cloud of doom is descending on the White House, and with good reason: international outrage is mounting at U.S. behavior at Abu Ghraib prison and throughout Iraq, more and more Americans are concluding that the war is going badly, and Iraq is proving uncontrollable with reports, in May, that only 35 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces to stay. ("The State of Iraq: an Update" by Adriana Lins de Albuquerque, Michael Onlon and Amy Unikewicz, New York Times, May 16, 2004.)

Shamelessly, after so much vilification and ridicule of the United Nations, the administration is now hoping that the appearance of UN control can rescue its war. Yet, as the New York Times pointed out in describing the selection of the interim Iraqi government, UN control is illusory: "...it has become clear that the United Nations special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, played a secondary role in setting up the new government. People close to the envoy say the choices, especially that of the prime minister, Iyad Allawi, were essentially negotiated between the United States and the Iraqi Governing Council, which the occupation authorities put together last year." "Iraq's New Government Faces Bargaining Over Its Power" by Steven R. Weisman, posted on The New York Times website June 2, 2004.)

Will Congress continue to serve as a handmaiden to the war effort, and will the American people permit this war to continue? So far, Congress is going along with the administration; as we go to press it is in the process of disgracefully acquiescing in Bush's request for $25 billion more for the war. At the same time, however, popular support is falling precipitously. A Newsweek poll reported in early May that approval of Bushhandling of Iraq has dipped to 35 percent, compared with 44 percent in April. Some 57 percent of respondents said they disapprove.

This is a critical time. While the majority of Americans are not likely in the next few weeks to favor the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, people are starting to consider the option seriously. But to turn this questioning trend into massive popular opposition to administration policy, we in the peace movement have to make the case against keeping U.S. forces in Iraq. The American public certainly hasn't heard any talk of withdrawal from John Kerry, who has spoken essentially about ways to salvage the operation: send 40,000 more troops and "internationalize" the situation while leaving U.S. forces in control. Kerry in effect advocates reconstituting the coalition that conducted the 1991 Gulf War with the imprimatur of the Security Council, which gave the U.S. war crucial cover. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, as usual, has put the argument succinctly and baldly: "the deeper we try to penetrate Iraqi society, especially with tanks and troops, the more legitimacy we need." (April 11, 2004)

http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/244.html

[sam sarrha]

1. pull out bush!! like your father should have...

[teryang]

2. Nice try

They must have gone through Friedman's writings desperately to try to find something that sounded true and they came up with that Orwellian non-sequitor.

Penetrating Iraqi society with tanks. He's such a "tough minded realist," like Goebbels, I'd say.

[Disturbed]

3. Iraqis are starting to realize...

that the "new" Govt. is a US Puppet Govt. with mostly CIA assets running the show. Even after the Jan 05 election it would still be a US Puppet Govt.I believe that sometime in July there will be a massive uprising against the Occupation Forces and that will even incl. the Kurds, who got stabbed in the back again. The uprising will be overwhelming and BushCo will have to start troop withdrawl.

Maybe the Iraqis know this:

Full Sovereignty?
Throughout the spring, as hundreds died in the spiraling conflict, as Regime bosses applied their hardcore "anti-terrorist" tortures to innocent bystanders raked up in their occupation nets, as Regime mouthpieces prated endlessly of "liberation" and "sovereignty," Bush viceroy Paul Bremer was quietly signing a series of edicts that will give the United States effective control over the military, ministries -- and money -- of any Iraqi government, for years to come, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Bremer has placed U.S.-appointed "commissions" made up of Americans and local puppets throughout Iraqi government agencies; the ministers supposedly in charge weren't even told of the edicts. These boards "will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens," the Journal reports. Any new Iraqi government "will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials."


Earlier Bremer edicts laid the Iraqi economy wide open to ruthless exploitation by Bush-approved foreign "investors"; dominance of such key sectors as banking, communications -- and energy -- is already well advanced. The latest dictates aim to ensure that this organized looting goes on, no matter what kind of makeshift "interim government" the United Nations manage to piece together. Bush's plans to build a Saddamite fortress embassy in Baghdad and 14 permanent military bases around the country are designed to provide the knee-breaking "security" for these lucrative arrangements.



http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/21/120.html

[teryang]

4. I agree

The original post was a good one. So is yours. I shouldn't have commented on Friedman, it was actually an underhanded insult by the author of the original article, which is excellent.