[A-List] US Withdrawal?

[Bill Totten <shimogamo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

by Immanuel Wallerstein

Comment Number 136 (May 01 2004)

Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University


In the beginning of 2003, the great debate, in the United States and
throughout the world was, should the United States go into Iraq?  Now
the debate has become, should the United States withdraw from Iraq?  The
occupation has not gone at all as the US authorities had hoped, and
expected.  Iraqi armed resistance is spreading.  The US armed forces are
stretched thin.  The Iraqis are increasingly and openly hostile to the
US and all those who support the US, even the Iraqi Governing Council
that the US installed to be its faithful ally.

The centrist, Establishment elements in the United States, who all
supported the US president's decision, and if in Congress voted for it,
are now all very queasy, and they do not know what position to take.
One fallback is to say that, while it may have been justified to go into
Iraq (the most acceptable justification for this group was to oust
Saddam Hussein from power), the war has been conducted badly.  The US
tried to do it with too small an army.  It failed to do what it took to
"win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.  The government didn't
plan ahead for the post-Saddam period and has made grievous errors.
This is not a very strong dissent from the Bush administration's
position.  The obvious conclusion of this kind of criticism is to call
for an increase in our military force in Iraq, for spending more money
on reconstruction, and a revival of the draft.  This is the position of
Republican "critics" like Senators McCain and Hagel.

The Democratic leadership, and most notably Senator Kerry, go one step
further.  They say the US should "call in" the United Nations and NATO,
which they say Bush should have done from the beginning.  The fact that
neither the UN nor NATO is ready to be called in to the US-created
disaster zone is not mentioned.  But these people have one more argument,
which was spelled out very clearly in a New York Times editorial on
April 25:

This page felt it was a mistake to invade Iraq without broad
international support, and since then we have seen few indications that
Mr. Bush's notion of establishing a stable democracy is anything but a
dream.  Yet leaving Iraq now would create a situation so horrific that
the United States is obliged to press forward as long as there seems any
hope of making progress ... This is not the moment for retreat and it
certainly is not the moment for half measures.


Yet, as has become clear in the battle of Falluja and the siege of Najaf
by the US armed forces, half measures seem to be the only realistic
choice.  "Full" measures promise even greater disaster for the United
States.

What would really happen if the US withdrew?  First, we need to know
what it means to "withdraw" - all troops or some troops; immediately,
soon, or "when the situation stabilizes"?  There is clearly today no
central government in Iraq, and there is no army (since the US disbanded
the only one Iraq had).  There is scarcely a police force.  The United
Nations' representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, says he is hoping to achieve
agreement on a brand new central government by the end of May which
would be an "interim" government of "experts" until the holding of
elections, projected for January 2005.

In the meantime, the US proconsul, Paul Bremer, says he is hoping to
reconstitute an Iraqi army, using some of the old generals, who were
only "nominally" members of the Baath party.  This is being roundly
denounced by the former Pentagon favorite, Ahmed Chalibi, who has been
in charge of "de-Baathification" of Iraq.  Chalibi, who has been unable
to demonstrate that he has any popular support anywhere in Iraq, is also
opposed to Brahimi's plan, which would eliminate him (and his "party")
from the government, probably permanently.

So, maybe there will an army of some sort by January 2005.  There are
also "militias" of varying importance - at least two that are Kurdish,
at least two that are Shi'ite, and probably one that could be easily
constituted in Sunni areas.  This is the source of the frequent argument
that, left alone now, Iraq would fall into civil war.  This seemed more
likely three months ago.  US incompetence has created nationalist links
among these rival factions.  And US military actions in Falluja and
Najaf may seal a new unity, or at least something strong enough to
reduce radically the likelihood of anything resembling what happened in
Bosnia in the 1990s.

We have recently learned, through the book by Bob Woodward, that Colin
Powell reminded George W Bush, as he was making his decision to invade,
of the "antique store" theory of intervention in foreign zones: "If you
break it, you own it".  That is what the New York Times is now saying:
"The United States is obliged to press forward".  Obliged?  Surely not
legally.  Morally?  Let us look at that more closely.

If you hurt someone and make his situation worse, should you stay around
and offer to help?  Well, yes, if that would be a remedy, and would be
welcomed by the person you're helping.  But certainly not, if that would
make the situation still worse.  Personally, I don't see that what
Bremer plus General Abizaid are doing is remedying anything.  The
situation is steadily deteriorating.  And the thing the Iraqis are
complaining about most vociferously now, even those who were initially
somewhat friendly to the invaders, is that the US is doing great damage
to Iraq, and looks like it is going to do still more.  The reason is
simple.  There is very little that the US can do at present that will
bring stability and order to Iraq, much less the so-called democracy the
US claims it wishes to impose.

The Iraqis have two principal grievances about the US occupiers.  They
are hurting (and killing) all sorts of people who are not combatants in
their understandable efforts to save the lives of US troops and
presumably to reestablish order.  But secondly, and probably more
important, the Iraqis are not persuaded that the US ever intends to
leave.  And they have good reason to doubt this, since Bush officials
have been saying as much for a long time.  The US is building permanent
military bases in Iraq.  The US has said that the "sovereignty" that is
being restored to Iraq on June 30 is only "partial".  Sovereignty is
however like virginity - you either have it or you don't.  There is no
in-between.  If US armed forces can act as they deem wise in post-June
30 Iraq, the country is not sovereign.  If the government cannot make
laws without clearing them with the US, the country is not sovereign -
it's a colony.

So, what can the US do?  I suppose, since there is at the moment no
central government and no army, an instantaneous US withdrawal would
indeed have chaotic consequences.  But the US could commit itself now to
turning over full sovereignty to the interim government on June 30
(which would make the use of the US military restricted and limited by
the decisions of this government).  It could permit immediately the
reconstitution of an Iraqi army.  And it could commit itself to total
withdrawal of US forces as of say January 2005.  But above all, it could
renounce all aspirations for any US bases in Iraq in the future.

Does this have some risks from a narrowly US point of view?  Of course,
it does.  But this is the cul-de-sac in which the Bush administration
put the US and this is the best way to cut US losses, probably the only
way.  Will the new government of Iraq be friendly to the US?  Quite
possibly not. The US didn't know it had a good thing with a virtually
toothless Saddam Hussein in power.  But when you make a really big
mistake, the best thing to do is to admit it and pick up your life from
there.  Will George W Bush do it?  Almost surely not. Will John F Kerry
do it?  Perhaps, but it is very far from sure.

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm


Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein.  All rights reserved.  Permission is
granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to
post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the
essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed.  To translate
this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including
commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at
iwaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fax: 1-607-777-4315.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be
reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the
perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.

Please also see:

"Iraq as Vietnam" by William Greider, The Nation (May 03 2004 issue)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040503&s=greider

"How to Get Out of Iraq" by Jonathan Schell, The Nation (May 6 2004)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040524&s=forum

At the same location, please also see The Nation's forum featuring a
range of writers contributing their ideas on America's way out of Iraq.