Re: [Marxism] Query: US withdrawal = civil war?

[DCQ <deeseekyou@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Only that the bloodbath is already taking place. Realistic estimates of
Iraqi men, women, and children killed since the invasion exceed
100,000. Bare minimum numbers approach 30,000 (i.e., only those
reported by media and the US military). The fact that western
commentators *don't* consider this a bloodbath is a part of the
imperial arrogance and racist paternalism that allowed this invasion
(and other like it) to occur in the first place. At this rate, the US
will be responsible for more killings and guilty of more crimes than
Saddam.

invading a country unprovoked-check
mass murder-check
torture-check
chemical weapons on civilians-check
secret prisons, extra-legal detentions, no habeas corpus-check
divide and rule strategy-check
government is a puppet of the US-check
all approved by Donald Rumsfeld-check

Secondly, the US will never leave, unless it is forced to. It is
building permanent military bases there (mini colonies, esentially). As
for all the talk about Bush's new "plan" for Iraqi-ization for the
conflict, you just have to read what Bush recently said to American
troops in South Korea (where there are still some 37,000 American
troops). Eli at lefti nailed it with a great headline:

Bush confirms 60-year "exit strategy" for Iraq

While Congress was busy voting down immediate withdrawal from Iraq,
George Bush was in Korea rewriting history and confirming that U.S.
troops might still be in Iraq (if he has anything to say about it) in
2063, echoing remarks by Rumsfeld a month ago. Consider these two lines
from his speech:
<"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will
stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi
forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the
honor they have earned.
"As South Korea has grown more free and prosperous, it's built an
increasingly capable military that is now ready to assume a larger role
in defending its people. By assuming some responsibilities that have
traditionally been shouldered by American forces, South Korea will
strengthen the deterrent on the Korean Peninsula and free up some of
our combat forces to help us win the war on terror.">
So, it has taken more than 50 years (closing in on 60) for South Korea
to become "free and prosperous" enough to built a military capable of
assuming the role of the American forces.

Thirdly, the resistance is fueled by one thing--the American
occupation. If that ends, so will the resistance, because it will have
essentially won. The question hidden by the "bloodbath" phraseology is
really: "Would US withdrawal from Iraq lead to an Iraq led by an
anti-US mullah/strongman/nationalist?" This is what the western
commentators really fear, not the death or Iraqis, who have suffered
through 2 wars, a decade of genocidal sanctions, and a military
occupation at the hands of the US and its junior partners.

Hope this helps.

On Nov 30, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Tom O'Lincoln wrote:

> A comrade here needs to give a talk on "Would US withdrawal from Iraq
> lead
> to a bloodbath". Any advice on useful readings, clever arguments...


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism