Re: Najaf

[chillout@xxxxxxxx]

It depends on your criteria of realizable: does the US has enough guts and money to wage a perpetual military occupation in middle east against a resistance which grows day by day?  It does not sound much realistic in the medium term to me. The most plausible scenarios seem to  involve just "exit strategies", without any control on what will happen next (any puppet "government" in Iraq would not last one day without the US army).

Another hypothesis may be to grant "sovereignty" to some oil fields and leave some US bases there, leaving the rest of iraq to iraquis.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Doug Henwood

To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:25 AM

Subject: Re: Najaf

Carrol Cox wrote:

>Marvin Gandall wrote:
>>
>>  A spokesman for Al Sadr meanwhile told Agence France Presse
>>  early today that UN troops should be brought into Iraq to replace US forces,
>>  an unrealizable demand indicating the Mehdi Army is anticipating a fight.
>
>Debate on demands of the anti-war movement has been frequently disrupted
>by the inability of too many leftists to acknowledge that UN involvement
>is an _unrealizable_ demand. The _only_ rational demand is immediate US
>withdrawal without conditions.

And immediate unconditional U.S. withdrawal is a realizable demand?
It'd be news to me if it was. So why are some unrealizable demands
preferable to other unrealizable demands?

Doug

----
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:clicca qui

Sponsor:
Interessi alti, massima libertà. È Conto Arancio di ING Direct.
Clicca qui