Soros-funded leftists push for "humane" occupation

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rethinking Iraq
By Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. Posted January 6, 2005.
A Democratic and Stable Iraq

Many anti-war Americans support one simple plan for Iraq: bring the troops 
home. There's been very little discussion of the fallout of such a strategy 
on the grounds that the very fact of removing the U.S. presence from Iraq 
will be an improvement per se. In other words, whatever the consequences ? 
for Iraqis, the Middle East, or terrorism ? it can only be better than what 
we have now. Before long, supporters of immediate withdrawal find 
themselves on difficult moral ground. Bill Maher, for example, is wont to 
argue that it's presumptuous to assume that Arabs want democracy or 
freedom. Others like Jonathan Schell argue that the only moral position is 
to leave Iraqis to their fate, whatever it may be:

"Let there be as orderly a transition as possible, accompanied by as much 
aid, foreign assistance and general sweetness and light as can be mustered, 
but the endpoint, complete withdrawal, should be announced in advance, so 
that everyone in Iraq ? from the beheaders and other murderers, to 
legitimate resisters, to any true democrats who may be on the scene ? can 
know that the responsibility for their country's future is shifting to 
their shoulders. The outcome, though not in all honesty likely to be 
pretty, will at any rate be the best one possible. If the people of Iraq 
slip back into dictatorship, it will be their dictatorship. If they choose 
civil war, it will be their civil war. And if by some happy miracle they 
choose democracy, it will be their democracy ? the only kind worth having."

Underlying each of these arguments ? including Schell's ? is the assumption 
that a U.S.-led plan for a viable democracy in Iraq is simply not possible. 
As a result, we find ourselves advocating for one set of values at home ? 
equality, freedom, economic security ? while jettisoning them in the name 
of advocating a lesser evil in Iraq. So where Bush talks of Iraqis' rights 
to a better future ? however self-servingly ? we speak only of our rights 
to the same. Bring our soldiers home so that: our sons and daughters can be 
safe; our communities can prosper; our lives will be more secure. These are 
all sane and reasonable positions, but they lack moral force. We repeatedly 
take the president to task for lying about his plan to bring freedom and 
security to Iraq, but we refuse to advocate for policies that would force 
him to do so.

The other troubling aspect of the get-the-hell-out position is the glaring 
absence of any sense of moral responsibility. As Naomi Klein pointed out in 
her column, Colin Powell was half-right about the "You-break-it, 
You-own-it" Pottery Barn rule: "The failure to develop a credible platform 
beyond 'troops out' may be one reason the anti-war movement remains 
stalled, even as opposition to the war deepens. Because the Pottery Barn 
rulers do have a point: Breaking a country should have consequences for the 
breakers. Owning the broken country should not be one of them, but how 
about paying for the repairs?"

We can't simply turn our backs on the millions of Iraqis ? who lack basic 
necessities like water, electricity, food or medical care ? just because 
many of us didn't vote for the man who caused their suffering. Is it moral 
for us to leave them to die in the crossfire of a violent civil war, fueled 
by extremists that we created? Chaos creates a political vacuum that is 
almost always filled by the power-hungry and the ruthless. So what will a 
Taliban-style regime in Iraq mean for Iraqi women? What effects will it 
have on the rest of the Middle East, which is already a tinderbox waiting 
for the careless spark of instability? Will an unstable Iraq really improve 
hopes for a genuine and just peace in the Middle East? These are not 
questions that we can afford to shrug off in the heat of anti-war rhetoric. 
Taken together, they constitute a giant question mark about the connection 
between our politics and our values.

The first order of business for the anti-war movement, therefore, must be 
to recover its moral footing by becoming, in Klein's words, "a 
pro-democracy movement." We must take the president at his word and force 
him to deliver on the promise of freedom. We were right in claiming that no 
good could come of invading Iraq. But being right doesn't excuse us from 
the obligation of doing right by the Iraqi people. We can and should both 
call for an end to the occupation and for a brighter future for Iraq.

full: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20902/

--

www.marxmail.org