When President Bush and Vice President Cheney say we must "stay the course" and 
not "cut and run" from Iraq, they leave as vague all the bad things that might happen with the U.S. troop withdrawal. Unfortunately most news outlets have covered this debate from a political angle and haven't considered whether the "stay the course" proponents are actually making a reasonable argument. Fortunately, the Atlantic Nir Rosen does consider this in an article that every major newspaper should have already written. Here's a taste:
There's more well worth checking out. Read it here.
#
posted 7:32 AM
not "cut and run" from Iraq, they leave as vague all the bad things that might happen with the U.S. troop withdrawal. Unfortunately most news outlets have covered this debate from a political angle and haven't considered whether the "stay the course" proponents are actually making a reasonable argument. Fortunately, the Atlantic Nir Rosen does consider this in an article that every major newspaper should have already written. Here's a taste:If the people the U.S. military is ostensibly protecting [in Iraq] want it to go, why do the soldiers stay? The most common answer is that it would be irresponsible for the United States to depart before some measure of peace has been assured. The American presence, this argument goes, is the only thing keeping Iraq from an all-out civil war that could take millions of lives and would profoundly destabilize the region. But is that really the case? Let's consider the key questions surrounding the prospect of an imminent American withdrawal.
Would the withdrawal of U.S. troops ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites?
No. That civil war is already under way—in large part because of the American presence. The longer the United States stays, the more it fuels Sunni hostility toward Shiite "collaborators." Were America not in Iraq, Sunni leaders could negotiate and participate without fear that they themselves would be branded traitors and collaborators by their constituents...
Wouldn't a U.S. withdrawal embolden the insurgency?
No. If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left? When I asked Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them why they were fighting, they all gave me the same one-word answer: intiqaam—revenge. Revenge for the destruction of their homes, for the shame they felt when Americans forced them to the ground and stepped on them, for the killing of their friends and relatives by U.S. soldiers either in combat or during raids.
But what about the foreign jihadi element of the resistance? Wouldn't it be empowered by a U.S. withdrawal?
The foreign jihadi element—commanded by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—is numerically insignificant; the bulk of the resistance has no connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. (Zarqawi and his followers have benefited greatly from U.S. propaganda blaming him for all attacks in Iraq, because he is now seen by Arabs around the world as more powerful than he is; we have been his best recruiting tool.)...
What about the Kurds? Won't they secede if the United States leaves?
Yes, but that's going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They've effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable—and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.)...
There's more well worth checking out. Read it here.
