Never Blood Enough...

To those who consider the war a mistake but still fear the consequences of military withdrawal, we ask these questions: when will enough be enough? If not now, when?

An Appeal to Global Conscience

There's a very interesting series of essays over on AlterNet debating the role and the message of the anti-war movement regarding the future of Iraq.  On one side is the argument that we who oppose the war risk losing the moral high ground if we simply insist that it's time to bring the troops home, while leaving the Iraqis to deal with their shattered country.  We should, they argue, work not to end our intervention, but to transform the effort into one that will lead to real self-determination for Iraqis and lasting stability for the region.

While this sounds decent and forward-looking, organizing the anti-war movement around this principle would be a disaster.  The anti-war movement would simply be giving in to Bush's revolving rationale for waging this war.  He would be able to point at the anti-war leaders and say, "See, even they now agree that we should be there."  We would also alienate those who oppose further waste of American lives and dollars, regardless of how they felt about starting the war in the first place.

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating.  It's no longer a matter of working for a good outcome to this ill-conceived venture.  The only options left are all bad, so it's a matter of trying to eke out one that is slightly less bad than the others.  Attempts by occupation forces to assert control through the use of more and more violence only strengthen the resistance.  Attempting to legitimize the Iraqi authority only leads to civil war by officially pitting the Sunnis and Shiites into political opposition.  Staying the course is impossible -- rate of loss to men and equipment is already unsustainable -- and no other options can violate Bush's fantasy world.  It seems very likely that if troops are not withdrawn voluntarily, they will be forced out by resistance fighters.  Yes, it will be a humanitarian nightmare, and it will be a catastrophe the U.S. created, but that is inevitable now.

Bush's administration will not easily give up their dreams of a puppet Iraq, a subdued client state friendly to American interests, and we cannot allow them to continue to clothe their actions in the mantle of humanitarian concern.  They would rather continue to kill than admit that they have already lost.  Whether or not they pay the price for their hubris, the war must end.  As the bodies continue to pile up and as the price continues to rise, public support for this war will wane.  Already some Republicans are talking about withdrawal.  Despite what the opposition says, the anti-war movement does not need to have a better plan for waging this war or even a plan to end it cleanly.  We who opposed this war cannot be held responsible for it's outcome.  Bush and his minions are.  We only need to have one message: End The War Now.  Once the tide of public opinion has turned and the neo-cons are on the ropes, we can we talk about how best to do it.  Not before.

- jack*

Comments

[The Liberal Avenger]

This is good stuff. More thoughts to come...

[The Liberal Avenger]

You got me thinking... I posted about your post:

http://liberalavenger.com/2005/01/j-c-k-never-blood-enough.html

With all the importance Bush, et al are placing on Jan 30, what do they have planned for afterwards?

Are they planning on shaking hands with the new mayor then pulling all our troops out and running away - the very thing you and I would like to see them do?

Or are they planning on digging in, crushing the insurgency, winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and achieving whatever it is that they intended to achieve from the invasion in due time?

[loyopp]

Well put. I expect many people desperately want to believe there is a way to leave without the madness that followed our exit from Vietnam. I hope there is, but I doubt it. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, but barring that, I tend to think starting the madness sooner rather than later is the option that is, as you say, "slightly less bad."

[The Liberal Avenger]

I was just a kid when we left Vietnam. I have an idea what happened, but nothing specific. Any "highlights," if that is indeed the word?

[loyopp]

Well, first fix this image in your mind:

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/brinkley/3651/photos/seventies/vietnam_exodus.htm

[The Liberal Avenger]

Was there widespread retribution against South Vietnamese "collaborators" by the North Vietnamese as anticipated after Saigon fell?

In doing a small amount of research last night it appears that the final fall of the city itself was relatively peaceful.

[jack*]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply on your blog, LA.

What they want has been fairly clear from the outset and one they have been working for since before Bush One. They want a "U.S. Friendly" Iraq, one to use as a fulcrum for exterting U.S. power in the oil-rich mideast. Those who have a controlling stake in how oil is priced and distributed have more power than almost anyone else.

The reason this seems unclear is that the Bush administration has no plan for Iraq. They are just sort of flailing around making bold statements and hoping that if they are just resolute things will work out well. They won't.

[Lewsoalebaw]

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!