Kohlmann's Opinions On Iraq And Yours. Plus An Announcement
by tristero
I want to thank all you folks for such an intelligent batch of comments to my post on Evan Kohlmann's opinion that the US should not withdraw from Iraq. Some people agreed with me, but many argued, as Terry Steichen did:I agree with every single point you made, except for two things. One is your assumption that things will get far worse when we leave. I suggest that there is every reason to believe that our presence as occupiers is inflaming the situation, and that our absence may have a calming effect.
To respond, I most certainly agree that the US presence is inflaming the situation in many different ways. However, we cannot predict what the situation will be in 2009, which is the earliest that a serious discussion about what to do in Iraq can take place.* There are so many variables it is impossible to predict what the situation will be like then. But I think that among the options that will almost certainly have to be considered is what the world response (including the US response) to a potential (or ongoing) genocide in Iraq should be. One commenter correctly reminded us that the 650,000 Iraqi civilian deaths that one respected organization reported really is genocide, or close to it, already. Others discussed, in addition to the calming effects of our leaving, the fact that Iraq's neighbors won't permit genocide.
Perhaps. But perhaps not. My only point is that withdrawal now isn't going to happen. As a political tactic, perhaps it makes sense to organize around it, but I think calling for impeachment makes even more** even if it has as little chance of happening as withdrawal. With Bush in the high 20's for approval, a sober movement to impeach Bush AND Cheney has an opportunity to make clear to the world that the US is repudiating Bushism.
Which brings us to Terry's other point:The other is your concern about that the onsequences following our departure will result in a lot of blame being heaped on us (which, presumably, we're not getting now, and are avoiding now). My view is worrying about being blamed is about the dumbest reason possible for staying (even if it made logical sense).
In fact, I have no such concerns because Bush has created a situation in which the US will be blamed for all atrocities committed whether the US withdraws or stays. It doesn't matter whether it's America's fault, there will be nothing we can do to prevent most of the world from blaming the US.
On the larger issue, whether world opinion of the US matters, of course it matters and it matters quite a bit. It matters In ways large and small. Plummeting world opinion of America will affect - has already affected - the ability of Americans to travel freely abroad, for pleasure and education as well as business; it affects the kinds of negotiations that take place on numerous issues, from trade to disamrmament to cultural exchanges. All of this has the potential directly to impact life for all US citizens, even those who have never ventured further afield than 75 miles from Springfield, MO.
Naturally, one doesn't take world opinion exclusively into account, but it is plain foolish to ignore it. Need proof? The Bush administration has provided plenty of it. Sure, it makes good pr copy - uncompromising stance for principles and all that. But let's get real here. World opinion matters.
Terry makes one final comment:There is actually one more thing I'd add, and that is, beyond 'internationalizing' the Iraq situation, we need, even more pressingly, to 'regionalize' it.
Agreed. The question is how. And that is not a trivial question.
One final point. Several commenters suggested that it is racist to express the opinion that the US military is needed to keep Sunni and Shia from killing each other in Iraq. I've mulled the reasoning behind this opinion quite a bit but, quite frankly, I don't see the racism. Or rather, I don't see an intervention to prevent or halt genocide by the US as inevitably or predominantly racist. I believe each situation must be evaluated individually. To argue that the US must always stand aside, or must always intervene, seems like precisely the kind of foolish consistency Emerson warns against.
I realize that my position is sloppy, but that's how the world works. There can be no "End to Evil" or other perfections. To a great extent, an intelligent theory of international relations has to have lots of room to take it as it comes and respond - not from idealism or realism - but with highly knowledgeable prudence. Such a theory must also have room for the interpersonal dynamics of the negotiators.
I realize many of you disagree and will take my refusal to condemn a possible US intervention to confront genocide as proof positive I'm a sell-out kind of a liberal, or that I'm really an American imperialist hiding behind a wimpy version of neo-con idealism. If you do, I think that would be a serious misconstruction of my position, perhaps more the fault of my inability to articulate both clearly and concisely what I mean than your failure to understand. I suggest, that if you really do feel I am advocating an Imperial America which has the right to impose its vastly clearly superior cooties on the rest of the world, you check out some of my posts on American Exceptionalism from my blog.
And now for something completely different.
I'm about to go off to an artist's colony to start a major work. Basically, I will be in the middle of nowhere, at an undisclosed location, for two weeks with 7 other artists, a cabin with a piano (and electricity for my computer) and nothing (and no one) else. I've never done anything like it before and I'm excited about the chance to have such few distractions.
I'll tell you more about it at a later date, but right now, I wanted to let you know my blogging will be extremely limited for the forseeable future. But, as you'll see, that in no way means I'm abandoning the barricades. Just the opposite, in fact.
I've had a blast writing so often here, getting to know all of you. It's striking to see how much liberal discourse has grown and diversified since 2003, not only in the diversity of political viewpoints but in terms of intellectual sophistication and toughness. I'm not terribly blogocentric, but even so, I'm convinced that if there are tendrils of improvement in the mass media discussions of politics, we, bloggers and commenters, contributed a great deal to that and have a continuing opportunity to contribute more. And man oh man is it needed!
But enough. I'll be back in 2 weeks and tell all, or at least more.
* Until Bush leaves the White House, all one can hope to do is try to correct or minimize as many consequences of Bush's incompetence as we can. We have a rogue president; it's my opinion that Democratic congresscritters are trying to walk a fine line between doing what they can without precipitating a convulsive, overt constitutional crisis. In short, the Dems are hoping to wait Bush out by not taking up Bush's childish dare to play chicken with the American system of governance. (Whether or not this is a good idea is a totally separate question.)
**Longtime readers will realize that I've changed my mind about this. Given the ongoing deterioration of the Bush administration's standing, and their continued desire to break the law and create a modern America King to replace the presidency, the advantages of pressing seriously for impeachment far outweigh the dangers that concerned me earlier.