Antiwar Response: Out Now, Ask Questions Later?

NEWS: Six challenges for antiwar activists

October 18, 2007

Introduction Antiwar Response Get Out: When? Logistics Post-U.S. Scenarios Civil War Refugee Crisis Permanent Presence? Al Qaeda Moral Obligation Charts and Maps Lexicon of Iraq War Lingo Interviews TOOLS E-mail article Print article BACKTALK E-mail the editor

Q: After American troops withdraw, will the violence in Iraq escalate?
"I don't even think it is a fair question. There is no guarantee with anything in life. Anybody who says, 'Oh, if we pull out on this timeline or do it exactly this way, Iraq is suddenly going to look like Sweden' is fooling himself." —Kevin Martin, Peace Action

Q: Should the peace movement offer a contingency plan for peacekeeping?
"That's not our job. Our job is to generate political pressure to get the U.S. out of there and end this nightmare that the U.S. is responsible for. You are trying to hold us to a higher standard of accountability than anyone is holding the Bush administration to, and I'm wondering why. In my organization and the umpteen antiwar coalitions that I am in, this is in no way a priority that we think about or talk about." —Kevin Martin

"I've spoken with Iraqi women who have come here to this country and they say, 'Leave us alone, we will handle whatever goes on in our country.' They tell me all the time, 'We're used to sleeping on our roofs with guns in our hands.' It's terrible, but they really want to settle this themselves. I don't think we need to have a plan; we need to get out of there." —Elaine Brower, World Can't Wait

"It's hard to find many alternative strategies. In the days of the Vietnam antiwar movement, there were tremendous fights about different strategies. Here, there's no fight whatsoever. Nobody even thinks strategically." —Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun

Q: Under what conditions would you redeploy American troops to Iraq?
"If they literally went there to help calm the situation down, yes, it would be a good thing. But I don't see our military doing that at this point." —Elaine Brower

Q: What will prevent Iraq's civil war from flaring into genocidal violence?
"We have to get the international community—the U.N., the Arab League—involved. The transition plans should set up different scenarios that could include an increase in violence and how the international community, not the U.S., should respond to that." —Medea Benjamin, Code Pink

"Take the United States out of the equation and other countries can then come in and actually assist. Countries that speak the language, have a similar culture, a similar religion—as opposed to an English-speaking, largely Christian nation with big boots and a heavy presence." —Michael McConnell, American Friends Service Committee

Q: What will make the world stop genocide in Iraq when it didn't in Rwanda or Darfur?
"The Europeans, the Japanese, and the Chinese are all concerned about the flow of oil. Come on, there is a hell of a lot of difference, unfortunately, between the international community's concern about a resource-poor nation like Rwanda and a region like the Middle East." —Medea Benjamin

Q: Is there any contradiction between supporting U.S. military intervention to stop the Rwandan genocide and opposing U.S. military intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing in Iraq?
"There is a little bit of a conflict there, but in general, the use of force by anybody must be a last resort and there is enough of a track record of U.S. military force not to trust it in virtually any situation." —Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice

"It's a totally different situation. We are looking at a case now where the American presence is a major part of the problem." —Medea Benjamin

The Washington Clock When it comes to planning withdrawal, the American electoral calendar may matter a lot more than the latest news from Iraq.
coming soon: "We're going home. It doesn't matter who's president. Nobody's gonna want this albatross around their necks. Whoever gets elected wants a second term, right? So I'd say summer '09; that's when I expect a very big withdrawal." —Juan Cole, Middle East historian
passing the buck: "There will start to be a gradual drawdown before 2009, but it's not going to be serious until the next administration. The reason for that is quite simple: George Bush's plan for 'success' is to leave all the mess to his successor." —Senior congressional staffer
surge overkill: "Having forces of above 100,000 is pretty significant politically. If you pursue these high levels of troops through the end of the Bush administration, you risk creating such a backlash with the next administration that you kind of pull the plug on Iraq altogether." —Colin Kahl, Center for a New American Security
poll position: "I would remind my fellow Democrats that Americans may not like this Iraq war, but they also don't like to lose. Democrats will have to worry about the Iraq issue actually working to their disadvantage and losing the election if they get too extreme in their positioning." —Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution

Introduction

Antiwar Response

Get Out: When?

Logistics

Post-U.S. Scenarios

Civil War

Refugee Crisis

Permanent Presence?

Al Qaeda

Moral Obligation

Charts and Maps

Lexicon of Iraq War Lingo

Interviews

Post a Comment
Your Name:
Your Comment:
	Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting. All HTML formatting is removed from comments. Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

Thanks, Mr. O'Hanlon - I guess the occupation of a foreign country, replete with war crimes, while your Troopers kick in normal folks front doors and execute "insurgents" in the night clothes is acceptable as long as you win the next election. Pathetic that Mother Jones is giving a platform to this brand of specious screed.

Posted by:MarkWayneOctober 18, 2007 2:43:13 PMRespond ^

I think our army 'won' a long time ago, but like Shinseki said, they didn't take NEAR enough people to do all the stuff that might have had a chance of helping, and now, 5 years later, it's just screwed. If you read the op-ed where the 12 army captains collaborated, they basically said 'either a draft, or withdraw'. Also, in light of the revelation about the oil issue, well, that wasn't the story that was sold to the public going in. So, if that 'small' issue is ever going to be taken issue with by Congress, it would seem to require first removing the troops from Iraq, and then going on to procedure and prosecutions and and and. But, all of that has to be viewed in the light of what good it is that the pro-occupation types think might come from continuing. If it's not helping now, will it help to send another 10k, 20k, 30k, 50k? Vietnam was progressive escalations, went on for years, and didn't work out so hot. Communism did finally kind of teeter over, but it was more to do with toaster exports than hearts and minds, I say 'give those people their country back', and send em plenty of money for parts and stuff and a big apology card. Saddam's gone, so it's up to them now, how to proceed, whether it be hand-in-hand, as between people and citizens, or with hands at each other's throats... either way, they have to finger it out the same way our country did, centuries ago, as an independent country. Let em have it back so they can start fixing it, I say.

Posted by:BertOctober 18, 2007 3:14:18 PMRespond ^

We have lots of options about Iraq. If I were dictator of the US (or even president with broad support among public, pundits, and politicians), I would start with trillion-dollar carrots and billion-dollar sticks for the rest of the world. I would start with Russia, China, India, and the EU, to get them to use whatever leverage they have with Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and so on. For those in Iraq, rule 1 would be that every interest group and power bloc would have to establish and maintain effective lines of communication with us and their local enemies. (They would be free to publically be not-on-speaking-terms, as long as effective back channels were open.) Anyone who didn't would be carrion: we would use the civil war, just step out of the way and let their enemies slaughter them. For our part, I would train about 100,000 US troops as translators instead of being dependent on terrified local people. I would set a slow but solid timetable for overall withdrawal, but it would be subject to negotiation where we would get out of whose way first. I would probably seek to involve refugees and other expatriate Iraqis, providing money for their living expenses, education, job training, and entrepreneurship. But with some strings attached. And so on.

Posted by:DanOctober 19, 2007 9:20:11 AMRespond ^

Well, you can lie your way in, but you can't lie your way out, can you? As the Iraq war has always been more about domestic policy than foreign, it would seem to me that a reasonable solution would be to start cleaning up the mess at home. A modest beginning might be to impeach the President, and to put him and his henchmen on trial - say for treason and war crimes. After that, we might consider flogging that pusillanimous Congress. Unfortunately, we seem more than content to fight hypocrisy with hypocrisy, both peaceniks and chickenhawks happy to wash their hands of any responsibility, content with taking cheap shots at one another. There are no good solutions. The crisis is not in Iraq, but in America, and no amount of flag-waving or hand-wringing is going put an end to it.

Posted by:MickOctober 20, 2007 3:35:10 AMRespond ^

Turn this around. What happened in the USA when the British were soundly defeated and went home? You cannot inject our troops to determine their fate. If the Sunnis and Shiites want to go, well, Sunni and Shiite on each other, then this has to happen or we're simply delaying the inevitable and this religion is flawed in so many ways we can't even begin counting. LET GO OF THE OIL, is all I can say to our elected leaders. LET GO! DROP IT! Also, posing rhetorical questions such as these is doing nothing to get our tired and abused troops home a moment sooner. You are not helping.

Posted by:osisbsOctober 22, 2007 5:43:23 AMRespond ^

The Dems will be blamed and punished over Iraq no matter what they do, or do not. That's how it always works. They have nothing to lose by doing the right thing.

Posted by:RickygeeOctober 30, 2007 6:56:40 AMRespond ^

"That's not our job. Our job is to generate political pressure to get the U.S. out of there and end this nightmare that the U.S. is responsible for. You are trying to hold us to a higher standard of accountability than anyone is holding the Bush administration to, and I'm wondering why. In my organization and the umpteen antiwar coalitions that I am in, this is in no way a priority that we think about or talk about." This, in a nutshell, is why the antiwar movement is a miserable failure. You're damn right you're being held to a higher standard than the Bush administration. I should hope you would hold yourself to that higher standard. This isn't a priority you think about? I suppose the safety of civilian Iraqis following our departure isn't your concern. The antiwar movement is no more able to see the grey areas in foreign policy than the Bush administration is. It's a shame really.

Posted by:MarcNovember 9, 2007 1:09:51 PMRespond ^

Marc- If we know the "ends" that result from our actions beforehand, we would never have to debate the "means". I distrust most anyone who says "we have to do this so that this will happen". The more the timescales are shortened the more likely I am to believe these extrapolations. However, I don't trust weather reports more than 3 or 4 days out and social complexity is far more complex than the relationships between atoms and molecules. We understand those forces and yet can't predict. We know far less about the forces which cause people to act, let alone predict what will happen. You should base a decision on what you think is right. And what is right should be based on the now - not the future.

Posted by:NickNovember 9, 2007 2:15:58 PMRespond ^

There is no way America can resurrect its image in Iraq. After a decade of sanctions, after calling the Shia to rise against the Baathists and then leaving them to be slaughtered, after cruise missiles strike, after an invasion and occupation, is is ridiculous to think that any group in Iraq could forgive the Americans. The Shia need only look to Iran. The Kurds know full well that Turkey is and will be a greater priority that they are. And the Sunni have been disenfranchised, forced into refugee camps, and are now presided over by gangs of mercenary teenagers (aka the Awakening) controlled by tribal sheiks no less brutal than the Salafists. If America leaves now or two years from now, America will still be hated. Before Donald Tusk took over the Sjem in Poland recently, the Kaczynski brothers were in control. They labeled as prickly and isolationists for their foreign relation stances. They argued that Poland's representation in the EU should be greater than Germany's, because Poland's population would be greater today (60 years later) if Germans had not killed so many Poles. Poland is a different country, and Eastern Europe is a different place. However, the lessons of occupation remain. Occupiers will be scorned until no one alive remembers the occupation first hand. Think how loved Japan is in China, how angered the Chinese were that Koizumi visited the shrine for the Japanese war dead. How angry they were 60 years later. And America? The best we can do is shed crocodile tears about the four thousand boys and girls who died while flying remote control airplanes with loaded Hellfire missiles and video cameras over the sands of Mesopotamia. They need to leave now. Right now. Today. Leave the bases, leave the prisons. Get out. No waiting for planes. Drive to Turkey. Just out. Then leave Afghanistan. I realize it's a bit more mountainous, so a week is fine for that.

Posted by:Sam YoungDecember 18, 2007 12:22:10 AMRespond ^

Thank you for exhibiting so clearly the anti-war movement's astounding unawareness of reality and moral reprehensibility. Will the violence increase if we leave? Answer: that's not a fair question!! Get the UN and the Arab nations involved! Liberals are re[deleted]ingtarded.

Posted by:SAM NYFebruary 2, 2008 4:44:35 AMRespond ^

"the anti-war movement's astounding unawareness of reality and moral reprehensibility" As opposed to the immoral and reprehensible GOP approach: "Will staying increase violence?" "No" "Will staying increase violence?" "No. As the recent drop in violence shows..."

Posted by:somebody somewhereFebruary 5, 2008 6:37:15 AMRespond ^

Blast. I'll try again. Can we have a preview button, please, MoJo? "the anti-war movement's astounding unawareness of reality and moral reprehensibility" As opposed to the immoral and reprehensible GOP approach: "Will staying increase violence?" "No" [violence increases for three years near unrelentingly, then drops a bit] "Will staying increase violence?" "No. As the recent drop in violence shows..."

Posted by:somebody somewhereFebruary 5, 2008 6:38:29 AMRespond ^

Does it ever occur to you people that the whole world is watching? That the Nuremburg Trials chaired by U.S. judge Jackson specifically says that planning and doing aggressive war as foreign policy is the supreme international crime on earth, as it acctuates all other crimes high, low, big or small. Here the U.S. constitution does co-incide with the verdict to which the U.S. signed on to , obey national and international law , to implement the content of the Nuremburg Trial and Charter and that the Bushco has done everything possibe to break with this anti-fascist covenant and law nationally and internationally, and ought to be held accountable for their worst possible high crimes in America and thoughout the world. Including fraudulently stealing your election process to his narrow lying views of the world. No U.S. Imperialism has been judged guilty of war crimes, and the world needs to see justice and peace restored or the balance ecologically, politically, economically, judicially, and religiously will remain a tilt and inoperable. Sicko will have become the power to destroy most and will be the one that becomes super-power number one globally. No pasaran!! Workers of the world, unite!!

Posted by:tipMarch 6, 2008 12:52:49 PMRespond ^

Our Army WON, our Politicians LOST (of course that includes many Democrats so we wont frame the debate this way will we?)

Posted by:dustinchicagoMarch 19, 2008 6:50:17 AMRespond ^


Loaded for Bear McCain's Pastor Problem: The Video Contractors Gone Wild Willie Horton Redux		Power Q&A: Rep. Jay Inslee Power Q&A: Jamie Hyneman Bottom of the Barrel Power Q&A: Bill Weihl