Even with mainstream reports that American troops
are slaughtering
Iraqi civilians, there are still plenty of lefties in the United States
who cannot unify behind a call for an immediate and unconditional withdraw of
occupation forces from Iraq. Fortunately, the majority of Americans understand
that the U.S. presence in region is only contributing to the violence, not restraining
it.
Chris Toensing, writing for In These Times this month, insists,
"The Shi'ite religious parties, in particular, prefer that the U.S. military
stay until they consolidate their grip on the security apparatus. But even independent
Iraqis, like Isam al-Khafaji, fear the intensified sectarian violence and the
multi-sided melee of militias that might follow a U.S. pullout."
One of the more astute observers of the situation in Iraq, Nir Rosen, author
of In
the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq, doesn't
seem to agree with Toensing's interpretation that Iraqis want U.S. forces to
remain in Iraq. Writing for The Atlantic in December of 2005, Rosen explained:
"At some point – whether sooner or later – U.S. troops will leave Iraq.
I have spent much of the occupation reporting from Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Fallujah,
and elsewhere in the country, and I can tell you that a growing majority of
Iraqis would like it to be sooner. … Before the January 30 elections this year
the Association of Muslim Scholars – Iraq's most important Sunni Arab body,
and one closely tied to the indigenous majority of the insurgency – called for
a commitment to a timely U.S. withdrawal as a condition for its participation
in the vote. (In exchange the association promised to rein in the resistance.)
It's not just Sunnis who have demanded a withdrawal: the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada
al-Sadr, who is immensely popular among the young and the poor, has made a similar
demand. So has the mainstream leader of the Shi'ites' Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who made his first call for
U.S. withdrawal as early as April 23, 2003."
Marc Cooper, contributing editor to The Nation, along with a few other
"lefties," has long plucked through the neocon playbook to justify
a prolonged occupation of Iraq, and even recently signed the erroneous "Euston
Manifesto," which, among other things, calls for a continued occupation
of Iraq. According to it:
"We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist
and murderous character of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its
overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view
that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals
and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq
a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to
create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those
living in democratic countries take for granted – rather than picking through
the rubble of the arguments over intervention."
So, like President Bush, the signers of this document believe the Left and
others should pressure Iraqis to succumb to the U.S. version of democracy. Sounds
pretty imperialistic. Other "Euston Manifesto" supporters include
Dissent magazine editors Michael Walzer and Mitchell Cohen, Dissent
editorial board member Paul Berman, and Kanan Makiya, a Dissent contributor.
In The Washington Post last week, Nir Rosen continued by writing,
"Under the reign of Saddam Hussein, dissidents called Iraq 'the republic
of fear' and hoped it would end when Hussein was toppled. But the war, it turns
out, has spread the fear democratically. Now the terror is not merely from the
regime, or from U.S. troops, but from everybody, everywhere. … Today, the Americans
are just one more militia lost in the anarchy."
Working to end the occupation of Iraq from within the belly of the beast will
not be an easy thing to do, especially with folks like Marc Cooper attempting
to hold us up. If the U.S. were to leave tomorrow, violence in the country would
not end abruptly. No antiwar activist I have spoken to has ever stated anything
to the contrary. But if Nir Rosen is correct, and occupation forces are just
one more militia in a country of many, wouldn't removing that militia at once
be a step in the right direction?