[Mb-civic] Why Iraq Withdrawal Makes Sense

[Michael Butler]

    Why Iraq Withdrawal Makes Sense
    By Norman Solomon
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Friday 18 March 2005

    President Bush just told reporters that he has no intention of setting
any timetable for withdrawal. "Our troops will come home when Iraq is
capable of defending herself," he said. Powerful pundits keep telling us
that a swift pullout of U.S. troops would be irresponsible. And plenty of
people have bought into that idea - including quite a few progressives. Such
acceptance is part of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of
militarism."

    Sometimes, an unspoken assumption among progressive activists is that
the occupation of Iraq must be tolerated for tactical reasons - while other
issues, notably domestic ones, are more winnable on Capitol Hill. But this
acceptance means going along with many of the devastating effects of a
militarized society: from ravaged budgets for social programs to more
authoritarian attitudes and violence in communities across the country.

    "The bombs in Vietnam," King said in 1967, "explode at home; they
destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America." He rejected the
insistent claims that it would be more prudent to avoid clear opposition to
the war in order to concentrate on domestic issues. "I speak for those whose
land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is
being subverted," he said. "I speak for the poor in America who are paying
the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in
Vietnam."

    As spring 2005 begins, many who like to praise Martin Luther King are
going out of their way to evade the fundamental destructiveness of this war.
Of course, throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, a prevailing argument
was that removing U.S. troops would be a betrayal of U.S. responsibility to
the people of South Vietnam. Today, likewise, opposition to a swift U.S.
pullout from Iraq is often based on the idea that the American military must
stay because of a responsibility to the people of Iraq.

    But most Iraqis want the U.S. military out of their country - pronto. As
Newsweek reported in its Jan. 31 edition: "Now every major poll shows an
ever-larger majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave." Yet we hear
that U.S. troops must stay for the good of the Iraqi people - even though
most of those people clearly want U.S. troops to leave. (Are we supposed to
believe that Americans know better than Iraqis whether American troops
should stay in Iraq?)

    To paper over such illogic, a media-stoked myth tells us that getting
out of Iraq is a notion remaining outside the boundaries of what the U.S.
public could take seriously. Most politicians and pundits insist that it's
off the table. But polls are telling a different story.

    "According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken after the Iraq
elections, 59 percent of the public believes the United States should pull
its troops out of Iraq in the next year," Amy Quinn of the Institute for
Policy Studies wrote in early March. "Yet the ranks of those actively
demanding that the president produce an exit strategy from Iraq are slim."

    In mid-March, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that a large
proportion of the U.S. population has a negative view of the war. For
instance, the poll asked: "All in all, considering the costs to the United
States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with
Iraq was worth fighting or not?" Only 45 percent said "worth fighting,"
while 53 percent said "not worth fighting."

    Such nationwide poll numbers hardly indicate a country where few people
are interested in proposals for extricating U.S. troops from Iraq. But the
point is not only that political space exists in the United States for a
grassroots movement to effectively organize for a swift pullout. It's also
the best alternative for Iraq.

    Consider the perspective of David Enders, a brave American journalist
who has been in Iraq most of the time since the invasion. While writing for
such outlets as MotherJones.com, the Nation magazine and the British daily
Independent, he actually covers Iraqi society firsthand rather than staying
behind American lines. Days ago, responding to my questions via email from
Iraq, Enders provided some of the reasons for his assessment that American
troops should leave rather than stay. For instance:

        * "It is the will of the Iraqi people." Enders cites a recent survey
by Iraqi pollster Saadun Al-Dulaimie, who found that 85 percent of Iraqi
people want U.S. troops out of their country as soon as possible.

        * "The U.S. does not provide security for the average Iraqi, and it
never has."

        * "The U.S. has not prevented a civil war from taking place. If
anything, it has exacerbated it."

        * "It is not morally derelict to pull out; it's morally derelict to
stay. Returning real control and sovereignty to Iraqis is the most effective
way to prevent the country from breaking apart. U.S. troops complain Iraqis
don't want to stand up and fight for themselves, and a big part of the
reason is the occupiers' presence."

    Meanwhile, Enders voices enthusiasm for the resolution sponsored by more
than two dozen members of the House of Representatives "expressing the sense
of Congress that the President should develop and implement a plan to begin
the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq" (House
Concurrent Resolution 35.)

    This spring, as U.S. activists work to build a strong movement against
the war, the need to pressure Congress is clear. What's less apparent is the
need to also push - and, if necessary, confront - hesitant progressive
organizations that are taking the easy way out by refusing to challenge the
ongoing war.

    Fortunately, some national organizations are providing forthright
leadership to pursue the goal of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. Those
groups - including United for Peace & Justice, Progressive Democrats of
America, Military Families Speak Out, TrueMajority, Iraq Veterans Against
the War, Code Pink, Campus Antiwar Network, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Pledge
of Resistance, American Friends Service Committee, Democracy Rising and U.S.
Labor Against the War, to name just a dozen - inspire as they organize.

    Only clear opposition to the war can change the terms of the national
debate. Taking the paths of least resistance won't get us very far.

    Norman Solomon's latest book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits
Keep Spinning Us to Death," will be published in early summer. His columns
and other writings can be found at: normansolomon.com.

 

© Copyright 2005 by TruthOut.org