Withdrawing from Iraq: A Disaster Waiting to Happen?

If I might re-phrase the title of this article, ``(U.S.)-Withdrawing from Iraq: PEACE waiting to happen``-

#53, ``...long string of US efforts to make common cause with the Islamic right..`` Point well taken, the ``Islamic Right`` is a creation of the colonial west- a caricature forced upon Islam from the beginning, in justification of the crusades and as Christian propaganda and of course there are idiots like UBL who do their utmost to mold themselves into this caricature, in the name of Islam.

The article I did on Islam: Image & Reality Post 9/11 can be read at http://blog.asadi.org
Here is an excerpt that is relevant to the quote above:

Contrary to what these agenda driven writings present, Islam has the strongest organized social justice component within its system, compared not only to most other religions, but to most secular systems as well. Not only does it suggest a community-style society of humankind by pointing to the natural world as guide (Quran 6:38), with humanity as trustee, not owner of resources (Quran 2:284, 57:7 etc.), it encourages the distribution of the surplus of every individual (Quran 2:219) in the form of a social fund (Quran 9:60) administered by those in charge of governance. It makes the fulfillment of basic necessities of the needy a ``religious`` duty, without which the ritual of prayer itself is mocked, yes mocked by the Quran itself (Quran 107:1-7). Such ``socialistic`` emphasis on social justice, organized within a religious system is unheard of in the world of religion, which according to Marx often served as the ``opium of the masses``. The Quran’s emphasis on the sanctity of human life, comparing a single one to all of humanity (Quran 5:32) is also unsurpassed in world literature, and the common bond, the ``human consciousness`` it intends to create based upon common origin (Quran 4:1) and one creator God, who created all equally according to his nature (Quran 30:30) is equally unsurpassed as humanitarian doctrine and is demonstrated as fact during the Hajj pilgrimage. All systems have been abused and misused for political/economic motives and Islam is no exception, but condemning it as an inherently anti-human ideology is dishonest and unjust. (Often the distorted, reactionary version of Islam has been implanted from ``outside`` as was the case of the proxy Cold-War that the U.S. was fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan: here you had the CIA, most of whom were non-believers in Islam, promising the Afghans a sure ticket to heaven if they died fighting the Soviets,- (text books printed in the US meant for the Afghan youth from that era still float around in Pakistan) Stinger missiles were an added bonus; supporting Zia’s “Saudi Islamization” of Pakistan etc.)

Click on the URL below for yet another “take” on staying in Iraq or leaving. I’ve posted a short excerpt.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL01Ak01.html

What `staying the course` really means
By Robert Dreyfuss

``Nearly three years into the war in Iraq, the Bush administration tells us that it wasn`t about weapons of mass destruction or Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda, but about America`s holy mission to spread democracy to the benighted regions of the Middle East. However, postwar Iraq is anything but a democracy. In fact, if Iraq manages to avoid all-out civil war, it is likely to end up with a government that is fiercely undemocratic - a Shi`ite theocratic dictatorship that rules by terror, torture, and armed might.

What President George W Bush has wrought in Iraq is just the latest in a long string of US efforts to make common cause with the Islamic right. But like the Sorcerer`s Apprentice, whose naive and inexperienced use of magic blows up in his face, American efforts to play with the forces of political Islam have proved to be dangerous, volatile and often uncontrollable.``

shiites itching for some payback...Let them tackle the insurgents like Saddam ``tackled`` them...

Shiite Urges U.S. to Give Iraqis Leeway In Rebel Fight
Americans Have Blocked Tougher Tactics, Cleric Says

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 27, 2005; A01

BAGHDAD -- The leader of Iraq`s most powerful political party has called on the United States to let Iraqi fighters take a more aggressive role against insurgents, saying his country will only be able to defeat the insurgency when the United States lets Iraqis get tough.

``The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror,`` said Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government and whose armed wing is the most feared of Iraq`s many factional forces.

``Moving a little further east is Afghanistan, a country deep-seated in radical, fundamental ideals and one that has proved to be an elusive target for powers new and old`` ?

And how exactly is afghanistan ``rooted`` in radical fundamental ideals?

#36 by kamasutra on November 24, 2005 6:49pm PT


Much like banker lady say - Early withdrawal mean stiff penalty.


Early withdrawal means no knocking up anyone...

Moving out of Iraq is most certainly going to throw the country into widespread civil unrest and civil war.


Arm the shias..arm the kurds...let them get some payback on the sunnis...and get the hell out..

The sunnis don`t have the oil..the shias and the kurds do...

I`m sure the Peshmerga won`t tolerate sunni nonsense...

Re: # 46

Romair...

Thanks for this post from the visionary Mark Twain. For anyone interested, there`s a little more of Mark Twain`s commentary on this URL:

http://www.counterpunch.com/twain03192003.html

Here (from an essay posted on today`s Counterpunch) is a little of what Alexander Cockburn has to say:

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

http://www.counterpunch.org/

``Would there actually be a power vacuum if US withdrew, followed by civil war, as is widely argued in the U.S.? The Sunni can`t take Baghdad. They can`t penetrate the main Kurdish and Shia areas. How exactly is the US military preventing a civil war at the moment? The refusal of the Shia to retaliate is the most important factor here and this is primarily the result of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani standing firmly against it.

Now suppose Sistani calls for a withdrawal? Then the US and Britain will have little choice but to go, probably over an 18 month period. This very week, incidentally, a gathering in Cairo of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders (under the auspices of the Arab League) called for a timetable for US withdrawal and also said that Iraq`s opposition had a ``legitimate right to resistance.`` The Sunni are not going to stop fighting while the occupation continues. The quid pro quo for the US leaving would presumably be a ceasefire by the Sunni and an end to suicide bombing attacks.

All those Democratic Party withdrawal dates are predicated on the idea that Iraqi army security forces will be built up and can take over. This scenario is as unrealistic as calls to ``internationalize`` the occupying force. All the evidence is that only an agreement on the departure of the US will lead to an end to the armed resistance, just as Murtha said. The idea that the Sunni taking part in the election somehow means a shift from military action is also baloney. It is clearly an `Armalite and ballot box` strategy.``

``There has never been a just one, never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war.

I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, `It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.`

Then the handful will shout louder.

A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier-- but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all-- will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.``

-- The Incomparable Mark Twain (1910)

As true today as it was then................

hamidm #42: ``..........regardless of how iraq turns out in the next year or so``

Hmm.........funny how time changes things. There used to be a time, when you were convinced that the Iraq invasion was the biggest success Bush would ever have........We debated it for quite a while.........Are you now wondering that it may not turn out the way you had predicted?.........

How about a novel idea. Perhaps its time for you and your Evangelical friends to give it a rest.............So other sane people can start making decisions............

To paraphrase Clinton ``It`s the oil, stupid.`` Here`re a couple of paragraphs from an article by James Kunstler. You can read the entire essay at the URL below. mirmir

http://www.alternet.org/story/28630/

Can You Spell Withdrawal without O-I-L?
By James Howard Kunstler, kunstler.com
Posted on November 24, 2005, Printed on November 25, 2005

Neither Jack Murtha, the congressman who set the cable news networks afire this weekend, or Frank Rich, the lead dog on the New York Times Sunday op-ed page, mentioned the word ``oil`` once. I only mention it myself because it would be nice if we could have a coherent public discussion about staying or going in Iraq, and you can`t do that without talking about the oil of the Middle East.

But it does illustrate how deep the national denial runs and how foggy the debate gets. Even poor George W. Bush seems to think we`re in Iraq in order to turn the people into Jeffersonian democrats, so the only issue for his opponents is whether that is possible or not.

Maybe we ought to ask: what happens to the oil supply of the Crusader West when none of its representatives maintains a garrison in the Middle East? I use the term Crusader not to be cute, but to remind you how Europe and America are viewed by many people of the Middle East. They don`t like us. They have a longstanding beef with us. Some of them would like to punish us.

America is leading the current crusade because we are the society most desperately addicted to oil, and the Middle East is where two-thirds of the world`s remaining oil lies. The one thing that we apparently cannot bring ourselves to talk about is our addiction itself. The commuters whizzing around the (large) cities and metroplexes of this land probably got a big charge out of Congressman Murtha`s anti-war blast taking over drive-time radio last Friday. I wonder if they thought about how it might affect their commuting.

Re: # 39


>>>>We don`t want your brain hurting.<<<<

Rizvi Sahib.. Salutations, Y tu mama Tambien. And Thankyou for your concerns about the well being of my brain.

Next time wait for a few days after coming out of a taco before addressing me as you register only today and the first thing you do is to speak on some group’s behalf. Who are these “we” you are talking about? Until I know who these “we” are for sure, I ain’t going to do you, monkeybrains.

Salutations,

Kulharee

a long term project ...........

..........regardless of how iraq turns out in the next year or so, things have changed for the better and everyone will be better off in the long run ............. a tyrant is gone, people have cell phones, the political logjam has been broken and other rogues like the ayatollas in tehran and asad in damascus are beginning to take notice ..........

.............now america has to make sure it stays in the region for as long as it takes the bedouins to get their act together ..........let`s not forget that we were engaged in central america for the better part of a century before countries like panama, guatemala, honduras and salvadore were cleansed of the communist pestilence ...... islamic fundamentalism is a much bigger threat and it could take much longer to eradicate this disease........... this is a problem for the entire civilized world and, now that the soviet threat is not there, should be nato`s main focus ............ why should the american tax payer foot the entire bill for providing security for the french and the japanese ? ...........

Re: # 38

..... there is no hamidm but hamidm, and hamidm2 is his successor ..........

mujtaba is taking hamidm`s name in vain ...............

#32 Thank you, I recently posted a i-log entry, ``Declarations of Independence``- since the corporate media (as well as the CIA funded media in many parts of the world- their budget is tens of billions, more than the GDP of many poor countries combined) blocks all dissent, we need to network to get these messages to as many as we can.