Book
Review: Iraq – The Logic Of Withdrawal
By Jim Miles
14 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Iraq – The Logic
of Withdrawal. Anthony Arnove. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company,
New York, 2007.
With
George Bush having General Petraeus tell him that success is possible
in Iraq “although doing so will be neither quick nor easy,”
and with his own speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that rewrote
the history book on the Vietnamese war with some strange twists of conjecture,
it would appear that the U.S. is settling in for the long haul in Iraq.
In a similar vein, Ambassador Ryan Crocker called Iraq “a traumatized
society,” adding to the old tired excuse that the U.S. cannot
quit the war as the Iraqis themselves are not capable of managing their
own affairs. The essential message becomes the same as in Vietnam: the
Iraqis are not capable of working things out themselves and in order
to give them freedom and democracy, we need to continue fighting the
insurgency that mysteriously continues to battle on. Nowhere does the
message go out that, yes, “we” are the problem, “we”
started it (leaving aside for the moment all the arguments about illegality,
lies and deception, and oil), and “we” should get out and
go home and let the Iraqis work out their problems on their own or with
the assistance of their neighbours and perhaps the sidelined UN.
It is at this point the Anthony
Arnove’s book (second edition) Iraq – The Logic of Withdrawal,
becomes very timely. It is a clear, well written work, a short read
that presents arguments in a concise and well-referenced manner. In
order to get to the ‘logic of withdrawal’ Arnove presents
strong summary chapters on the overall picture of what has and is happening
in Iraq. From that it could be considered a ‘primer’ on
what has occurred in Iraq, historically from the fall of the Ottoman
Empire, through to the period of U.S. involvement since the Second World
War, continuing on into current events with the protracted ‘sanction’
phase against Iraq followed by the deceit of the current war.
In the introduction Arnove
recognizes that Iraq matters to the U.S., that a defeat will be “far
more significant” than that in Vietnam, as it would be a reversal
of a long applied geostrategy to control the Middle East. Further, it
signifies that the U.S. has “run up against the limits of empire,”
and that “popular forces” within the civilian, military
and international world need to “force the U.S. government to
this conclusion.” He looks even further and sees a larger challenge,
“the need to transform the irrational economic and political system
that led to the wars…and that is today directly threatening the
survival of the human species.”
In “A War of Choice”,
Arnove discusses the issues of legality and international law, of manipulation
of information, oil, Kuwait and the 1990s sanctions, and the message
given to the world by the invasion. From there he presents the current
situation with topics on infrastructure conditions (water, power, hospitals),
the economic impacts of foreign workers, corporations, the idealized
neoliberal open market restructuring, personal safety reflecting tactics
used by Israelis to disenfranchise Palestinians, and then into torture
and the creation of the ‘other’, the non-person without
rights, protection, and subject to all kinds of atrocities outside the
reach of the law.
The ever-recurring theme
of “The New White Man’s Burden” highlights the arguments
that the U.S. makes about its morality and benevolence towards the world,
a world in which the ‘other’ is not capable of governing
themselves. He uses Canada’s now resident political pundit Michael
Ignatieff who argues for the cause of imperialism, an empire whose “grace
notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the
most awesome military power the world has ever known.” I cannot
perceive that there is any moral right, or freedom of any kind, or any
but the most narrowly proscribed democracy with all that military power
being the instrument of ‘grace.’ Neither can Arnove. He
continues with the violent example of the Philippines, the racist ‘logic’
applied there, and how that has transferred over the years to Iraq.
Iraq’s “History
of Occupation” reviews the British occupation and control after
the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the rebellion by the Iraqis, the use
of reserve troops and the first use of aerial bombing and the threat
of chemical warfare (by our hero Churchill no less) against the civilian
population. That history leads into the era of Saddam Hussein and the
U.S. turn against him on the invasion of Kuwait.
The idea of occupying forces
blaming the resident population of not being capable of governing themselves,
of being savage warriors, in the case of Iraq of being ‘terrorists’
lacks any common sense, relying on “a long colonial legacy.”
“The Resistance in Iraq” begins with the idea expressed
by several Americans that “we would oppose any outside interference
in Iraq’s road to democracy,” a completely self-contradictory
statement that no rationale person would accept for Iraq’s transformation.
Instead, “In challenging their occupation, the people of Iraq
have transformed the calculus of empire.” Arnove, without quoting
the UN Charter, states, “The people of Iraq have very right to
resist U.S. occupation,” a fundamental element of the charter
the U.S. has to ignore in order carry out its plans of hegemony.
After that background has
been established, Arnove discusses “The Logic of Withdrawal”,
providing eight well-defined reasons that should seem obvious to the
reader of average intelligence. His reasoning is a rebuttal to some
obviously contrived and also plain and simple ignorant arguments made
by the administration and its supporters (and some supposed non-supporters
if the Democrats are included) as to why the U.S. should stay in Iraq.
Only a racist, bigoted, non-rationale and immoral thought pattern would
not be able to see that the U.S. is staying in Iraq on a series of lies.
In plain and simple language, Arnove states, “We should allow
the people of Iraq to determining their own future….that in addition
to calling for an end to military occupation,” also calls “…for
an end to the economic occupation of Iraq….” Highly logical,
with an equally high degree of common sense as well.
Finally, in wanting “Out
Now”, Arnove looks at the factors that ended the Vietnam war,
looks at the opposition to the war in various arenas: the first is obvious,
the Iraqi resistance; the second is the military itself, based on its
racist policies of recruitment; third, is growing opposition at home,
emphasized by the lack of response to the on-going civil disaster in
New Orleans; and ending in a series of arguments on the economic and
social welfare erosion within the U.S. Ultimately, Arnove sees the relationship
between home and abroad, as “The corporate looting of Iraq is
simply an extension of the looting at home.” There is recognition
that the factors for getting out now are not yet strong enough, but
need to be strengthened across a broad front.
The afterward to the second
edition extends the above arguments briefly and then considers the attitude
towards Iran. The Iranian nuclear threat is simply a “smokescreen”,
obvious again to anyone who understands the articles of the NPT and
elBaradei’s reports from the IAEA, as the real motivation “in
Iran – as in Iraq – are energy, geography, and geopolitics.”
The reality of the current and perhaps subsequent administrations is
that any conjecture that relies “on the intelligence, rationality,
or humanity of U.S. policymakers would be an unwise one.”
Arnove has presented very
basic forthright arguments that support the immediate withdrawal of
the U.S. military apparatus (and I use that, as Arnove intends, to include
the economic side of it as well) from Iraq. The very fundamental lies
that the U.S. administration uses to support its ideology are easily
rebutted, yet the ongoing self-contradictory statements continue to
run like drivel from the political warriors in government positions.
Iraq – The Logic of Withdrawal is a wonderfully concise primer
for those looking for the obvious rationale (apart from the moral gut
feeling) as to why the U.S. should quit Iraq.
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist
of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest
in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which
encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global
community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the
American government.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.