Robert Dreyfuss: "Apocalypse Not" Time to stop buying into worst case scenarios about leaving Iraq.

[scarletwoman]

Apocalypse Not

Much of Washington assumes that leaving Iraq will lead to
a bigger bloodbath. It’s time to question that assumption.

The Bush administration famously based its argument for invading Iraq on best-case assumptions: that we would be greeted as liberators; that a capable democratic government would quickly emerge; that our military presence would be modest and temporary; and that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for everything. All these assumptions, of course, turned out to be wrong.

Now, many of the same people who pushed for the invasion are arguing for escalating our military involvement based on a worst-case assumption: that if America leaves quickly, the Apocalypse will follow. “How would (advocates of withdrawal) respond to the eruption of full-blown civil war in Iraq and the massive ethnic cleansing it would produce?” write Robert Kagan and William Kristol in the Weekly Standard. “How would they respond to the intervention of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran, Syria, and Turkey? And most important, what would they propose to do if, as a result of our withdrawal and the collapse of Iraq, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups managed to establish a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the United States and its allies?”

Similar rhetoric has been a staple of President Bush’s recent speeches. If the United States “fails” in Iraq—his euphemism for withdrawal—the president said in January, “(r)adical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions … Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.”

<snip>

But if it was foolish to accept the best-case assumptions that led us to invade Iraq, it’s also foolish not to question the worst-case assumptions that undergird arguments for staying. Is it possible that a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces will lead to a dramatic worsening of the situation? Of course it is, just as it’s possible that maintaining or escalating troops there could fuel the unrest. But it’s also worth considering the possibility that the worst may not happen: What if the doomsayers are wrong?

Great analysis -- please go to the link and read the whole piece! Get the ammunition you need to counter the "we have to stay in Iraq" arguments!

sw

[maxsolomon]

1. to a degree, i don't care if the doomsayers are right

but the goal of the jihadis is to drive america from the region in humiliation. if they accomplish that, the air goes out of the recruiting balloon.

if iraq becomes a precipitating event that leads to a re-ordering of the middle east into a single nation resembling the ottoman empire's size & power, so be it. if it leads to partition of iraq into 3 states in a bloody civil war, well, we lived through india's disintegration.

you cannot put humpty dumpty back together again.

[scarletwoman]

3. "Jihadi" or not, if I were a Middle Easterner, my goal would be to end Western interference in my

homeland, period.

sw

[maxsolomon]

12. i agree

but i would hope the suicide bombings become less frequent after defeating the great satan.

and that's the jihadis.

[groovedaddy]

2. the PR campaign is all about the FEAR 24-7

What are the REAL motivations? Ask the neo-cons, obviously still holding sway over bush, now spouting that we'll be in Iraq for a long, long time.

[G_j]

4. & of course they never ask what the Iraqi people want

and the majority don't want us there

[leftchick]

5. "The al-Qaeda myth"

This is excellent sw! Thank you!


The al-Qaeda myth

To understand why it’s a mistake to assume the worst, let’s begin with the most persistent, Bush-fostered fear about post-occupation Iraq: that al-Qaeda or other Islamic extremists will seize control once America departs; or that al-Qaeda will establish a safe haven in a rump, lawless Sunnistan and use that territory as a base, much as it used Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The idea that al-Qaeda might take over Iraq is nonsensical. Numerous estimates show that the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its foreign fighters comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the Sunni insurgents’ forces. Most Sunni insurgents are simply what Wayne White—who led the State Department’s intelligence effort on Iraq until 2005—calls POIs, or “pissed-off Iraqis,” who are fighting because “they don’t like the occupation.” But the foreign terrorist threat is frequently advanced by the Bush administration, often with an even more alarming variant—that al-Qaeda will use Iraq as a headquarters for the establishment of a global caliphate. In December 2005, Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a briefing in which he warned that al-Qaeda hoped to “revive the caliphate,” with its capital in Baghdad. President Bush himself has warned darkly that after controlling Iraq, Islamic militants will “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

The reality is far different. Even if AQI came to dominate the Sunni resistance, it would be utterly incapable of seizing Baghdad against the combined muscle of the Kurds and the Shiites, who make up four fifths of the country. (The Shiites, in particular, would see the battle against the Sunni extremist AQI—which regards the Shiites as a heretical, non-Muslim sect—as a life-or-death struggle.)

<snip>

It’s also worth questioning whether the forces that call themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq have any real ties to whatever remains of Osama bin Laden’s weakened, Pakistan-based leadership. Such ties, if they exist, have always been murky at best, even under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. With al-Zarqawi’s elimination in 2006 and his replacement by a collegial group, these ties are even muddier. Although it’s convenient for the Bush administration to claim that al-Qaeda is a Comintern-like international force, it is really a loose ideological movement, and its Iraq component is fed largely by jihadists who flock to the country because they see the war as a holy cause. Once the United States withdraws, Iraq will no longer be a magnet for that jihad.


...... I sure wish some Baghdad reporter would make these points out loud on TV!

[scarletwoman]

7. They can't let go of the al-Qaeda bogeyman -- it's SOOOO convenient!

You know, what pisses me off more than anything is the underlying assumption that the Iraqis are somehow incapable of pursuing their own interests. It's not just patronizing, it's racist: "The Great White Father must protect you."

Thanks for excerpting more of the article. And thanks as always for having my back here on DU! :loveya:

sw

[leftchick]

8. Michael Ware on CNN is the worst with the Al-Q myth

I think he likes to hear himself say it, over and over....

:eys:

<snip>

CNN could not independently confirm the report and CNN's Michael Ware in Baghdad said Iraqi officials would not say whether al-Masri was in custody.

The U.S. military -- who wrongly reported last October that al-Masri had been killed -- referred reporters to the Iraqi government.

Al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, is an Egyptian who took over the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq in June after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Iraqi Interior Minister Muwaffak al-Rubaie estimated in October 2006 that al-Masri had been involved in making more than 2,000 car bombs that killed more than 6,000 Iraqis in the past two years.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/15/iraq.main/index.html

[scarletwoman]

9. They spin layers and layers of fantasy and bullshit. Unfortunately, it works.

It leaves people confused and misinformed -- and most importantly, frightened. Add in the unquestioned assumption of "American Exceptionalism" and you have the perfect mix for a malleable populace.

sw

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Great article. The United States has become, IMO, irrelevent in the conflict.

The American forces serve only as a focus for all sides in the conflict. It will be settled by the Iraqis and the countries surrounding Iraq, no matter what the geniuses in Washington and the Pentagon do. We are only extending the lost war to save the faces of the politicians and generals who started it. And, that effort is blatantly a failure.

[scarletwoman]

10. Well, the puppet Maliki needs U.S. support to keep his position, so he's in no hurry to see us leave

If U.S. forces are withdrawn, he's toast and he knows it.

sw

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The Americans have to defend Maliki, which means taking sides with the Shi'a.

Or, at least, one faction of the Shi'a. Which is a recipe for disaster. Or, should I say, a worse disaster.

[leftchick]

13. k&r

sw rocks!

:)

[scarletwoman]

14. Thanks, LC... You rock, too!

:D

[leftchick]

16. aw, I do not

I am a follower of cool folks like you. :)

[scarletwoman]

15. evening kick... (nt)