portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

How can a new administration withdraw from Iraq?

Question posed: is there later on any credible way a new US administration can withdraw from an occupied Iraq? Or will the occupation be made permanent through the huge reconstruction contracts, and virtually free access to enormous natural resources for the occupants?
I still believe that there is a last chance to avoid further insanity in the Iraq-crisis; namely thru the UN enforcing resolution 377 "uniting for Peace", demanding the immediate cessation of hostilities in the area and the subsequent withdrawal of all aggressor forces from Iraqi territory. This followed by a continuation of weapons inspections along with a strong humanitarian/social effort including the posting of UN observers all over Iraq and a huge presence of human rights defenders of some sort. (This would be very much LESS expensive than the current path taken.)

However, at present this scenario seems unlikely. What I'd like to start a discussion about is the following:

Suppose that the war continues and finally leads to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his regime. According to popular beliefs, some US general is then to lead the occupied territories for an undecided time. The massive contracts for reconstruction etc etc will primarily go to large US corporations, and an eventual end to the occupation may be predicated on some vague measure of stability. Iraq is many times as populous and large as Palestine and thus by necessity much harder to control. Following the Israeli example, crackdowns on "terrorism" can be claimed indefinitely as an argument to stay on and protect "vital American interests".
(Notably, convenient slurs about terrorism can already be heard from the coalition command when describing those who dare to actively oppose their "liberation".)

OK - this is truly repulsive and shameful.
But is there later on any credible way a new US administration could withdraw from the occupied territories? Or will the occupation be made permanent through the huge reconstruction contracts, and virtually free access to enormous natural resources for the occupants? Very likely voices would quickly be heard saying that "our boys must not have died in vain" if anyone tried to return Iraq to the Iraqi people.
look at Germany and Japan 27.Mar.2003 13:04

George Smiley

Have a look at Germany or Japan. They are successful, democratic states that benefited from an American occupation.

Iraq is one of the most secular, well-educated states in the Middle East. Democracy may take awhile to take hold. Once it does, the American occupation can unwind.

An American force in the Iraq will provide the stability needed for democracy to take hold. Besides Turkey and Israel, there are no established democracies in the Middle East. The liberation of Iraq will provide a good opportunity to try an establish one, though this may be a protracted and difficult process that does require an extended occupation.

To pull out of Iraq early would be to shirk our responsibilities to the people of Iraq--much like we did when we failed to support revolts against Saddam Hussein in 1991.

Jason asked the right ?, here is THEIR answer 27.Mar.2003 15:09


The whole point, Jason, is to create a situation in which future administrations would have no choice but to continue the war against the Islamic Middle East. What the administration is doing is referred to (in honor of Ariel Sharon's policy from the 1970's of encouraging settlement's in the occupied territory) -- as "creating new facts on the ground".

About 10 days ago I put up an illustrated essay called, "While they create new facts on the ground," about this on my page of Portland protest pictures.


I just updated it with a quote from the latest issue of the The Washington Monthly. The article is entitled "Practice to Deceive" and the link is below the quotation. THIS, or at least the excerpt below, IS A MUST READ. All the more so because its author has tried his best to support the war. This is not an unfair treatment, but the plain truth about what very few people, even here on Indymedia realize about Bush's plans for a World War.

--- begin excerpt from Marshall's web site and the article ---

"Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a 'world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future.'" ...

"The war is not about Saddam Hussein, WMD, or even Iraq. It is the opening shot in a world war pitting the U.S. (and Israel) against every government in the Middle East and Persian Gulf of which we disapprove. [We will use] U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So events that may seem negative -- Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria -- while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments -- or, failing that, U.S. troops -- rule the entire Middle East."


"Another president may be able to rebuild NATO or get the budget back in balance. But once America begins the process of remaking the Middle East in the way the hawks have in mind, it will be extremely difficult for any president to pull back."


--- in other words ---

the Middle East will be America's West Bank -- our occcupied territories.