Twenty-four Iraqi children just gave their lives so that George W. Bush could boldly “stay the course.” The suicide car bomb that took these young innocents, who did nothing more than gather around some American soldiers with candy, also claimed a family eating breakfast and four workers resting nearby. Last September, 34 other children were killed in a similar incident.
But good for these brave kids and their grieving parents. They knew how to show the insurgents who’s in charge. Right?
Since the American occupation began at an eventual cost of at least 1800 of our own, the civilian body count has been estimated by Iraqi officials at 12,000 to date, though a report last year put the count even then as high as 100,000. Whatever the true count, the carnage has experienced an upswing since the January 30 elections that installed Prime Minster Ibrahim al-Jaafari’s government. That electoral milestone, as you’ll recall, was hailed by the Bush administration as a great leap forward in securing a peaceful and independent Iraq. That was also 24 children ago -- and there’s no end in sight.
The routine and continuing bloodshed in Iraq makes clear to any rational observer that “staying the course” is not working. In fact, the present U.S. course is counterproductive for those it’s intended to help and, indeed, self-destructive. Antiwar advocates postulated this outcome well before this war of choice began. But let’s put that I-told-you-so truth aside and move on to what I imagine a growing number of antiwar advocates are now thinking. Perhaps they’re just as correct on this as they were on the invasion -- and God knows they couldn’t be any more wrong than the neocons have been.
It’s time to contemplate withdrawal not just from Iraq, but from the Middle East at large; and not just combat troops, but our entire military presence -- bases and all, Saudi Arabia and all -- that has caused and guarantees permanent violence there, here, London, take your pick. In a new book titled Dying to Win, political scientist Robert Pape argues from meticulous research that the overwhelming number of suicide bombings globally have stemmed not from extremist Islamist hatred of Western freedom and democracy, as we’re repeatedly spoon-fed by the White House, but from resentment of foreign occupation.
Simply put, writes Pape, the terrorists’ objective is to “compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”
You’ll never hear this terrorist-insurgency rationale from Bush Inc. All you’ll hear is the hatred of freedom. But it’s a rationale that has reigned throughout the ages against all occupations. We ourselves used it 230 years ago. And we need to face the bleak reality that, in time, it’s a winning rationale.
Other than hurt pride, the most common objection to total withdrawal is the potential problem of access to oil in the absence of a military presence. Yet the withholding of oil from world markets would be economic suicide for the withholders and would only unite non-Middle Eastern nations to secure -- militarily if necessary -- what the modern world rightfully expects: fair access to a vital resource. But such an unlikely war would not be one of choice. It would be a true and justified war of survival. There’s no comparison.
We’ve tried and failed the neocon way. There exists a radical alternative to this radical problem and it should be honestly debated. Neocons, naturally, villainize withdrawal as appeasement and haul out the Munich analogies ad nauseam. Let them. They enjoy it. When regnant policies become so obviously self-destructive, however, those who put them in place and insist on keeping them there deservedly lose their seat at the table of reason.
For all his faults and screw-ups, Tony Blair did say something following the London bombings that made imminent sense. It was also quite revealing. In a meeting with Muslim legislators he proposed urgent talks with local Muslim leaders to “debate the right way forward.” He didn’t suggest the armed occupation of Muslim neighborhoods in Britain. Why? Because he understands the explosive counterproductivity of such a move.
Bush is beyond help, of course, but perhaps someday Mr. Blair can extend his understanding to an international scale.
Go ahead and call it appeasement if you like. I call it a hard reality in the national interest that will be inevitably realized. It may as well be sooner than later.
Recent Comments