Troops Out of Iraq

There is an important debate going on between Michael Schwartz who is arguing for an immediate withdrawal of the occupation troops in Tomgram: Michael Schwartz on Immediate Withdrawal. He argues that

...it is far more reasonable, based on what we now know, to assume that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq quickly, the level of violence would be reduced, possibly drastically, not heightened. Here are the four key reasons:

1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;

2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;

3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;

4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.

Prof Juan Cole rejoins with Schwartz: US out Now

I'd get most of the US ground troops out, and just cede Tal Afar to whoever is in Tal Afar. But I think the US [or somebody, and unfortunately that means the US] has a duty to maintain a couple of air bases in the area along with some Special Ops forces to forestall a Himalayan tragedy in the near to medium term. Over time the US will be able (and will be forced) to leave altogether.

Of course, I'd be much happier if we could get US ground troops out on a short timetable and have the peace-enforcing done by the United Nations or even NATO. But that isn't going to happen, so the use of air power to stop a full-fledged civil war falls to the US.

So I can associate myself with a call for US ground troops out now. But frankly I think it would be selfish to just bust into Iraq (which 75 percent of Americans supported), turn it upside down, set it on a course toward civil war, and then abruptly pick up our marbles and go home altogether. We did that in Afghanistan after 1989, and it did not turn out well for us.

Gilbert Achcar reponds to Prof. Cole's arguments and Prof. Cole responds to that response at Achcar Responds. Gilbert Achcar concludes

... At no point did you refer to the will of the main people concerned: the Iraqis themselves. On this score, if we assume that the overwhelming majorities of the Kurds and the Arab Sunnis have symmetrically opposed positions on the presence of occupation troops, this would leave us with the Arab Shiites who are clearly divided on the matter, between those who agree on the temporary presence of foreign troops and those who want them out immediately.

I won’t try to assert that an increasing majority of the Shiites are for the latter position, not due to a lack of arguments, but because it amounts again to a vain guessing game. It should be sufficient that there is definitely no consensus on the occupation among Iraqis, and that a very substantial portion of the Iraqi population, at the very least, wants occupation forces out – including the overwhelming majority of those in whose territory occupation forces are most active militarily – to induce every democratic-minded person to join the marchers in demanding that occupation troops be brought home now.

And Prof. Cole concludes his response with

As for the Iraqis' desires with regard to a continued US military presence, they clearly have mixed opinions, as you say. But the elected leaders have not called for a precipitate withdrawal. I have no reason to believe that Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani, Ibrahim Jaafari, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim came to power through fraud in the January 30 elections. The Iraqi political elite more surely represents is public than any other government in the Arab world. Talabani speaks of a two-year timetable for US presence in the country. Jaafari has repeatedly said that it is not time for the US to leave, but one of his advisers has proposed a gradual withdrawal of Coalition forces from the cities. If Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wanted the US out, he would give a fatwa, and I believe that the US would not be able to stay if that happened. So far, the Sunni Arabs (15? percent of the population) and the Sadrists (hard to know what percentage they represent) want the US out immediately and completely. As you yourself have kindly pointed out, about 120 parliamentarians have called for it out of 275 last I heard.

So my position, that it would be irresponsible of the US to simply abandon Iraq altogether and immediately, is actually fairly similar to the consensus of the elected Iraqi leadership. If anything, I am more eager to see US ground troops out on a short timetable than they seem to be.

These posts encompass a great deal of reading and breadth of discussion. I think I understand about 50% of it. Prof. Cole's position is that the US has a responsibility to stop the civil war in Iraq. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Archar contend that the US is killing far more than in any civil war. My own opinion is that this whole argument is academic: the only way the US is going to leave Iraq is in a coffin. The current Iraq war is of such vital importance to US ruling class interests that withdrawal cannot be contemplated. This war is a desperate gamble for continued global supermacy by a declining imperial power.

In a historical parallel, Emperor Julian invaded Mesopotamia (Iraq) in order to shore up declining Roman power against the rising Sassanian (Iranian) power and got beaten. See Reader's Companion to Military History - - Julian

...Julian invaded Mesopotamia (March 363); his goal was to reassert Roman power against an ascendant Sassanian Persia. Julian's strategy—which depended on deception, speed, coordination of two armies and a large river fleet, and the execution of a complex pincers movement—proved overly complex. He failed to capture the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, lost momentum during a hungry retreat up the Tigris, and was killed (June 363) during a skirmish. Julian's failure led to long-term Persian gains in the East ...

The parallel is about strategic necessarity of invasion not of outcome. You are not going to see GWB dying in battle.