May 19, 2004 PERMALINK
To Withdraw, Or Not To Withdraw
(posted May 19 1:30 AM ET)
(updated May 19 9:30 AM ET)
The American people thought, and we were led to believe, we'll be looked upon as liberators and that they'll be glad to have us there.
But it appears to me that the sooner we get out, the happier they're going to be.
-- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), 5/18/04
There has never been a consensus among liberals on the exact strategy for Iraq, once the war began.
(And there is no longer a conservative consensus either.)
The liberal rift was personified in the Dem primary:
Between Dennis Kucinich's "UN In, US Out" strategy and Howard Dean's argument that "We have no choice…If we leave and we don't get a democracy…the result is very significant danger to the United States."
Withdraw Now liberals were, of course, extremely marginalized during the primaries.
The argument didn't get enough attention to be fleshed out, and was dismissed as sheer irresponsibility.
But several factors (Odom, Nader, Abu Ghriab) are giving withdrawal relatively more play, even though neither Dubya or Kerry will remotely consider it for the immediate future.
Plus, polls are showing increasing support for some degree of withdrawal, though it does not yet reach majority support.
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, May 7-9
Send more troops: 25%
Keep as is now: 24%
TOTAL MAINTAIN MAJOR PRESENCE: 49% (down from 58% in April)
Withdraw some troops: 18%
Withdraw all troops: 29%
TOTAL WITHDRAW AT LEAST IN PART: 47% (up from 37% in April)
Pew poll, May 3-9
Keep troops in: 53% (down from 63% in Jan.)
Bring troops home: 42% (up from 32%in Jan.)
Regardless of where you stand, the increasing credibility of the withdrawal argument is a positive development.
It means the center of gravity of the debate is shifting: from "should the war be about WMD or liberation?" to "how quickly should we leave?"
Having said that, LiberalOasis is mildly concerned that an unnecessary fault line could occur between the Withdraw Now vs. Withdraw Later camps.
That is not where the line should be drawn.
The fundamental line that separates the Bushie neocons from everybody else is:
Should Iraq policy be based on desire for US military, political and economic control of the Gulf region (which fosters resentment that harms our national security)?
Or desire for peace, stability and true self-determination for the Iraqi people (which fundamentally enhances our long-term national security)?
The fact is, most everyone in both the Withdraw Now and the Withdraw Later camps also falls into the latter "self-determination" camp, and not the imperialist Pax Americana camp (which uses self-determination rhetoric as a smokescreen).
The debate between Withdraw Now and Withdraw Later is mainly over how to get there with the least amount of bloodshed, and the least risk of long-term security problems.
And neither side is capable of definitively proving their argument, without it being put into practice.
While it's indisputable that the US occupation is an increasing irritant to the Iraqis, in the end, it's conjecture whether leaving simply relieves the irritation or allows for more irritating forces to thrive.
Thankfully, both camps are putting forth ideas as to how we can leave without damaging Iraq further.
(See discussions in The Nation, The American Prospect, Center for American Progress, as well as from Kerry.)
All the Bushies have is "stay the course" and "wait until June 30."
Those of us who don't completely agree on when to withdraw are beginning to have a productive discussion, bringing out tactical ideas helpful to a new Administration.
We can keep it productive, by remembering we're all on the same side.
<a href='http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/051604.htm#051904' target='_blank'>http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/051604.htm#051904</a>
