Immanuel Wallerstein: "US Withdrawal?"

I find Wallerstein's essay persuasive. I'm sending it to my Congress-peeps and to the Kerry campaign. Maybe they'll have already seen it, but it can't hurt. Wallerstein's description of no one knowing what to do sounds right, and frightening.

NOTE TO MOD: I'm on a mailing list to receive Wallerstein's musings--and I can't find them posted on the web--so I'm posting the whole essay. See below for the permission to do so.

Commentary No. 136, May 1, 2004
"U.S. Withdrawal?"

In the beginning of 2003, the great debate, in the United States and throughout the world was, should the United States go into Iraq? Now the debate has become, should the United States withdraw from Iraq? The occupation has not gone at all as the U.S. authorities had hoped, and expected. Iraqi armed resistance is spreading. The U.S. armed forces are stretched thin. The Iraqis are increasingly and openly hostile to the U.S. and all those who support the U.S., even the Iraqi Governing Council that the U.S. installed to be its faithful ally.

The centrist, Establishment elements in the United States, who all supported the U.S. president's decision, and if in Congress voted for it, are now all very queasy, and they do not know what position to take. One fallback is to say that, while it may have been justified to go into Iraq (the most acceptable justification for this group was to oust Saddam Hussein from power), the war has been conducted badly. The U.S. tried to do it with too small an army. It failed to do what it took to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. The government didn't plan ahead for the post-Saddam period and has made grievous errors. This is not a very strong dissent from the Bush administration's position. The obvious conclusion of this kind of criticism is to call for an increase in our military force in Iraq, for spending more money on reconstruction, and a revival of the draft. This is the position of Republican "critics" like Senators McCain and Hagel.

The Democratic leadership, and most notably Sen. Kerry, go one step further. They say the U.S. should "call in" the United Nations and NATO, which they say Bush should have done from the beginning. The fact that neither the U.N. nor NATO is ready to be called in to the U.S.-created disaster zone is not mentioned. But these people have one more argument, which was spelled out very clearly in a New York Times editorial on April 25:

"This page felt it was a mistake to invade Iraq without broad international support, and since then we have seen few indications that Mr. Bush's notion of establishing a stable democracy is anything but a dream. Yet leaving Iraq now would create a situation so horrific that the United States is obliged to press forward as long as there seems any hope of making progress....This is not the moment for retreat and it certainly is not the moment for half measures."

Yet, as has become clear in the battle of Falluja and the siege of Najaf by the U.S. armed forces, half measures seem to be the only realistic choice. "Full" measures promise even greater disaster for the United States.

What would really happen if the U.S. withdrew? First, we need to know what it means to "withdraw" - all troops or some troops; immediately, soon, or "when the situation stabilizes"? There is clearly today no central government in Iraq, and there is no army (since the U.S. disbanded the only one Iraq had). There is scarcely a police force. The United Nations' representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, says he is hoping to achieve agreement on a brand new central government by the end of May which would be an "interim" government of "experts" until the holding of elections, projected for January 2005.

In the meantime, the U.S. proconsul, Paul Bremer, says he is hoping to reconstitute an Iraqi army, using some of the old generals, who were only "nominally" members of the Baath party. This is being roundly denounced by the former Pentagon favorite, Ahmed Chalibi, who has been in charge of "de-Baathification" of Iraq. Chalibi, who has been unable to demonstrate that he has any popular support anywhere in Iraq, is also opposed to Brahimi's plan, which would eliminate him (and his "party") from the government, probably permanently.

So, maybe there will an army of some sort by January 2005. There are also "militias" of varying importance - at least two that are Kurdish, at least two that are Shi'ite, and probably one that could be easily constituted in Sunni areas. This is the source of the frequent argument that, left alone now, Iraq would fall into civil war. This seemed more likely three months ago. U.S. incompetence has created nationalist links among these rival factions. And U.S. military actions in Falluja and Najaf may seal a new unity, or at least something strong enough to reduce radically the likelihood of anything resembling what happened in Bosnia in the 1990s.

We have recently learned, through the book by Bob Woodward, that Colin Powell reminded George W. Bush, as he was making his decision to invade, of the "antique store" theory of intervention in foreign zones: "If you break it, you own it." That is what the New York Times is now saying: "The United States is obliged to press forward." Obliged? Surely not legally. Morally? Let us look at that more closely.

If you hurt someone and make his situation worse, should you stay around and offer to help? Well, yes, if that would be a remedy, and would be welcomed by the person you're helping. But certainly not, if that would make the situation still worse. Personally, I don't see that what Bremer plus Gen. Abizaid are doing is remedying anything. The situation is steadily deteriorating. And the thing the Iraqis are complaining about most vociferously now, even those who were initially somewhat friendly to the invaders, is that the U.S. is doing great damage to Iraq, and looks like it is going to do still more. The reason is simple. There is very little that the U.S. can do at present that will bring stability and order to Iraq, much less the so-called democracy the U.S. claims it wishes to impose.

The Iraqis have two principal grievances about the U.S. occupiers. They are hurting (and killing) all sorts of people who are not combatants in their understandable efforts to save the lives of U.S. troops and presumably to reestablish order. But secondly, and probably more important, the Iraqis are not persuaded that the U.S. ever intends to leave. And they have good reason to doubt this, since Bush officials have been saying as much for a long time. The U.S. is building permanent military bases in Iraq. The U.S. has said that the "sovereignty" that is being restored to Iraq on June 30 is only "partial." Sovereignty is however like virginity - you either have it or you don't. There is no in-between. If U.S. armed forces can act as they deem wise in post-June 30 Iraq, the country is not sovereign. If the government cannot make laws without clearing them with the U.S., the country is not sovereign - it's a colony.

So, what can the U.S. do? I suppose, since there is at the moment no central government and no army, an instantaneous U.S. withdrawal would indeed have chaotic consequences. But the U.S. could commit itself now to turning over full sovereignty to the interim government on June 30 (which would make the use of the U.S. military restricted and limited by the decisions of this government). It could permit immediately the reconstitution of an Iraqi army. And it could commit itself to total withdrawal of U.S. forces as of say January 2005. But above all, it could renounce all aspirations for any U.S. bases in Iraq in the future.

Does this have some risks from a narrowly U.S. point of view? Of course, it does. But this is the cul-de-sac in which the Bush administration put the U.S. and this is the best way to cut U.S. losses, probably the only way. Will the new government of Iraq be friendly to the U.S.? Quite possibly not. The U.S. didn't know it had a good thing with a virtually toothless Saddam Hussein in power. But when you make a really big mistake, the best thing to do is to admit it and pick up your life from there. Will George W. Bush do it? Almost surely not. Will John F. Kerry do it? Perhaps, but it is very far from sure.

Immanuel Wallerstein
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]


Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton NY 13902-6000
607-777-4924
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/index.htm

I agree with it.

The only way to get French German cooperation in a NATO commitment to Iraq would be to cut them on some financial interests. However these don't look all that promising right now and the risks have gone way up. Contractors running around with private squads of bodyguards isn't really a viable operating mode. It's an admission that the place is not safe for doing business. The guarantees of security for businesses that want to operate in Iraq are going to have to come from an indigenous source who can actually provide security. The incentive to do business there is lost until security is provided. You could have sold them on this deal at the outset but the greedy regime in DC wanted the whole market and resources for itself. Now that the security picture is so dismal, I don't think they could be enticed even if fat contracts and franchises were offered.

I have wondered from the beginning what might have happened if the US hadn't gone into Iraq in carpetbagger mode. What if, instead, Iraqis were given first bid status on all reconstruction work, with grants and micro- (or even macro-) loans to get them started? Iraqis could build schools, repair roads, etc. Any monster projects that required expertise unavailable in Iraq could then have been openly bid to companies from any nation.

And the selling-off (privatization) of Iraq's public works should never have been done--that should have waited for Iraqis to decide. This was looting.

Greed, corruption, and the transparent desire to stay (with multiple permanent military bases)--all of these lost the US the credibility it would need to "succeed" in Iraq. Add to this the prison torture scandal, and I think it's time to admit the US was WRONG, give up any attempt to profit off of Iraq, and find a way to leave as soon as possible.

Of course, Wallerstein said this much better than I. I'm just adding footnotes.

I was referring to giving the international community financial incentives to take risks and get involved. Getting the Iraqi communities and entities directly, materially and financially involved on a bigger level from the start is an even better idea that wasn't given a chance either.

I remember reading about an Iraqi company that bid $250,000 to restore a damaged bridge. Their bid fell to an American company bidding millions. I think that this was a paradigm. The profiteering aspect of this war was so blatant.

Probably a few did--cronies of Chalabi, et al. But most seem to have just gotten sub-contracts, with all of the real windfall profits going to US firms. And millions of Iraqis unemployed. So what if the building would have been lower-tech? or taken longer (debatable)? The Iraqi people might have gotten caught up in the excitement of rebuilding their own country. Even if they had had to make gravel by breaking up rocks with hammers (as I actually saw in South Korea in the 1960s), at least that would have given jobs to everyone.

It's not that Repukes don't understand the idea of getting everyone into the vested-interest group. Look how hard they're trying to get all Americans into the stock market so they'll identify with the capitalists. So I think we do have to assume they're only motivated by greed. As you point out.

Thanks for the kind response, teryang!

It's a little late to be kicking this thread (which I am ashamed not to have properly tended), but here goes.... It IS a good article.

:kick:

I keep wondering what he is up to. He did say that if the Occupiers defile Najaf that he would call for Jihad. They have done so, even bullets in his dweling but he has remained silent. Is al Sistani waiting for the US to kill al Sadr before taking any action?

Ultimately, the most compelling reason for absolute withdrawal is one that nobody in any official capacity (whether the Administration or its loyal opposition) seems willing (or maybe just bright enough) to state: that GWB's executive determination (that it was necessary to attack Iraq) was flatly mistaken, if not outright fraudulent, and thus it is the "insurgents" who actually have just cause for use of force (to defend themselves from an unprovoked invasion).

As long as a given individual remains critical only of the conduct of the war, rather than the validity of the war decision itself, there is a very strong chance that individual must continue to believe in the validity of the war. John Kerry knows now there are no WMDs and Iraq wasn't a threat; lack of recrimination about the war decision now suggests he sees other reasons why he'd want America in Iraq anyhow.

In short: John wants those bases too.

so I suppose the inference that Kerry wants the bases too is something only Kerry can refute.

There are plenty of hawkish Dems (Biden, Lieberman, et al.) whom Kerry may be listening to. And then there are those who claim that it's all about positioning for the election. Personally, I hate the idea that a complete reassessment of the Iraq invasion, the US role in the world, and the role (and size, etc.) of the US military cannot be part of a presidential election. But I HOPE that it is something that will be addressed after a Dem win. Wishful thinking maybe....

So, basically, I agree with you. And wish Kerry would use this opportunity to raise these desperately urgent issues. If things get any worse in Iraq, and the lies and crimes of *BushCo are finally widely reported, a Kerry win will be assured. And if Kerry wins without challenging the status quo, the hawks will not admit to having lost. Depressing.