Pulling Out the Stops, and Vice Versa

One of the more amusing pieces of graffiti from the Vietnam era was the one that said, "Nixon pull out -- your father should have." I guess we could recycle this one for use in the current situation, which is, in fact, coming to a head of sorts, in that the issue of our pulling out of Iraq is very much in the news -- in Iraq. Unlike Germany, Japan, and Korea, which seem content to have American armies of occupation on their soil in perpetuity, Iraq -- much less of a bonafide nation than any of them -- seems to be deciding it wants to assert itself a bit on this issue, and move toward _real_ self-determination -- rather than the no-cal variety where we tell them what sort of government they should have and punish them if they think otherwise. This could, in fact, be the first opportunity Iraq has ever had to stand on its own two feet and gain the respect of the international community. The only problem is, we might not leave. Now this would, of course, put the lie to many of the alibis we have offered over the past few years as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place. If it was really to "free" the people, and establish democracy, i.e. rule of the people, then we should be celebrating the fact that they are prepared, through a democratic process, to establish a self-sufficient country with a benign government. We should be celebrating that fact, i.e., on the way out the door. But of course this is not the reason we're over there and it never was. So the day fast approaches when a very awkward moment will arrive -- the moment at which they say, well, thanks a heap, but we don't need -- or want -- your help anymore, so there's the door, and have a fun life. And we say, well... not exactly. All of a sudden it will be necessary to stay in Iraq not only for the good of the Iraqi people -- whether they see it that way or not -- but for the good of the Near East -- for "stability" (read: uninterrupted oil supplies) -- for a secure base from which to continue the War on Terrorism (read: the proxy war Israel is fighting with us doing all the heavy lifting) -- and for... well, you know... "stuff". Stuff like billions going to war industries and "military contractors". Stuff like Dick Cheney standing in front of a mirror with a Yankee Doodle hat and a wooden sword. Stuff like giving the American people something to believe in... especially now that Obama has already started to look a bit shopworn.

Of course, it could be argued that the Iraqis are deluding themselves that _they_, somehow, can continue the fight on their own without Big Daddy standing behind them at all times. Well fine, maybe it is a delusion and maybe the best thing, in the long run, is to just get out of Iraq and let the best party, or sect, or terrorist group, or foreign country other than us, win. I mean, we did this in China in the 1940s and... well OK, maybe that's not a good example. But sometimes the most charitable thing is to just let a place self-destruct and hope something rises from the ashes. Vietnam went off radar for a while after we left, and it's now a "trading partner". There are ways in which countries can rehabilitate themselves, even without a Marshall Plan. Maybe we ought to give them a chance more often.

It should also be noted that, according to a recent article, "The Iraqi leader [al-Maliki] also recognizes that American opinion has turned against the war..." Hey, has he been reading about Ho Chi Minh? We've gotta put a stop to that. Yes, foreign leaders do take our internal politics into account -- always have, always will. And thanks to our kind of, sort of, semi-free press, there is no lack of information for them to take advantage of, albeit they have to take much of it with a grain of salt. (If "American opinion has turned against the war", how do you explain all those tens of thousands of 4th of July speeches that were unabashedly pro-war? And nary an egg nor a rotten tomato was tossed.)

And again, of course, one of the terms of reference is "the U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S.-led forced in Iraq", which is set to expire at the end of the year. Well, frankly, I put about as much credence in that "mandate" as I do in the restoom sign that says "staff must wash hands before returning to work". Yeah, sure. Pass the moist towelettes. And when's the last time we did anything the U.N. told us to do, or didn't do something they told us not to do? America's job is to stick in the U.N.'s craw, haven't the Iraqis heard? We all know the U.N. is run by garlic-chomping ragheads and cannibals -- that's why we give it a big shiny building in Manhattan rent-free, and allow its "diplomats" to run amuck on American highways and in brothels. Ah well... if the U.N. didn't already exist, someone would have to invent it. The appeal of the absurd is just too great to go for long without an organization like that... the same way Paris Hilton had to happen, sometime, somewhere.

In any case, the Iraqis are going to find that _we_ are the ones, and no one else, who decide when it's time to pull out. This is why we have never provided exit criteria -- because we really have no intention of pulling out at all, ever. So as the rationale for the invasion continues to morph, years after the fact (imagine us claiming, in 1950, that the Normandy Invasion was intended to help the French peasants with the cabbage harvest, and you get some idea), our projections for leaving get at once more long-term and more ambiguous. John McCain's "100 years" was just a figure of speech, of course -- he really meant a lot longer, but 100 was the biggest number he could think of at the time. Of course, anyone who, in 1954, said we would still be in Korea in 2008 would have been locked up in a rubber room. It's amazing how _anything_ can be accepted as normal if one waits long enough.