Comments on: Chomsky hits home run!

By: chefyamabushi

chefyamabushi — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:59:28 +0000

Peter,

With that clarification, I wholeheartedly agree. I sincerely hope that there will be a way to extricate ourselves from there without further alienating both our allies, professed enemies, and casual (and justifiably nervous) observers. I certainly don’t see the value of struggling to maintain a high risk presence there for any purpose other than to assure that Iraq’s new government does not wind up looking like Iran’s (or Afghanistan… the so-called “Marshall Plan for Afghanistan” seems to have been conveniently forgotten. Rrrrgh.)

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:26:02 +0000

Chefyamabushi,

‘But that lack of confidence is not much of an argument for military occupation.’

I don’t think Chomsky is suggesting a ‘drop everything and get out’ policy. Ideally, he is hoping for an organized withdrawal that will address both Iraq’s right to genuine sovereignty and the need to keep civil disorder at bay.
Chomsky feels that ignorance about the exact nature of a post-US Iraq is not a motivation for the US to stay in Baghdad. You seem to disagree. But if the occupation is both very immoral and having enormous negative consequences on the Iraqi people than ignorance of the future hardly justifies continuing with the status quo.

By: jamie

jamie — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:55:34 +0000

I think one fact that Chomsky doesn’t raise – and I haven’t seen it raised in many other places either – is that the US has swapped military bases in Saudi Arabia for ones in Iraq. Those troops are intended to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and it’s probably fair to argue that securing acceptance of this by the Iraqis by whatever means is Allawi’s main task as far as the US is concerned.

By: chefyamabushi

chefyamabushi — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:57:48 +0000

I was in complete agreement until the last sentence gave me a big “hwaaaah?”. We don’t know what will happen so we should just drop everything and get out? Did I miss something in there?

By: Kegri

Kegri — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:37:15 +0000

well, thank you chris for presenting a balanced view of chomsky. and kudos to the vigilante justice of this “peter” fellow. he certainly sounds like a credible fellow.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:34:40 +0000

Yes, I think that it’s a tricky question, and its undeniable that the U.S. will play some stabalizing role in Iraq over the next while. The problem, though, is that they will also play a destabalizing role in Iraq over the same period. In the long term, I’ve got my money on a worse net effect with the US there than not.

And I continue to believe that the US desire for long term bases is the root of much evil in Iraq’s future. That desire has continually gotten in the way of the good that the US might have done, and I see no reason why that will change.

By: Rodger

Rodger — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:05:16 +0000

I too have been giving some serious thought to the extrication of America from Iraq.

It msut be done, but it’s not going to be easy and there could be some very adverse consequences. You mentioned civil war, but that implies many things.

For instance, it could mean more than doubling of world oil prices, just like 1978-1981 during the Iranian revolution.

And we shouldn’t altogether dismiss the “failed state” argument. As I blogged, imagine Afghanistan with better infrastructure and technicians.