Iraq — The Logic of Withdrawal
By Anthony Arnove
The New Press, 2007
178 pages, $26.00 (pb)
With George Bush having General Petraeus tell him that success is possible in Iraq "although doing so will be neither quick nor easy", and with his own speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that rewrote the history book on the Vietnam War with some strange twists of conjecture, it would appear that the US is settling in for the long haul in Iraq. In a similar vein, US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker called Iraq "a traumatised society", adding to the old tired excuse that the US cannot quit the war as the Iraqis themselves are not capable of managing their own affairs. The essential message becomes the same as in Vietnam: in order to give the Iraqis freedom and democracy, we need to continue fighting the insurgency that mysteriously continues to battle on.
Nowhere does the message go out that, yes, "we" are the problem, "we" started it (leaving aside for the moment all the arguments about illegality, lies and deception, and oil), and "we" should get out and go home and let the Iraqis work out their problems on their own. It is at this point that the second edition of Anthony Arnove's book Iraq — The Logic of Withdrawal, becomes very timely. It is a clear, well written work, a short read that presents arguments in a concise and well-referenced manner. In order to get to the "logic of withdrawal", Arnove presents strong summary chapters on the overall picture of what has and is happening in Iraq. From that it could be considered a "primer" on what has occurred in Iraq historically, from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, through to the period of US involvement since the Second World War, continuing on into current events with the protracted "sanctions" phase against Iraq followed by the deceit of the current war.
In the introduction Arnove recognises that Iraq matters to the US, that a defeat will be "far more significant" than that in Vietnam, as it would be a reversal of a long applied geostrategy to control the Middle East. Further, it signifies that the US has "run up against the limits of empire". Arnove argues that "popular forces" need to "force the US government to this conclusion". He looks even further and sees a larger challenge — "the need to transform the irrational economic and political system that led to the wars … and that is today directly threatening the survival of the human species".
In "A War of Choice", Arnove discusses the issues of legality and international law, of manipulation of information, oil, Kuwait, the 1990s sanctions and the message given to the world by the invasion. From there he presents the current situation with topics on infrastructure conditions (water, power, hospitals), the economic impacts of foreign workers, corporations, the idealised neoliberal open market restructuring. Then he delves into torture and the creation of the "other" — the non-person without rights, protection, and subject to all kinds of atrocities outside the reach of the law.
The recurring theme of "The New White Man's Burden" highlights the arguments that the US makes about its morality and benevolence towards the world, a world in which the "other" is not capable of governing themselves. Arnove uses Canada's now resident political pundit Michael Ignatieff, who argues for the cause of imperialism — an empire whose "grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known".
Iraq's "History of Occupation" reviews the British occupation and control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the rebellion by the Iraqis, the use of reserve troops, the first use of aerial bombing and the threat of chemical warfare (by Winston Churchill no less) against the civilian population. That history leads into the era of Saddam Hussein and the US turning against him over the invasion of Kuwait.
After that background has been established, Arnove discusses "The Logic of Withdrawal", providing eight well-defined reasons that should seem obvious to the reader of average intelligence. His reasoning is a rebuttal to some obviously contrived and ignorant arguments made by the administration and its supporters (and some supposed non-supporters if the Democrats are included) as to why the US should stay in Iraq. Only a racist, bigoted, non-rational and immoral person would not be able to see that the US is staying in Iraq on a series of lies. In plain and simple language, Arnove states, "We should allow the people of Iraq to determine their own future … that in addition to calling for an end to military occupation", also calls "for an end to the economic occupation of Iraq".
Finally, in "Out Now", Arnove looks at the factors that ended the Vietnam War that provide a clue as to how the Iraq war might be ended. The first is obvious, the Iraqi resistance; the second is the military itself, based on its racist policies of recruitment; third, is growing opposition at home, emphasised by the lack of response to the on-going civil disaster in New Orleans; and ending in a series of arguments on the erosion of economic and social welfare within the US. Ultimately, Arnove sees the relationship between home and abroad, as "The corporate looting of Iraq is simply an extension of the looting at home". There is a recognition that the factors for getting out now are not yet strong enough, but need to be strengthened across a broad front.
The afterward to the second edition extends Arnove's arguments briefly and then considers the attitude towards Iran. The Iranian nuclear threat is simply a "smokescreen", obvious again to anyone who understands the articles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The real motivation "in Iran — as in Iraq — are energy, geography, and geopolitics". The reality of the current and perhaps subsequent administrations is that any conjecture that relies "on the intelligence, rationality, or humanity of US policymakers would be an unwise one".
Arnove has presented very basic forthright arguments that support the immediate withdrawal of the US (economically as well as militarily) from Iraq. The very fundamental lies that the US administration uses to support its ideology are easily rebutted, yet the ongoing self-contradictory statements continue from the political warriors in government positions. Iraq — The Logic of Withdrawal is a wonderfully concise primer for those looking for the obvious rationale (apart from the moral gut feeling) as to why the US should quit Iraq.
[This is an abridged version of a review that was first published in Palestine Chronicle, September 13. Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor to Palestine Chronicle.]