Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Iraq. Ritirarsi *è possibile*

Asia Times Online - June 30, 2005
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF30Ak02.html
Why withdrawal is possible
By Mark LeVine
As calls to set a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq
grow with each new casualty, President George W Bush and other critics
of such a move argue vigorously that announcing such a deadline would
grant the insurgents a major political and strategic victory: the
former by vindicating the violent, even terroristic methodology of the
insurgency itself, the latter by allowing rebels to bide their time
and overwhelm government troops once American forces depart.
However convincing at face value, these arguments raise the question:
are the only options in Iraq maintaining an unpopular and costly
occupation, or handing the country over to "former members of Saddam
Hussein's regime, criminal elements and foreign terrorists" (as Bush
describes them)?
The answer is manifestly no, and the fact so few people within the
corridors of power can imagine an alternative policy reveals a
powerful yet fallacious line of reasoning at the heart of arguments to
"stay the course" in Iraq: that a US troop withdrawal would
automatically leave a security vacuum in its place.
But such an outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion; the problem
is that few Americans, especially politicians, are willing to consider
the alternative: apologize to the Iraqi people for an invasion and
occupation that (whatever our intentions) has gone terribly wrong; ask
the United Nations to take over the management of the country's
security, lead negotiations to end the insurgency, and oversee
redevelopment aid; and leave as soon as a sufficient number of
replacement forces are in place.
There are four reasons why such a development, however distasteful to
the Bush administration and many Americans, is the best hope for
achieving the peace and democracy most everyone wants to bring to
Iraq.
First, it is increasingly clear that the insurgency is unwinnable as
long as the US remains in Iraq. Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
now admits that it could take a dozen years to defeat it. Given such a
forecast, he explains that "Coalition forces, foreign forces are not
going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment
that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against
that insurgency."
Is this our gift to the Iraqi people, what 1,700 American soldiers
have died for - a cancerous insurgency that will devour the energy,
revenue and personnel of the Iraqi government for the foreseeable
future? In most any other country, such an admission by one of the
war's chief architects would lead to his resignation, or even
indictment for what former senior Iraqi Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) official Larry Diamond describes (in his new book
Squandered Victory) as the "criminal negligence" of the US-led
occupation.
The fact that US diplomats have had secret talks with insurgents
confirms that the Bush administration is worried that it cannot defeat
the insurgency and is exploring the option of a "peace with honor" to
extricate America from what even the president (jokingly, no doubt)
calls the Iraqi "quagmire". Must we repeat rather than learn from the
disastrous history of our withdrawal from Vietnam a generation ago?
Indeed, if the US is talking to insurgents, others can too -
particularly others who haven't been involved in the occupation of
Iraq and all the disastrous consequences it has led to in so many
areas of life in the country. While some elements of the insurgency
(particularly the criminals, Ba'athists and foreign jihadis cited by
the president) want to transform Iraq into some sort of neo-Taliban
state, the clear majority of insurgents are ordinary Iraqis who see
themselves as patriots defending their country and will lay down their
arms once coalition forces have left, as long as their leaders are
involved in negotiating the temporary presence of peacekeeping forces
necessary to maintain order.
Second, while Republicans have rightly criticized systematic
corruption at the United Nations, the oil-for-food scandal pales in
comparison with the level of corruption in post-invasion Iraq. Whether
it's $9 billion in cash literally gone missing from CPA offices,
repeated no-bid contracts to Halliburton and even the managers of the
Abu Ghraib prison, or the smaller-scale but ubiquitous corruption
infecting every sector of the Iraqi economy under our tutelage, the US
has proven itself incapable of managing the reconstruction and
development of the country or supporting an environment in which
Iraqis can do it themselves.
A new international regime, which separates the management of the
country's security from its reconstruction and the immense profits
(and potential for malfeasance) tied to both is the sine qua non for
establishing a democratic future for the country. The UN system can't
do it alone, but with a sufficient level of supervision and expertise
by donor countries and Iraqi professionals, it can help Iraqis rebuild
the country with their own skill, labor and resources. In such a
scenario it will be much easier to persuade countries such as France,
Germany and others who largely stayed clear of involvement in the
invasion and occupation to contribute the necessary funds and
personnel to enable Iraq's stability and reconstruction. More
important, it will give Iraqis a working stake in the peaceful
development of their country.
Third, most Iraqis and other critics of the occupation believe the US
has no intention of withdrawing its troops from Iraq or relinquishing
its de facto control of the country's all-important petroleum
resources. Bush declared in his speech on Tuesday night that "as
Iraqis stand up, we will stand down", but such blithe declarations are
belied by the massive construction going on at [large numbers of] US
bases across the country and remarks by senior US officials, who have
admitted that we intend (with Iraq's "permission" of course) to
station tens of thousands of troops in more or less permanent bases
across the country for the foreseeable future.
All that's needed is a Status of Forces Agreement signed by an Iraqi
government that could not survive without a continued US presence - or
in lieu of that, a security situation which makes asking us to leave
practically impossible in the foreseeable future - to realize the
grandest aspirations of neo-conservatives and security hawks alike: a
large and long-term US presence in the heart of the world's major oil
producing region as we enter the age of peak oil.
Such a situation might seem ideal in the context of a new cold war
with an energy-hungry China, but it would likely fuel a much hotter
war against a mushrooming pan-Islamic insurgency across the Muslim
world. The US would be much more secure if it took the hundreds of
billions of dollars being spent in Iraq and devoted them to developing
sustainable alternative energy technologies and transforming the
global economic system so that our standard of living no longer
depends on billions of people living on $2 a day or less, and entire
world regions such as Africa and the Middle East structurally
marginalized from the formal flows of money and goods in the
globalized economy.
Fourth, an insurmountable collection of evidence is emerging that
American forces have systematically committed war crimes in Iraq and
continue to violate international law in their actions across the
country. The longer the US remains, the greater the chances that
senior officials will face criminal charges, or at least international
censure, for the conduct of the invasion and occupation of the
country.
While it is perhaps unlikely that senior officials will ever stand
trial for their actions in an international venue, the loss of
American prestige and respect across the world that our actions have
brought on is incalculable. Moreover, when tied - quite naturally - by
people across the global south to our support for the policies
associated with the dominant neo-liberal model of globalization, the
Iraqi occupation and the increasingly open imperial endeavor it
represents has contributed to the victories of populist anti-American
candidates across Latin America, and now Iran.
Even those who support a timetable for withdrawing American troops
might respond negatively to the suggestion that America apologize for
its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Certainly, the president's speech
before the troops at Fort Bragg offered no hint of remorse for the
pain and suffering the invasion brought to Iraq.
Such knee-jerk patriotism disappears, however, when you actually visit
Iraq, as I did (that is, without a massive security detail and living
with Iraqis), and see the disaster that the occupation has produced
first-hand. Observed close up, without the filter of an obsequious
news media, the overwhelmingly negative consequences of the occupation
become impossible to ignore: the 100,000 dead (the majority of them
civilians); wide-scale violations of human, political and civil
rights; the destruction of the country's health, education and other
crucial social systems; the massive unemployment; a violent and
destabilizing insurgency that is likely to last a generation or more;
the rending of a delicate social fabric that managed to survive a
bloody British occupation, several wars, and the even bloodier rule of
Saddam Hussein (which we should never forget was made possible in good
measure by decades of support from administrations as far back as
President John F Kennedy).
In Alcoholics Anonymous, apologizing and making amends for the hurt
one has done to others are among the most important steps in the long
path toward sobriety. Clearly, Bush, who believes Iraqis should "put
the past behind them", isn't about to engage in soul searching about
the mission and consequences of our Iraq adventure. But if Americans
can admit to - and in doing so, comprehend - the damage our government
has wrought in Iraq in our name and with our consent, we will take an
important first step in ending our addiction to an unsustainable
corporate-led, consumer-driven culture, and the wars and systematic
violence, oppression and exploitation it requires world-wide. In doing
so we will begin the long but necessary task of building a sustainable
and peaceful future, for Iraq, for ourselves, and for the world at
large.
[Mark LeVine, professor of modern Middle Eastern history, culture, and
Islamic studies at the University of California, Irvine, and author of
"Why They Don't Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil," Oneworld
Publications, 2005.]

Ciao,
ti sparo un paio di obiezioni/provocazioni
1. Ho molti dubbi che si possa istituire un'amministrazione ONU
efficace in Iraq. Gli insorgenti hanno gia' fatto l'equazione ONU=USA
con l'attentato a de Mello. Ritengo infatti che il controllo del
petrolio sia anche la priorita' N. 1 degli insorgenti iracheni. Si puo'
obiettare che e' una risorsa che appartiene solo a loro, ma ci campa
sopra mezzo mondo..devono o no riuscire a venire a termini ragionevoli
col resto del mondo?
2. Le fonti di energia rinnovabile non sono in grado di sostenere
l'enorme consumo di energia delle nostre societa'. E' un fatto
acclarato da Scientific American in qualche numero scorso. Noi possiamo
anche diventare virtuosi e sprecar meno ma c'e' il resto del mondo la'
fuori che continuera' a consumare sempre piu' petrolio. Vuoi che i
Cinesi non facciano una guerra per il petrolio se se ne presentasse la
necessita'? Nell'ottica di questa ipotesi, ti pare cosi' scellerato,
per quanto tragico, l'intervento USA in Iraq?
3. Non capisco ancora bene l'uso della categoria neo-liberista, come
paradigma economico alla base della globalizzazione. La Cina e' forse
neo-liberista? NOn si tratta invece di semplice economia di scambio,
laddove i PVS offrono lavoro e capitale umano e noi i capitali. In caso
contrario, dov'e' questa lotta al neoliberismo da parte dei paesi
sfruttati? Io non la vedo, vedo paesi come INdia e Cina che si sono
ribelati e si ribellano all'introduzione della politica sociale nel
WTO, questo vedo.
4. Giovedi' gnocchi? (tanto per stemperare) ;-)
Ciao

 4. Giovedi' gnocchi? (tanto per stemperare) ;-)
Oh, finché ce li possiamo permettere... Shalom.
Namib

Grazie delle risposte, anche se mi accorgo che il mio punto 3 e' di una
confusione pazzesca. Quello che cercavo di dire è:
1. Devine afferma che una ridefinizione in termini piu' giusti delle
regole commerciali mondiali può diminuire la conflittualità attuale.
Tali regole sono balorde oggi perche' prone al neoliberismo
2. Dato il fatto, come dici tu, che addiritura nazioni estranee alla
tradizione liberista come la Cina sono invece funzionali al sistema
odierno, non e' che si fa uno straparlare di questo termine
neoliberismo? Ovvero, la convenienza che taluni stati hanno dal puro
circolare dei capitali non e', appunto, una pura  semplice occasione
storico-economica che quetsi stati cercano di cogliere, senza dover
pensare che un sistema (quello neoliberista) gli sia stato imposto?
3. Dato tutto cio', e proprio perche' Cina& c. si stanno dimostrando
bravissimi ad usare questo sistema, siamo sicuri che un suo
miglioramento in termini di giustizia porti poi a meno conflittualita'?
4.Perche' non riesco mai ad essere chiaro alla prima, cazzo?
Ciao e grazie

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1120339584....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"1. Devine afferma che una ridefinizione in termini piu' giusti delle
regole commerciali mondiali può diminuire la conflittualità attuale.
Tali regole sono balorde oggi perche' prone al neoliberismo"
Mah, alla fin fine anche queste regole sono basate su rapporti di forza, e
ci sono (nei fatti) macchie di protezionismo notevoli (o rapporti
privilegiati) nel mare liberista... Cmq, sarò interessante, per il futuro
del wto, vedere la conclusione delle guerre commerciali (sulla carne, sugli
ogm) fra USA e UE. Io sono per un diritto certo, ed un atteggiamento più
legalitario dei forti (in primis USA e Cina) potrebbe forse solidificare una
struttura giuridica messa a rischio dalla guerra.
"2. Dato il fatto, come dici tu, che addiritura nazioni estranee alla
tradizione liberista come la Cina sono invece funzionali al sistema
odierno, non e' che si fa uno straparlare di questo termine
neoliberismo? Ovvero, la convenienza che taluni stati hanno dal puro
circolare dei capitali non e', appunto, una pura  semplice occasione
storico-economica che quetsi stati cercano di cogliere, senza dover
pensare che un sistema (quello neoliberista) gli sia stato imposto?"
Ma è anche vero a) che il neoliberismo è una tendenza in crescita (nella UE,
dovuta anche al trattato di Masstricht): privatizzazione dei servizi,
flessibilità del lavoro, centralità delle imprese sono diventati dogmi
"intellettuali", che però si scontrano con la storia politica dei diversi
Paesi. Ad es., la flessibilità del lavoro nello Stato, in Italia è frenata
da patti clientelari-elettorali (e, in soldoni, dalla presenza di AN e UDC
nell'attuale governo); le imprese, invece, vivacchiano sul fisco e(o
sull'evasione, senza "occupare" quella centralità che rivendicano; il
sistema dei servizi è in mezzo al guado; ecc. b) Per "la Cina" come Stato,
l'aggancio al wto è stato un passo avanti; probabilmente, anche per i
Cinesi. Qui, però, significa perdere dei diritti, e "garantire" che i Cinesi
non li avranno mai...
"3. Dato tutto cio', e proprio perche' Cina& c. si stanno dimostrando
bravissimi ad usare questo sistema, siamo sicuri che un suo
miglioramento in termini di giustizia porti poi a meno conflittualita'?"
Non siamo sicuri affatto. Ma ho l'impressione che, economicamente parlando,
siamo un po' in una terra di nessuno. Forse decideranno i grandi spostamenti
dei popoli che non intendono funger da sottopagati produttori per i
sedicenti "produttori di servizi".
"4.Perche' non riesco mai ad essere chiaro alla prima, cazzo?"
Perché non ci riesce nessuno... Shalom.
Namib

 efficace in Iraq.
Diciamo che ho sentito cazzate piů deliranti di questa, ma poche.
Chi va a raccontare all'attuale governo iracheno che si č scherzato, che 
le elezioni non contano, che si deve fare tutto da capo?
Mirco