IPS analysis of Iraq and related regional tensions


Posted by Helena Cobban
September 4, 2009 9:42 PM EST | Link
Filed in Iraq-2009 , US foreign policy

... is here. Also here.

One of the points I make there is this:

    One notable aspect of the political tempests now swirling around Iraq is that neither in Iraq nor in the U.S. has there been any significant movement calling for the U.S. to delay or reverse its continuing pullout.
I truly think this is significant. The adamant refusal of just about all (non-Kurdish) Iraqis to ask the US to rescind or reverse its withdrawal plans surprises me not one jot. But I do think the fact that no-one in the US is calling for the US to "do something" to prevent further carnage inside Iraq is particularly notable.

I say this as someone who has always said that the American military is the organization that's just about the most ill-suited in the world to be able to "help" Iraqis if political turmoil overtakes their country.... This is a part of my deep opposition to "liberal hawkism" in all its manifestations.

So fundamentally I'm really glad there are no significant American voices calling for the US to use its military to try to "help" Iraqis right now.

(Of course, it also helps that it was the Bushies who signed off on the Withdrawal Agreement. So the republicans are not now able to raise the whole question of the advisability of a US withdrawal from Iraq as an ati-Obama partisan issue.)

But I am still, also, more than a bit mystified. Where have all the people gone who, before the Bush administration's conclusion last November of the Withdrawal Agreement with Iraq, were ominously warning that the US "could not" withdraw with anything like a fixed timetable from Iraq because afterwards Iraq might "spiral into bloody chaos", or whatever?

Where are those people now?

What I'm sensing is that-- perhaps especially after the economic collapse of last fall-- most Americans have turned their back on their previous fondness for exotic foreign military adventures. Both Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be not nearly as much "fun" as they used to be for those people.

This is mainly good-- especially if it means there will be far fewer loud calls within the US political elite for foreign military interventions, for allegedly 'humanitarian' or any other purposes, over the years ahead, than there have been throughout all the years since the end of the Cold War.

But it's also a bit worrying, if it means that Americans have become much more inward-looking and xenophobic.




Comments
Comment from... Alex_no, at September 5, 2009 11:54 AM:

I'm sure you're right when you say:

One notable aspect of the political tempests now swirling around Iraq is that neither in Iraq nor in the U.S. has there been any significant movement calling for the U.S. to delay or reverse its continuing pullout.

There are still quite a lot of commenters though, who are insisting, like Don Bacon did, that there's no sign of acceptance of withdrawal in the US military, and consequently, it is maintained, the generals are telling a truth that Obama won't say. The US is not even thinking about withdrawing, except as a political cover, according to this point of view.

This is one of the latest expressions of this idea.

Recent Posts on JWN
• My IPS piece on dimming peace prospects (1)
• Rahm Emanuel's disturbing view of US role (26)
• Obama's peacemaking pledge-- to the world (35)
• Obama: Peace in US interest (5)
• Discussing Palestine, Israel, Iraq on Bloggingheads (0)
• Long knives, Washington, Afghanistan, part 2 (7)
• Long knives out in Washington over Afghanistan (3)
• Amal Saad-Ghorayeb responds (10)
• NATO and Lebanon (16)
• IPS piece on Obama-Netanyahu tussle over priorities (0)
• Gaza police and noncombatant immunity (46)
• Gaza, the Obama administration, and the present (4)
• Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, "benchmarks" (2)
• Barak: Iran not existential threat (0)
• Garlasco, suspended with full pay (15)
• Me, speaking Sept 24 at Middle East Institute (3)
• Goldstone Commission reports on Gaza-war war-crimes (23)
• Another blunt No from Netanyahu (30)
• Ramadan t.v. offerings, 2009 (2)
• I-P: Borders first-- and fast? (4)
• A testimony the world needs to hear (2)
• Garlasco, part 3 (32)
• Malley on refugees, settlers, etc (7)
• In 2009, as 2001: US needs Iran, Russia (3)
• IPS piece on the rights war over Gaza (3)
• Garlasco, part 2 (20)
• Continuing bad news for US/NATO in Afghanistan (4)
• Marc Garlasco's little "hobby" (71)
• Trashing one-staters with Hussein Ibish (12)
• 500 new settlement homes in Jerusalem... (12)
• When election results are disputed: Afghanistan, etc (6)
• B'tselem's figures on Gaza assault toll (8)
• American power has limits? Who knew? (13)
• Israel's assault on Gaza: The final toll (1)
• Hamas-related negotiations moving forward? (1)
• Sweden, and the Israel-linked organs story (18)
• Qtube-- what a resource! (2)
• Cook and Elam on Israel's organ-removal problems (48)
• "The White House regrets... " (48)
• Lessons from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan (9)
• IPS analysis of Iraq and related regional tensions (1)
• Visser goes 2.0 (8)
• More on Norway's targeted divestment (14)
• Pat Lang on the dangerous, continued rise of 'COIN'-mania (8)
• Bravo, Norway! (6)
• An exiled Palestinian visits "home" (20)
• Israel releases nine of 32 Hamas legislators (2)
• Why Blair wants Dahlan to retake Gaza? (0)
• Afghanistan debate: The missing international ingredient (9)
• State-building: Palestine (3)