The Logic of Withdrawal Revisited

Gen. Odom's piece is worth reposting. In the last paragraph he makes the argument that the US military (and gov more generally) does not have the capacity to prevent Civil War in Iraq. But the USG does have the capacity to stop sending young men and women into the war zone, and that this should be its primary moral responsibility. 

I think that here we face the fundamental paradox of American power. The American state has the power to affect historical outcomes not just in Wichita, Eureka, or... New Orleans, but it has the power to affect outcomes globally. It is precisely this global reach that defines America as Empire. But here's the paradox, while the US is very good at smashing states anywhere in the world, it can't on the other side of the coin, rub its "healing salve of democracy" on distant societies and suddenly sprout mini-Americas wherever it likes (sorry "transition studies" you'll have to find a new line of work... perhaps you should try "empire studies" its a growth industry).

But nonetheless, my realist friends counter, Despite whatever the motives might have been when it invaded, if the US withdraws now, the "people will devour one another." In effect, you can not have a few hundred thousand guys and gals with guns running around without having some affect on the security situation (I personally am on my best behavior when I see guys with machine guns around-- not because they've won my heart or mind, but simply because I'd rather not get shot... Think of BlackWater security contractors running around New Orleans firing on black people trying to cross the wrong bridge- and now inject a massive dose of whatever it was that made McGuire hit all those homeruns- and yeah, you've got a "security" of sorts..)    

So the USG provides some degree of "security." But is this the, or a, solution the problems that Iraqis confront? I think we're now right back into the heart of the paradox of American power and the central problem confronting analysts of ME realities. When I first starting studying the ME, I was sure that Imperialism determined all outcomes in the region. That is, Empire moved through time and space unopposed, unilaterally imposing its will wherever, and whenever it liked. This is, of course, much easier than learning the actual history of the societies in question and discovering the local factors and dynamics that effect historical outcomes.  

The point is that the US may retain a tremendous capacity for state-smashing- but in the long run, the USG is not the ONLY or even most important agency affecting outcomes in the country. What happens in Iraq will be determined by the people of Iraq- they really don't need the US to carry the "White Man's Burden"- even if it has contracted the likes of Colin and Condi to shoulder some of the weight. 

Rather than entertaining the ideological fiction that the US his occupying Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people, perhaps we (speaking as an American now) should wrestle honestly with what's in our best interests, and let the Iraqis worry about what's in theirs. Idealism is usually a stalking horse for much more base motives anyway... 

Don't get me wrong the USG owes the people of Iraq (and not just its friend Ahmed Chalabi) massive war reparations to be administered though a responsible international agency (again not Chalabi...). So in my opinion, the US should stop spending a trillion dollars a year maintaining the largest military establishment the world has ever seen (for FY 2008 figures see Chalmers Johnson), and start figuring out where we're going to borrow the money to pay the Iraqis back-- perhaps Saudi Arabia will loan us the money- their Sovereign Wealth Fund seems to be doing pretty well....