Fact Sheet on why the U.S. must leave Iraq now

I put this together for people I encounter who fear the consequences of immediate U.S. withdrawal. Feel free to use it or email me for a formatted copy in Word. Some of the unsourced sentences are direct quotes from the sources cited at the bottom that I felt were unnecessary to cite given that it is merely a fact sheet.

U.S. Out Of Iraq Now:
A Response to Concerns about the Consequences of Immediate Withdrawal

There are two factors that might justify US forces not leaving immediately: (1) a likelihood that civilian deaths will increase if the US leaves now, and (2) a majority of Iraqis preferring that US forces remain for the time being.

Given that occupation forces are consistently responsible for far more civilian deaths than the insurgency, Schwartz and Youssef the burden of proof in demonstrating the above two points is on those who would have US forces remain in Iraq.

1) Civilian Deaths Will Increase?
On the first point, no plausible argument has been advanced to show civilian deaths are likely to increase if the US leaves. On the contrary, a lessening in violence is quite plausible.

Given that the situation has been deteriorating ever since the occupation began, it is certain that a U.S. presence in Iraq will continue to inflict and engender violence and chaos - it is not a certainty that violence will continue if the U.S. withdraws.

It is precisely the horrors of the occupation that make any guarantee of peace after withdrawal impossible and the worst-case scenarios become more likely the longer the occupation continues so this cannot be an argument for continuing the current madness.

The U.S. Presence Contributes to the Atmosphere of Civil War
Divide and rule is one of the oldest imperial strategies. The U.S. occupation has heightened sectarian tensions in Iraq tremendously and continues to do so through the use of Kurdish and Shia forces to attack Sunni areas.

Shiite militias and death squads are tied to the U.S.-supported regime in Baghdad. Dreyfuss

Two of the major motivations for Sunni on Shiite violence are to punish perceived collaborators with the occupation and because Sunnis are unhappy with their marginal representation in the government. The first motivation will disappear when U.S. forces leave. The second issue can only be resolved with elections free of foreign occupation.

The killing and imprisonment policies of the occupation itself are the main generating and sustaining force for the rising levels of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. The sooner the occupation ends, the sooner Iraqi civil violence is likely to begin to subside. Schwartz

Abu Musab al Zarqawi's goal is to launch a holy war against the Shi’a but his success in doing so is directly linked to a continuing U.S. presence. Zarqawi’s primary appeal among Sunnis rests on the claim that the Shi’a are aiding the occupation. Schwartz

The Occupation Puts a Lid on Full Civil War?
U.S. forces could militarily intervene to subdue full-scale warfare between Iraqi factions. However, if the U.S. pulls out now, the probability of long, brutal, full-scale civil war is low because:
1) The sectarian jihadists, though well publicized, represent a tiny minority of the resistance. Other Sunni armed groups have asked Zarqawi and similar foreign extremists to leave Iraq and have disassociated themselves from groups that attack Iraqi civilians. Cobban and Schwartz
2) The marginal position of the jihadists would make it difficult for them to convert into an army capable of fighting the Shi’a or Kurds head on.

Regional War
Some argue that a U.S. departure will lead to a regional war or a political vacuum. It is just as plausible to argue that it is precisely the U.S. presence that provokes a regional war. Respected foreign affairs analyst Andrew Bacevich believes it is likely that Iraq’s neighbors will seek to promote order in Iraq once the U.S. leaves.
Bacevich

Peace is More Likely with the U.S. Out
Stability -- defined as preserving a unified Iraq and reducing the insurgency -- cannot be imposed. It can only be negotiated by the various factions constituting the Iraqi polity. Bacevich

A political solution that includes the Sunnis is only possible with the U.S. out because they will not participate in the government until that happens. Even the hard-line Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars has repeatedly stated that, as soon as the U.S. withdraws, it will join wholeheartedly the political process. Achcar, Second Reply to Juan Cole

University of Chicago political scientist and expert on suicide terrorism Robert Pape, asserts that every suicide bombing campaign “is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The [U.S.] operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.” Pape notes that, in the last 20 years, suicide bombings almost never continue after the withdrawal of the occupying power. Schwartz

Imperial powers have a terrible historical record in ‘pacifying’ other lands.

2) Iraqi Opinion
As to Iraqi opinion on US troops leaving immediately, the results are not clear. Recent public opinion surveys have been rare and have produced contradictory results. Project on Defense Alternatives and Bloomberg However, while the Kurds and some Shi’a support the U.S. presence, “the overwhelming majority of those in whose territory occupation forces are most active militarily” want the U.S. out of Iraq. Gilbert Achcar, An Open Letter to Juan Cole

About 120 out of 275 Iraqi members of parliament have called for the withdrawal of US troops. If the parliament contained a representative number of Sunni members (making it more legitimate), there would be a clear majority in parliament calling for the U.S. to leave now. This is despite the very limited sovereignty of an Iraqi government both constrained by and reliant upon the overwhelming force of the U.S.

Therefore, the proponents of US forces remaining fail to meet the burden of proof on either point.

Sources:

Gilbert Achcar, An Open Letter to Juan Cole, September 23, 2005, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8802

Gilbert Achcar, Second Reply to Juan Cole, September 25, 2005, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8815

Andrew J. Bacevich, “Call It a Day: We've Done All We Can Do in Iraq,” Washington Post, August 21, 2005; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000114_pf.html

“U.S. Poll Shows Iraqis Oppose Presence of Coalition Troops,” Bloomberg, July 01, 2005, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a8bOqxuFldV0&refer=top_world_news

Helena Cobban, http://justworldnews.org/archives/001464.html, September 24, 2005, citing a September 20, 2005 Arabic article in Al-Hayat

Robert Dreyfuss, “Death Squads And Diplomacy,” Tompaine.com, October 05, 2005, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051005/death_squads_and_diplomacy.php

“What do Iraqis want? Iraqi attitudes on occupation, US withdrawal, governments, and quality of life,” Project on Defense Alternatives, February 01, 2005, http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17append.html

Michael Schwartz, Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense, TomDispatch; September 22, 2005, http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=23549

Nancy A. Youssef, “More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows,” Knight-Ridder, September 25, 2004, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-02.htm

Send questions or comments to freeradical83@gmail.com

More on the limits of the Bolivarian "Revolution"

This article adds to my overall impression that for people's lives to improve beyond the gains already accrued through the policies of Chavez, powerful independent social and political movements must arise. A genuine revolution can never occur from the top down.

Pro-Chavez Union Leaders in Venezuela Urge Chavez to Do Better
Saturday, Oct 08, 2005
By: Alessandro Parma - Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas October 07, 2005
During a protest rally last Thursday, Orlando Chirinos, the leader of the National Union of Workers (UNT), said he is pushing for trade union elections to take place quickly and criticized how slow the progress for workers in Venezuela has been. Also, Ramon Machuca, a leading trade unionist and head of a steelworkers union, has alleged that the Governor of Bolivar State, Rangel Gomez, is corrupt. As a result, both men are criticizing President Hugo Chavez and his party, the MVR, due to their connection with these issues.

The increasing criticism from Chirinos and Machuca is significant because both occupy significant leadership roles in the pro-Chavez union movement. Two years ago, unions sympathetic to Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution split from the Venezuelan Confederation of Workers (CTV) and formed a new national union federation, the National Union of Workers (UNT). Ever since its formation, factions within it have been debating how close the new federation should be to the Chavez government and who should lead it. Chrinos and Machuca are seen as leading opposing factions in this debate.

On Wednesday, Orlando Chirinos put pressure on the National Electoral Commission (CNE) to set a date for elections in his trade union federation. He has done this by saying publicly that the National Electoral Commission will reply to his request for an election date by October 10. Chirinos, speaking in Plaza O’Leary in Caracas said, “We want a clean and transparent election. We want one without intimidation. I have spoken with the CNE to make sure that this happens.” UNT elections were originally to take place in early 2005, but have been announced and postponed for most of the year now.

Chirinos also expressed concern about the workers situation in Venezuela. “We have a public sector that pretends its workers are happy when they aren’t. We need conditions that suit the needs of the workers. For the defense of the country it’s sovereignty and independence against Imperialism.”

In an interview this week with the newspaper El Mundo, Chirinos as quoted making several critical comments about government labor policy. He said that President Chavez, “has to cease making unilateral declarations on the minimum wage. We have demanded this for two years and accomplished it, but there is a problem… workers are not receiving the minimum wage country-wide.”

Chirinos also criticized some of the labor laws that the government passed at the beginning of Chavez’s presidency, saying that they left too much power in the hands of bosses. He said, “The employers can unilaterally dismiss their workers when they like.” He said that part of the problem was the lack of internal debate in the unions, just as there is in political parties at this time.

ChirinosÂ’ critical comments do not appear to have hurt his relations with the government. Yesterday afternoon he met with the Minister of Labor María Cristina Iglesias to discuss the details of the benefits for his union members. It is expected that his unionÂ’s terms will be agreed to. He is also expected to meet with the Vice President, José Vicente Rangel, on Monday to discuss UNT elections.

Similarly, another pro-Chavez union leader, Ramon Machuca, who is the leader of SUTISS, the steelworkers union of the SIDOR steel production plant in eastern Venezuela, has been attacking one of his political rivals. In an interview on Thursday with the weekly paper Quinto Dia, Machuca alleged that Rangel Gomez, the pro-Chavez Governor of Bolivar State, was involved in defrauding Machuca’s members of millions of dollars when he was the head of the Venezuelan Corporation of Guyana, the CVG. The CVG is a state holding company that has a 40% share in the SIDOR steel plant. According to a collective agreement the workers in the plant are supposed to receive 30% of the profits. Machuca said, “I have the numbers of deposits and receipts that SIDOR made at the CVG and the amount is in the millions of dollars.” However, the private consortium that owns the other 60% has apparently paid them none of this for several years.

There have been many protests about this recently, but this is the first time that Machuca has alleged wrongdoing on the part of Governor Rangel Gomez and the CVG. He said, “I don’t have a concrete explanation what happened with this money or with the workers’ part of the money. Undoubtedly something shady has occurred.” He also said, “As a Trade Union we are not permitted to find out precisely what has happened with the surpluses in the bank and we cannot get a reply from Rangel Gomez.”

Machuca has said that he will take this matter to Hugo Chavez, “He is a friend of mine, he respects my revolutionary position and I respect his leadership.” He added, “I have much information to give to the President on the topic of effectiveness and the quality of the revolution in government.” He also said that Chavez was becoming distant from the common people and didn’t always understand what was happening. “The situation down here is not what the President is hearing. Down here it is very worrying. There are many problems with the situation of the workers and of the people. The President knows a lot about what is happening at the higher levels of society but less about what is going on at this level.”

Some say that Machuca’s attack on Rangel Gomez is because of his personal rivalry and is politically motivated. On last Sunday’s Alo Presidente, Hugo Chavez called Machuca a friend and urged him to accept that he had lost the election to Rangel Gomez and not to “make trouble in Bolivar.” Rangel Gomez is not Machuca’s only rival. In Plaza O’Leary, on Thursday, Orlando Chirinos said, “It’s no secret that Ramon Machuca is a very ambitious person and that he wanted to be the president of the UNT.” He also said, “We don’t agree on things… he has a caudillo-like vision, an individualist vision and an individualist movement is not a trade union movement.