 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
We are quickly approaching the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. An amazing year, with unprecedented progress for recovery of a war-torn nation and a level of success exceeding most anyone's pre-war expectation.
And yes, people are dying.
If the first paragraph above upsets you, read the following and see if it matches your world view a little better. It's a blast from the past from Alternet, the lefty e-zine that recognized the possibility of a largely successful campaign in Iraq, and referred to such an eventuality as the left's nightmare scenario.
'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare ScenarioBy Mark LeVine, AlterNet, March 13, 2003
As the American-imposed deadline for Iraqi "disarmament" approaches, the antiwar movement seems to be counting on one of two scenarios to frustrate the plans of the Bush Administration.
The first is an optimistic "We Win" scenario, which would result from massive protests and diplomatic pressure forcing President Bush to postpone an invasion indefinitely. (What has yet to be addressed is what exactly we win if Hussein remains indefinitely in power and the sanctions go on killing Iraqis.) With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit.
However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins."
In this third scenario, the war is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place, and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige. From my recent conversations with organizers and their latest pronouncements, it is clear that this possibility has yet to be addressed. Waiting much longer could spell disaster for the antiwar movement.
Note the obligatory disclaimer that Hussein is doubleplusbad, and that surely given time he can be peacefully removed from power. Now, of course, thanks to trigger-happy cowboy Bush we'll never know what time frame that might have occurred in, calendar or geologic.
Look again at this passage regarding a "protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism": However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement.
Opinion of a nut bag from the fringe? Perhaps, if you consider an assistant professor in the History Department at the University of California at Irvine a fringe. Sorry, this is the "mainstream left" - and he's educating America's youth. Read the whole thing, of course. Those kids he's educating have a lot of great ideas for the response from the "movement".
Here's some more insight from Levine; revealing his prescient mastery of the obvious:
The social and political forces unleashed by the end of decades of Hussein's murderous rule will not easily be penned in by a US-sponsored show-democracy; but whether these forces use a reopened public sphere or turn to violence to respond to the likely betrayal depends in good measure on how adroitly the world progressive community can lay fast but deep roots in Iraq.
Sadly he failed to mention just which option said progressives should advocate. I guess we'll never know.
