CONVENTIONAL WISDOM'S "CATASTROPHE"

Leon Wofsy
10/30/06

With President Bush's press conference of Wednesday, October 25th, the "state of denial" about the course of the Iraq War supposedly gave way to reality. Not so.

Denial is kept torturously alive through a "conventional wisdom" imparted by many pundits: 'the consequence of ending the occupation any time soon would be a catastrophe for the United States and Iraq.'

So far that assumption has been countered by the argument that military occupation is increasing the violence and spreading it around the world (an assessment confirmed recently by all sixteen US intelligence agencies). But the assumption itself should be challenged, especially given the dire predictions raised to fear-mongering pitch by President Bush on the eve of the Congressional elections.

No one can deny any longer that things are going very badly in Iraq, but the greater reality not be denied is that war and occupation are losing strategies - even for the super-powerful United States. Our problems in this century need other answers. Would it be a catastrophe to accept that view?

Ending the occupation would certainly confirm the collapse of the Bush Administration's ambitions. But would it be a disaster for America's standing in the world? Far from it. The end of illusions about reshaping the world on the basis of superior military power would be a new beginning in realization of America's rightful place in the world community. No one underestimates America's enormous potential for advancing international efforts to deal with the great problems of our time. Facing up to truths that have become obvious is not weakness, but strength that would be acknowledged and welcomed with relief by most of the world.

Now again, as in Vietnam, too many lives are sacrificed in homage to domino theories of catastrophe that postpone acceptance of reality and acknowledgement of policy failures. The dominoes didn't fall when we left Vietnam, and ending the occupation of Iraq will not bring on the terrorist invasion of the United States that the President conjures up in his stump speeches.  

Ending the occupation would not make chronic problems disappear in Iraq or anywhere else, but every problem could be dealt with more constructively if the United States embraced cooperative efforts rather than an aggressive role apart from and "above" the international community. Renouncing any intention to maintain US military bases in Iraq and starting the withdrawal process would underscore the right of the Iraqi people to work out the solutions for the future of their nation. That would improve conditions for constructive international assistance that Iraq surely needs to achieve peace and overcome the disastrous legacies of Saddam's dictatorship and the destructive forces unleashed by war and occupation.

Bringing our soldiers home - and relieving ourselves of the burden of trillion dollar expenditures to sustain a disastrous war - is hardly a formula to increase America's vulnerability to attack. We would surely be in better shape to deal with critical matters at home and abroad.

A more positive international climate of collective action and a healthier, less fractured, less isolated America would not make Osama bin Laden happy. Nor would it please our neo-conservatives who mirror bin Laden's false challenge to a "clash of civilizations". Despite the Iraq fiasco, they remain in denial and view a crusade to enforce US military control in a "new world order" as the "great cause" of this century.

Breaking with that obsession is not to invite catastrophe, but to abort it.