The Primary Point of the Occupation of Iraq is the Occupation Itself

[babylonsister]

The Primary Point of the Occupation of Iraq is the Occupation Itself

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 10:00 AM on November 23, 2007.

Joshua Holland: Note to my rationalist friends: there will always be a new rationale for staying.

Over in Iraq special coverage, I'm running a piece by Jeffrey Feldman, who argues that we're about to see a monumental shift in the discourse around Iraq. Here's the nut of it:

The change can be summed up in 4 simple words:

troops leave, violence drops

As the deafening hubbub of propaganda drowns out every attempt to talk real policy change on Iraq, this simple descriptive formula--troops leave, violence drops--cuts through it all…

The British pullout from Basra, and the subsequent logic of violence dropping as a result of that pullout, will change the debate again by reimposing a simple logic of up and down, in and out.

The up-and-down-in-and-out logic of this description is more powerful than any protest argument about the war to date, and has an almost unlimited potential to sweep through both the broadcast media and face-to-face conversations that make up American political debate.

He's got much more to say, so be sure to read the whole thing, here:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/68302/

I don't mean to single out Jeffrey Feldman here -- he's a good guy, and a contributor to AlterNet from time to time -- but I want to highlight the piece because it's such a good example of the kind of perfectly rationalist analysis that dominates in progressive America. There's a persistent belief that if opponents of the occupation could only win the "debate" over Iraq on the merits, then a U.S. withdrawal will somehow follow.

There are a number of problems with this idea, not least of which is the fact that to a very significant degree we've already won the debate -- majorities of Americans now say that it is no longer possible for the U.S. to "win" in Iraq (whatever that means) and favor a timetable for pulling troops out -- but the public's views have so far had only minimal impact on the foreign policy elite.

more...

http://alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/68705/

[tabasco]

1. If, by occupation, you mean control of the oil

that's right!

[AlertLurker]

2. "...it is no longer possible for the U.S. to "win" in Iraq ..."

As lomg as the US continues the occupation and controls the energy assets of Iraq, they have "won."

You don't build 18 permanent military bases and the world's largest fuhrerbunker just to walk away some day, you know?