It's been a while since I last wrote (being a full-time musician is not easy, let me tell you), and while I wanted to come back in a stronger fashion, I could not help but comment on this article by Juan Cole regarding
troop withdrawal from Iraq (emphasis mine):
A US withdrawal without a United Nations replacement would risk throwing Iraq into civil war. Such a civil war, moreover, would very likely not remain restricted in its effects only to Iraqi soil. A civil war in Iraq would certainly lead to even more sabotage of petroleum production, reducing Iraq's production from the current 1.5 million barrels a day to virtually nothing. If a civil war broke out that drew in Iran, the unrest could spread to Iran's oil-rich Khuzistan province, which has a substantial Arab population, and which has seen political violence in recent months. The instability could also spread to Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, which is traditionally Shiite but dominated since 1913 by the anti-Shiite Wahhabis.
Keeping reading beyond the fold...
If the petroleum production of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia was put offline by a vast regional conflict that involved substantial terrorism and sabotage, the price of oil would skyrocket. Only 80 million barrels of petroleum are typically produced daily in the world. Much of that is consumed by the producing country. What is special about the countries of the Gulf is that they have relatively small populations and little industry, and therefore export a great deal of their petroleum. Saudi Arabia produces 9 million barrels a day, and can do 11 in a pinch. Iran produces 4 million. Iraq could produce 3 million on a good day without sabotage. If nearly 20 percent of the world's petroleum supply became unavailable, and given ever increasing demand in China and India and political instability in Venezuela and Nigeria, the price could rise so high that it would throw the world into a Second Great Depression.
Now you know why I quit my job to live my dream.
The biggest threat we felt from an Iraq Civil War if troops were withdrawn completely was a power vacuum that would make Iraq the single biggest compact terror breeding ground today's world has ever seen. Now, we see there are bigger problems toward an all-out unilateral withdrawal of troops, and don't think the Republicans, in all their Dear Leader haze, do not see the salvation for their sins. Their salvation:
A Democratic President (with possible a Democratic Congress) unilaterally withdrawing troops from Iraq, a positive short-term move for Americans, which could potentially lead to another massive Great Depression over the price and our demand for oil. By that time, the Republicans will turn the message on the Dems that Democrats are responsible for the economic destruction (that they themselves also contributed if not started altogether with their hapless Iraq military adventure), and aim to regain a bigger foot-hold in power once again.
But while there are arguments against completely withdrawing troops from Iraq, as the above paragraph states, Steve Gilliard, whose writing I love so much, makes this attack against someone on the left who wrote an entry about opposing the war and also unilateral troop withdrawal:
What makes you better than someone serving in Iraq? Nothing, and if you were a man you would join them. You would back your cheap and meaningless words with real and concrete action. Not try to explain it away and then sneer at people you aren't fit to wipe the asses of. This isn't a game or some debating point, Mr. Gutless. It is real and 150K families can tell you how real. 1700+ families can explain it in detail.
You talk about the soldier's bargain, what about yours, Mr. Warmonger. If you're so concerned about Iraqi civil life, you can get a job there and work in the Green Zone. You don't need to be a soldier to serve in Iraq. You can work as a contractor, US government official or NGO employee. You don't have to carry a gun. Hell, they even want people to work in the military hospitals if they have the skills. And you will be well compensated. So what exactly is your exscuse for not going to Iraq. "Other priorities?"
While this writer has come out and said that he opposed the war in Iraq in that it was based on lies (although he may have supported it initially), Steve's attack seems to be more of the notion that if you don't support the troop withdrawal, then you support keeping the troops there and thus the ongoing war and should enlist yourself. I think Steve misses the point that a unilateral withdrawal would do monumental damage to not just Iraq but to the whole world, now thanks to this recent Juan Cole post.
If we are content to live in yet another Great Depression World, then we should demand unilateral troop withdrawal. If we are not, then some attempts at saving face must be done to ensure that that doesn't happen. Only when it becomes inevitable, through UN resolutions or whatnot and even the immediate threat of a military draft that the American people will never get behind, do we withdraw the troops entirely with nobody else left but the Iraqis to defend themselves.
Like it or not, we are in this thing together, regardless of your support for the war or lack of it. This has now become a very touchy subject with the release of the Downing Street Memos, the continued outcry from families who have lost loved ones in the desert, but we all know the time is coming quickly as to what we should do about Iraq. The problem is that the President is not willing to discuss it, but very soon, he may have no choice, and when that day comes, will we be ready for whatever consequences lie at the heart of our decision(s)?