Cross-posted from my blog.
The astute Juan Cole, who does more to make sense of the waking nightmare in Iraq than most of the media outlets combined, outlines a plan for US withdrawal. The United Nations, he submits, could be induced to replace the former as it leaves with the tail firmly tucked between its legs. And here is how:
As for getting anyone over at the UN to take on Iraq, I fear I think there are few third world armies that couldn’t be enticed by a couple of billion dollars– the kind of money they would probably be rewarded with if they really could help Iraq. Progressives are usually people of principle, and they often can’t imagine the cupidity of the world, or how to play on it.
Indeed, progressives are usually people of principle, which is why they may want to think twice about this idea. What Cole basically proposes is that poor countries be bribed off to do the dying now that the hyperpower which insisted on; led; and botched this sorry war of choice has had enough. His reference to ‘cupidity’ makes it clear, furthermore, that he knows they would get a raw deal. And unless he has in mind specifically India and the handful of other fairly democratic third world states, the odds are that the citizens – let alone troops – of said countries would have precious little say in the matter. Nor would they necessarily be the main beneficients of the multi-billion dollar bribe.
Cole explains his motivation thus:
My main point was to try to find a progressive/centrist approach to Iraq that avoided the two extremes of a) agreeing with the Bushies that we should stay ‘until the mission is accomplished’ or b) simple-mindedly chanting ‘bring the troops home’ with no thought for the world-class disaster that might befall us from the resulting power vacuum.
I appreciate the effort to carve out such a middle ground, so it is with some regret that I must ask for a better suggestion.
And what’s with the ‘us’ there, Professor Cole?
