By the North Gate, the wind blows full of sand,
Lonely from the beginning of time until now!
Trees fall, the grass goes yellow with autumn.
I climb the towers and towers
to watch out the barbarous land:
Desolate castle, the sky, the wide desert.
There is no wall left to this village.
Bones white with a thousand frosts,
High heaps, covered with trees and grass;
Who brought this to pass?
Who has brought the flaming imperial anger?
Who has brought the army with drums and with kettle-drums?
Barbarous kings.
A gracious spring, turned to blood-ravenous autumn,
A turmoil of wars – men, spread over the middle kingdom,
Three hundred and sixty thousand,
And sorrow, sorrow like rain.
Sorrow to go, and sorrow, sorrow returning,
Desolate, desolate fields,
And no children of warfare upon them,
No longer the men for offence and defence.
Ah, how shall you know the dreary sorrow at the North Gate,
With Rihoku’s name forgotten,
And we guardsmen fed to the tigers.
Ezra Pound, “Lament of the Frontier Guard”
Sorrow to go, and sorrow, sorrow returning. Sorrow will return to the United States for this; the blood lies thick-caked on our hands. We didn’t just rub the magic lamp, we smashed it open, and a hundred angry jinns have come swarming forth, eager for vengeance for their long captivity.

Posted by: Aigin | Apr 5 2006 21:25 utc | 3

I don’t find cole’s views inconsistent or implausible. who here would argue the precipitated withdrawal of u.n. forces feom rwanda did not lead to genocide? b, why are you so certain the same will not happen in iraq?

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 5 2006 22:41 utc | 5

it’s quite simple for me, my friend slothrop, there are any number of bloggers inside iraq who offer information & commentaries more vital & less self interested than the good professor

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 5 2006 22:55 utc | 7

You seem confused and uncertain slothrop.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 5 2006 23:16 utc | 9

to be sure, the default defense made by anyone who now demands withdrawal but later acknowledges holocaust will be: nothing could be done, anyway.
but the same excuse no longer works for apologists for nonintervention in the ongoing central african nightmare.
not for a second would I deny the u.s., like every empire, creates a world in which every alternative to empire is chaos and murder. I have said so here for a long time. the u.s. wants the arabs to fight each other. divide and conquer, baby.
but the alternatives now to u.s. control are hardly better than empire. better now the empire is forced step by shameful step, to scale down its conceit of domination and be forced by circumstances to accommodate iraqi sovereignty even to black-turbaned mullahs. in the process, the secular history of our empire’s “liberation” of iraq will be the glacial death of empire and the imprimatur of america’s decline stamped by republicans. how apropos.
all this happy outcome, without the hysterical carnage of genocide.
and the bonus: the

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 5 2006 23:41 utc | 11

Well if you are so sure that the US will “never” leave, why worry and speculate about the rest of it?
I know, it’s hard to be a leftist imperialist.
Glad to see you have joined us, though.
But good and bad are such 19th century concepts. Went out in Kipling’s time.
You really need to clear your head of that nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 5 2006 23:58 utc | 13

Genocide:
Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
or
The systematic, planned annihilation of an ethnic, racial or political group
or
destruction of a culture and its people through physical extermination
The USUK preemptive attack was certainly a deliberate, planned and systematic destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and culture. This is shown by the initial shock and awe bombing campaign (and all the bombings of same for the previous decade and all since) and the looting that was allowed by the conquerors to follow.
Once the blatant lies about all the bad, bad weapons that the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council had sold to Iraq caught up with Chimpoleon and his minions, did they not change their tune to be something akin to bringing the freedoms provided by Western culture to replace the Iraqis implied outdated culture? Specifically, privatization and the freedom to select from a plethora of consumer goods. The plunder of Iraqi history, our shared history, would certainly assist in the assimilation. In this case it seems to have steeled Iraqi resolve.
“divide and conquer, baby” looks alot like genocide by proxy

Posted by: gmac | Apr 6 2006 0:27 utc | 15

The “leaving with honor” part jumped out at me as well, Bernhard. I was tempted to post there about this, but instead will do so here. There was no honor in invasion, there is no honor in occupation. An exit with honor would be impossible at this point, and any discussion as to when/why/how to do so seems like a huge waste of time.

Posted by: Pyrrho | Apr 6 2006 0:55 utc | 17

slothrop
It isn’t bullshit according to the definitions of genocide I provided and the examples given in support. Do you deny these definitions (find your own, they are all similar) and that these events happened? Asserting that it is bullshit isn’t even a weak argument, doesn’t make it so and certainly does little to convince otherwise.
All war is genocide. If you want to argue numbers, 1 is too many. One. The “we broke it therefore we must stay to fix it or the savages will have at each other” really is a tired old cry in defense of the white man’s burden.

Posted by: gmac | Apr 6 2006 1:37 utc | 19

All war is genocide.
no it’s not.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 6 2006 1:43 utc | 21

I do not believe US troops are upholding the social order in Iraq, I believe the torn social structures are what is upholding the last of the social order.
Bingo!
Thanks, SKOD.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 6 2006 2:11 utc | 23

Cole lost me a long time ago. His academic learning just doesn’t match the facts on the ground. Did it once? If so, that time has past.
What conference for peace can match the fact of American war? Perhaps he thinks he has to try. But the Middle East has seen peace conferences before. Often the participants know exactly what they are worth. It’s like talking business in the bazaar–when no one is buying or selling.

Posted by: Gaianne | Apr 6 2006 3:33 utc | 25

we broke it. it’s ours. unilateral withdrawl would be catastrophic for the region.
chomsky addresses this in his recent democracy now interview as well as any

AMY GOODMAN: And the argument that they will just descend into civil war and that the sectarian violence will increase, and the U.S. went in and now has a responsibility not the leave a mess?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, I mean, the Germans could have given the same argument and occupied Europe, the Russians in the satellites, the Japanese in Asia, and so on. Yeah, they could have all given the same argue: well, we went in, and now we have a responsibility to ensure that terrible things don’t happen, and so on. And the argument had some validity. So, when the Germans were driven out of France, let’s say, there were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people killed by — as collaborators, and in Asia, even more so. But is that an argument for them? No. It’s none of their business.
We don’t know what will happen, and it’s not our decision to make. It’s the decision of the victims to make, not our decision. Occupying armies have no right to make the decision. We could have an academic seminar about it, in which we could discuss the likely consequences. But the point is it’s not for us to say. [emphasis mine]

this notion of honor is farcical – yet more mythos to hide the real designs of the philosopher-rulers & their gentlemen patriots. such a thing can only be spun out of whole cloth, laundered by those gullible & naive. the only possible way that the word honor could come into play here is for the iraqi people to honor our reparation payments as they start flowing in.

Posted by: b real | Apr 6 2006 4:25 utc | 27

In reading Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” he discusses some theories on Rwanda about how overpopulation was a major cause of the genocide there.
Thankfully, that shouldn’t be a problem in Iraq, thanks to the decade of sanctions and 3 years of war. America – preventing genocide since 1992!

Posted by: Rowan | Apr 6 2006 6:16 utc | 29

spot on, b. Honor?! America?! Whatever ‘honor’ might mean, they pissed it up against a wall a long time ago.

Posted by: DM | Apr 6 2006 9:54 utc | 31

Vietnam, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa are but three of the many countries, that the imperialist forces tried to hold onto by using the lame excuse of avoiding precipitating a ‘bloodbath’ as an excuse to hang on in.
Or they use avoiding ‘bloodbath’ as an excuse to step in and start the imperialistic play. See Dafur.

Posted by: b | Apr 6 2006 11:45 utc | 33

well, I agree w/ chomsky the occupation is de facto and de jure illigitimate. but he seems only to say the deaths of millions rather than thousands is inconsequential because what counts is the iraqis and others prefer to kill each other rather than join to fight the occupation. genocide, it seems, is a right.
as for the various claims made by some here the withdrawal of u.s. forces will not result in a bloodbath and chaos exceeding anything experienced now, no proof is offered. none at all. yet, it is widely acknowledged the occupation can suppress, has suppressed, a “hot” civil war.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 6 2006 15:52 utc | 35

also, as I have repeatedly said, the attempted expansion of empire will fail. verily. we on the “Left” should not fear the use of empire to control the harm of its certain decline. to restate my view: prolonged occupation may well avert genocide and wwiii while also providing the empire with its own postmodern germania–a stage where it can cut its own throat.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 6 2006 16:07 utc | 37

but he seems only to say the deaths of millions rather than thousands is inconsequential because what counts is the iraqis and others prefer to kill each other rather than join to fight the occupation. genocide, it seems, is a right.
actually he says
We don’t know what will happen, and it’s not our decision to make.
during my luncheon w/the women visiting from iraq, one sunni (w/shite husband), one shite, mirrored what riverbend said. that for the large part most shite and sunni intermingled throughout their daily lives, lived side by side in neighborhoods. could it not be perhaps that extremist from both sides are being allowed to carry on , and in fact instigated and prodded by the negroponte/factions into fermenting civil war. that without the protection of the occupying forves, these squads would loose much of their power or burn themselves out, or perhaps the most victimized of all, the people who just want to find peace, may raise up and forge a path towards it.
genocide?

“The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists,” he said. “From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.”

if we weren’t changing the equation whenever it suited us i wonder what equation there would be when the dust settles, i agree w/chompsky, we don’t know what will happen.

Posted by: annie | Apr 6 2006 17:04 utc | 39

it pains me to argue for a continued presence of u.s. military in the region, believe me. yet, we do know, have some proof, u.s. occupation can be an obstacle to full-scale civil war. a conflicted but obvious precedent for this logic is the occupation of lebanon by syria.
it’s true no one knows for cetain “what will happen.” but withdrawal obviously proliferates every uncertainty and danger.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 6 2006 17:35 utc | 41

The ethnic strife – the pooor show at Gvmt – those quarelling nobodies – the incipient, or actually ongoing civil war – all provoked by USuk – provide an excuse both for the US to ‘stay’ (the poor Iraqis would be worse off without the control, military clout, and good influence of the noble troops) or ‘leave’ (these people are just so nuts – we tried to do what we could but it was impossible, democracy has to come from the inside.)
Lacking control, chaos is best.
I’ve know kindergarten bosses and day care managers who implemented that strategy.
The difference is they were fired, and cannot practise those professions any longer. But I digress. I tend to relate things to my personal experience, sometimes inappropriately so.
The US will not ‘leave’ (it may pretend to withdraw some troops, etc.) Iraq. It will enjoy having an outpost in the ‘badlands’ even when the outpost is doing great harm to everyone, including the US public, who will face steep oil prices (heating amongst others), ongoing heavy taxation, oh so much misery I don’t know where to begin.
The rest of the world looks on and is astounded at the lack of healthy egoism. Printing money without control like there was no tomorow is not a good idea. Lumbering oneself with almost 20, 000 seriously disabled vets (iraq war only, to this day, and rough figure..) who will have to be cared for for life – even if that life proves to be rather short – and the care mingy – is kind of dumb. And that is the tip of the iceberg…
Specially when the Int. community has said, clear and loud, that it will not pay this time round. It paid for Gulf War I, collaborates in Afgh. and the Yugoslav matter was a fair share effort.
Remember those huge demonstrations?
It is not only in the Muslim world that Gvmt. fire up their people to demonstrate (cartoons.)

Posted by: Noisette | Apr 6 2006 18:04 utc | 43

breal
you are too intransigent about the role u.s. and others might play to avert further disaster despite the fact the u.s. et al are to blame for the pitiable recent history of iraq. I think there is ample evidence the u.s. has humiliated itself into inevitable agent of “liberation,” even though this end was covertly unintended.
the 10 or 15 year result may be relative success of the u.s. to play its geopolitical games in the region, but the attrition of expense and exposure will undermine its longterm power. the advantage to iraq and the region may be as long a delay in civil war and in the molar scope of affairs, a victory over neocolonialism.
but if you pull out now, you can’t plan for shit.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 6 2006 19:49 utc | 45

Chomsky is right, we dont know what will happen. I would prefer to believe that we have underestimated the nationalistic capacity of the Iraqi’s. Most of the recent polls show that there are large majorities that want the occupation gone, that they want a strong central government, and that they think it is legitimate to kill the occupier. Whos to say that after throwing out the worlds most powerful military force, by defacto denying it access to control of the country — that this sense of shared victory might not also act as a wellspring of national pride capable of knitting the factions together into whole cloth — their own genuine revolution and liberation. Stranger things have happened.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 6 2006 20:48 utc | 47

we can argue all day (& to no avail) about whether the occupiers will ever leave under their own volition, but there is only one answer to the question of should they be there at all. on that point alone, there is no need to argue for extending this injustice against the people of iraq. more wrongs will never make a right.
Posted by: b real | Apr 6, 2006 3:12:10 PM

i have to go further & say that b real is not being intransigent enough
i would add that the empire must pay significant reparations for all that it has taken from the body of iraq, most violently
slothrop, your arguments (& i know you are not of their number) are similar to thos who argued against the radical measures against apartheid south africa
i imagined the political lack of imagination of white africa & all its supporters, significantly its partner-in-crime, israel would lead to an inevitable & necessary bloodbath
it did not because the an & all their partners had the political will & imagination to go somewhere else – in that moment they humbled the diplomatic & gestapo tactics of a kissinger & a cheney
so i too believe that anna missed’s ‘dream’ is also a real possibility
& yes yr right the empire will fall by its own act but a real citizen of this world shoule give that descent a helping hand, most of all for the american people – who will pay the bill, moral & otherwise – no matter what cruel men like o’reilly, & mathews & blitzer might say
they are after all our hollow men
because this generation in this time has seen the naked violence of the empire so openly & has been forced to draw the necessary conclusions

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 6 2006 22:44 utc | 49

If we bring the troops home now, in 6 months they’ll be refit to invade Iran!

Posted by: Rowan | Apr 7 2006 2:20 utc | 51

“Happy troops” and “logical cycling of personnel” don’t really describe the Rumsfeld military, now they? The troops had best be ready by October, we’ve got an election to run!

Posted by: Rowan | Apr 7 2006 4:27 utc | 53

fisk on democracynow today:

AMY GOODMAN: So, what has to happen now?
ROBERT FISK: They’ve got to get out. We’ve got to get out quickly. Our presence — and you only have to go and be in Iraq to see this — our presence is fueling the violence there. We are the petrol burning on the surface, and we’ve got to get out. How we get out — you know, I’ve said this to you before on this program — you know, we must leave, we will leave, and we can’t leave, because we’ve got to find some political hodgepodge to try and pass off on us, the people, as to why Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush are pulling out. But pull out, we’ve got to do, and quickly. And we’re not wanted, even by the Kurds now, it seems.
AMY GOODMAN: And the same question to Chomsky was: What about the idea that the country descends into civil war?
ROBERT FISK: Well, I said just now, somebody wants it to descend to civil war, but I don’t — you know, I’ve told this story before. I went to the funeral of a doctor, Sunni Muslim, sat next to his brother at the funeral feast afterwards, and said to him, “Is there going to be civil war?” And he said, “We’re not a sectarian society. We’re tribal. I’m married to a Shiite. Do you want me to kill my wife?” In many cases in Iraq, most of the people I know, most of them, and maybe by chance, are actually mixed marriages between Shiites and Sunnis. And I don’t think they’re trying to kill each other in their mixed marriages. I think that what is happening is there are certain forces which are going after the idea of civil war and trying to provoke the Shiites into retaliating, because somebody wants the Shiites fighting, as well, because if you have the Shiites and the Sunnis both involved in armed violence, then that’s the end of new Iraq, isn’t it?
AMY GOODMAN: Who wants?
ROBERT FISK: You know, if I could give you the answer to that story, it would be on the front page of my newspaper tomorrow morning, Amy, and I don’t know the answer.

Posted by: b real | Apr 7 2006 18:22 utc | 55

slothrop
i think we all are & even the most hardened & cynical of us would still hope for the vision of anna missed – of a possible iraq but it is so unbelieveably dark & i remember tonigh the post of so log ago of b real on the indian wars & think of those people slaughtered in such a way that dignity was completely erased from any possible history
& am reminded that a few papuans who are able to escape indonesian tyranny are treated so sordidly by the aust govt – that any idea of a possible humanity dissapears also
& watching that gargoyle of a man tonight – that little gangster golem berlusconi & tho hannah has given a little hope – i do not think a win by that monster is impossible
we are worn thin by events & it is our responsibility to feed each other with strengths arguments & hopes that we can realise as being material if not mysterious

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 8 2006 1:40 utc | 57