Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal

by Anthony Arnove

Book Overview

Three years after the start of the war in Iraq, violence and misery continue to plague the country, and conservatives and liberals alike are struggling with the question of when--and under what circumstances--U.S. and coalition forces should leave. In this cogent and compelling book, Anthony Arnove argues that the U.S. occupation is the major source of instability and suffering for the Iraqi people. Challenging the idea that George W. Bush has ever...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1595580794
• ISBN13: 9781595580795
• Release Date: April 2006
• Publisher: New Press
• Length: 184 Pages
• Weight: 0.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 7.6"

Customer Reviews

Excellent case for bringing the troops home now

This outstanding book makes the case for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq. This would meet the democratic demands of the Iraqi people, and also of the American and British peoples. In a September 2005 New York Times-CBS News poll, 52% supported the immediate withdrawal of US troops. Arnove sums up, "Every single argument the Bush administration made to justify the invasion of Iraq has turned out to be false. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no imminent threat to the United States, and had no connection to al-Qaeda or to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Iraq was attacked not because it had weapons of mass destruction, but because it did not (a fact that has not been lost on other potential targets of U. S. intervention). U. S. soldiers were not greeted as liberators, and the occupation has not paid for itself, or required few troops, or been quickly concluded. Nor has the occupation made the world safer or reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, it has made Iraq, the Middle East, and the world far more dangerous." From the start, the war on Iraq was a huge lie. As Arnove writes, "The attacks of September 11, 2001, provided the pretext the Bush administration needed to portray an offensive war to reshape the Middle East as a defensive measure to protect the people of the United States." Everything we are told about the war is untrue. For example, we are told that the occupation troops conduct a humanitarian war on the ground. In reality, the USA is waging war largely by massive, unreported, bombing: the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on Iraq between May 2003 and December 2005. We are told that there is no national resistance attacking the foreign occupier, just terrorists attacking civilians. In reality, for every attack against civilians, there are a hundred against the occupying forces. British governments have always lied to us about matters of war and peace, of security and the national interest. This Labour government is different only because its lies have been more stupid, so that we have rumbled it more quickly.

Articulate, politically-sophisticated

Q: How many pages does it take to make a compelling case for immediate withdrawal from Iraq? A: Apparently not many when you have logic on your side! It is a myth that Bush & Co.--though misguided--had the best of intentions at heart when they ordered the military invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. And this unfortunate myth prostrates the antiwar movement when it deludes itself into believing that a bloody occupation stemming from an illegal war can somehow be salvaged into something beneficial for anybody besides Halliburton. Anthony Arnove's book explains the real roots of the Iraq war in the context of power and profit (not misguided humanitarianism), summarizes for the reader three years of blood-spattered occupation history, provides eight excellent reasons for immediate withdrawal and then discusses the ABC's of anti-imperialist struggle drawn from the history of the Vietnam War. This isn't a catchall antiwar book to give to your chicken hawk uncle at the next family reunion. This is a book for the 50 million Americans who already consider themselves part of the antiwar movement and want some real answers about stopping the blood-letting. Or as the author puts it, "...the U.S. left in particular needs far greater clarity about the reasons for the war, the political context of the war, and an effective strategy for ending it." (page 98) This is the most articulate, politically sophisticated yet easy-to-read appeal to bring our loved ones home now that I've read since the war began. But don't trust this synopsis--read the book.

Very Good Analysis of the Illogic for this war and for staying there further

This should be mandatory reading for anyone who has bought into the lie filled Bush regime change rhetoric regarding Iraq. A Neocon filled US administration which has been proven wrong in virtually every single one its Iraq pre-war and current engagement contentions. From "Mission Accomplished", to "Bring It On", to "...the insurgency is in its last throes..." to lies about active WMD programs, lies about Yellow Cake material from Niger, lies about Saddams mythical connections to Al Qaida and 911, this book helps unearth many of the utterly false, and utterly illogical claims told by the current Bush Administration in D.C. regarding their oil based, "Project for the New American Century" military actions in Iraq. Another reviewer above stated the following, "Suppose the US pulls out and Mr. Arnove is proven wrong. A civil war breaks out." Hello, a civil war had already broken out in Iraq in case you missed the last 3 years of activity over there!!! That's what the insurgency is, it is a Civil War action! A civil war initiated solely, 100% by the Bush Neocon doctrine in Iraq beginning in April 2003. As far as the war spreading further in the Middle East, there was no war in Iraq prior to the US military illegally attacking that country in 2003. Again, there was no war there! And there is nothing to indicate that our continued military presence in Iraq is reducing the insurgency after 3+ years of occupation. In fact, all logical signs are that it is merely fueling futher insurgency recruits and fueling further deaths in that civil war. And what happens if the Iraq Shiite cleric Al Sadr, an extremely anti-US fundamentalist, is eventually elected the majority leader of Iraq, which could easily happen given that he's in the majority Shiite sect. Do we then remove him from power because Iraq elected him in a "democratic" fashion, but we now disagree with whom they elected? The attempt at analogy between US highway deaths versus military deaths is comparable to believing that "Fox News" is "fair and balanced" reporting. If you believe that you probably also believe that there is no civil war yet being waged in Iraq too, LOL. Very good read, and if you want further information on the real motives behind the Bush Administrations Iraq regime change, do a google search on "The Project For a New American Century" and read up on the true motives behind this illegal war of Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and other Neocons whom Bush has surrounded himself with.

Why Leaving Iraq Now is the Only Sensible Step to Take

Coherent. That's the one word review of Anthony Arnove's latest book, Iraq:The Logic of Withdrawal. Incoherent. That's what Washington's policy in Iraq seems to be. What makes Arnove's book so important is that he dissects that policy and proves that the war in Iraq is not an incoherent bumble that's gone awry. In fact, as Arnove makes abundantly clear, it's US foreign policy as it's always been. This remains the case even in the light of Condoleeza Rice's admission of thousands of tactical errors. After all, Ms. Rice didn't admit that the war itself was an error, only the manne in which it is fought. As the war drags interminably on and people continue to die, the antiwar movement in the US is still fumbling around questions of timetables and demands. One element of the movement has hitched itself to the progressive wing of the Democratic party--a connection that has stifled that element's ability to make the only reasonable demand an antiwar movement can make: Get out of Iraq now and bring the occupying troops home. The rest of us in the movement continue to make this demand, but seem to go unheard. Part of the reason for this lies in the fact that our allies do have those connections in the public mind to the Democrats, but the greater reason is our inability to mobilize the broader mass of the US public--a public that opinion polls tell us is overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of the war. Like the similarly titled book written in 1966 about the US war in Vietnam by Arnove's inspiration and collaborator Howard Zinn, Iraq:The Logic of Withdrawal, is not a shrill exercise in rhetoric. It isn't full of make love not war sentiment or calls to hit the barricades with your black bandannas and gas masks. It is exactly what it says it is: a logical, point-by-point argument to the world as to why we need to insist that US troops leave Iraq immediately. There is passion in these pages, but it is the passion of pure logic in the defense of humanity and the earth we live on. Well-researched and well-spoken, the reasonableness of Arnove's presentation does more than expose the madness of the men and women who are running this war, it peels away the madness of the system that those men and women work for. It is this element of the book that goes beyond a mere call to end this war. One of the debates within the movement, especially among the liberals and some leftists, is how much of the conversation should be about empire. Arnove argues that because of the economic and geopolitical reasons behind the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the occupation can only truly end when the antiwar movement understands that it must be an anti-imperialist movement. Like Mark Twain and his circle of anti-imperialist activists back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Arnove wants the reader to understand that it is the needs of the financial system we live in that demands that our men and women go off to kill and die. He doe

An utterly compelling case for bringing the troops home now

"We find ourselves in a remarkable situation today," argues Anthony Arnove in _Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal._ "Despite a massive propaganda campaign in support of the occupation of Iraq, a clear majority of people in the United States now believes the invasion was not worth the consequences and should never have been undertaken... Yet many people who opposed this unjust invasion, who opposed the 1991 Gulf War and the sanctions on Iraq for years before that, some of whom joined mass demonstrations against the war before it began, have been persuaded that the U.S. military should now remain in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. We confront the strange situation today of many people mobilizing against an unjust war but then reluctantly supporting the military occupation that flows directly from it." (65-66) Arnove's very readable book is aimed at resolving this paradox by providing a clear case for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq. He poses the question -- in contrast to widespread fears of what might happen if the U.S. leaves Iraq -- of what happen if it stays. The first five chapters lay the groundwork for the book's main argument in favor of immediate withdrawal. The first two chapters compare the claims made by politicians and pundits to the reality of the war's deadly consequences. These chapters comprise an exhaustive compendium of the most damning facts, quotes and stories about how the war was sold and the devastation it has wrought. By exposing the occupation from every angle -- from the unwillingness of the mainstream media to question the lies coming from the mouths of the government; to the corporate profiteering and sheer corruption of the neoliberal regime being imposed upon Iraq; to, most of all, the inhumanity and brutality of the U.S. as an occupying power -- they are an invaluable resource for activists. The next three chapters place this occupation in its historical context, showing how it fits into a history of U.S. colonialism on the one hand, and a history of Iraqi occupation -- and resistance -- on the other. Because of how little this history is discussed in U.S. society, much of it will be new to many committed antiwar activists. Having thus set the stage, Arnove attempts to lay out a solution in the last two chapters of his book. Chapter six puts forward eight arguments for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Most of these arguments are framed as direct refutations of the common arguments to stay-for example, "The United States is not preventing civil war in Iraq," or "The United States is not honoring those who died by continuing the conflict." Taken together, they are utterly compelling. Finally, chapter seven raises the question of how this vision can become a reality. It considers the factors that forced the U.S. to abandon its war in Vietnam and argues that all are beginning to be in play today, though they are not yet sufficient to outweigh the importance of occupying Iraq to a U.S