As the country gets ready to observe independence day, we might find it useful to ready Anthony Arnove's most recent book on the issue of US troops in Iraq. The title is modeled after a book that radical historian Howard Zinn wrote in 1967 called Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal. Not only does Arnove's book share the same title as Zinn's book, he shares similar arguments and the same conclusion. This is Arnove's second book on Iraq, the first of which was an excellent collection of essays written during the late 90s entitled Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War. In many ways, if the anti-war movements in the US had paid attention to issues raised in Arnove's first book, we might have a much different analysis of and strategy for ending the US occupation of Iraq now.

Most media coverage has commented on the back and forth partisan debate on whether or not to withdrawal US troops from Iraq, but rarely does the public hear an independent voice nor a clear vision such as what Arnove lays out. The author begins the book by examining the premise for the US invasion/occupation. This is pretty keys, because we have to ask ourselves if the US found WMDs would that have justified the decision to go to war? If you feel the actions would have been justified, then you fail to take into account history and the long-standing US policy that is based upon US hegemony in the region. Here Arnove cites researcher Michael Klare who says "George W. Bush's Iraq War, while duplicitous in many respects, is actually the culmination of twenty-five years of US policy to ensure continued domination of the Persian Gulf and its prolific oil fields. In fact, it was a natural expression of the Carter Doctrine....Seen in this light, Bush Jr. was merely applying the doctrine when he invaded Iraq in 2003." Arnove uses chapters 1 - 5 to support his analysis of the long-standing US policy.

The crucial chapter is chapter six, where Arnove lays out eight reasons for an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. First, the US Military has no right to be in Iraq in the first place. Arnove agrues that is no and has never been any democratic or humanitarian reason for the US going to war in Iraq. Second, the US is not bringing democracy to Iraq. If you read the 2002 National Security Strategy document laid out by the Bush administration it says that the US "will not allow the emergence of any potential competitor, seeking to preserve the massive gap between itself and other powers" in the region. Third, the US is not making the world safer by occupying Iraq. Arnove argues that there has been a serious push since the US invasion of Iraq by several countries to "develop a deterrent to US power." This deterrent has taken on the form of WMD research and development. In addition, the US invasion/occupation has meet with increasing resentment by many of the world's people. Arnove cites British playwright Harold Pinter who says "People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, the do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget. Thet strike back."

Fourth, the US is not preventing civil war in Iraq. Indeed, the US occupation has increased the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. Foreign Policy scholar Phyllis Bennis says "the constitutional referendum was not a sign of Iraqi sovereignty and democracy taking hold, but rather a consolidation of US influence and control, which could transform the current violent political conflict into full-clown civil war between ethnic and religious communities." Fifth, the US is not confronting terrorism by staying in Iraq. The majority of the Iraqi resistance has been created because of the occupation and it is here that some of the more extreme groups have been able to recruit people, people that have been politicized because of the brutality of the occupation. Sixth, the US is not honoring those who died by continuing. This argument is a response to what both Republicans and Democrats who continue to support the war have been saying. Here Arnove says "the soldiers in Iraq have not died for a noble cause, as Bush claims. Whatever personal motivations may have brought them into the military, they died for oil, for empire, for power and profit."

Seventh, the US is not rebuilding Iraq. Read the reports from Halliburton Watch, Corporate Watch and the Center for Public Integrity and you will see that the bulk of the "reconstruction money" has ended up in the hands of US contractors to do things like build permanent US military bases and restructure the Iraqi economy to benefit foreign interests. Naomi Klein, who has been writing about the Iraqi economy says "the US , having broken Iraq, is not in the process of fixing it. It is merely continuing to break the country and its people by other means, using not only F-16s and Bradleys, but now the less flashy weaponry of economic strangulation." Eighth, the US is not fulfilling its obligation to the Iraqi people for the harm and suffering it has caused. Here Arnove challenges mainstream peace groups like MoveOn, Education for Peace in Iraq Center and others that say "there is no other good option to the occupation." The doctrine of good intentions "exculpates all crimes." Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Fallujah, and countless other examples of US atrocities are excused with the idea that "we have to stay and make things right." Don't we get it, the US never had any intentions of making it right, unless making it right applies to US regional hegemony. This notion that the US will bring democracy to Iraq or anywhere else has no basis in history. Are there any examples of the US doing that anywhere? The mantra of maintaining the occupation is just another manifestation of US exceptionalism.

So what does Arnove say is the answer. Simply put, OUT NOW. Leaving now, with no conditions means 1) the US will not commit another war crime in Iraq....no more murder, torture and repression, 2) the US will not maintain military hegemony with permanent bases on Iraqi soil, 3) the US will not have the capacity to intervene when hoping to maintain or further economic control of Iraq, and 4) no more US soldiers will die or be wounded in Iraq.

Arnove concludes by looking again to what contributed to the US pulling out of Vietnam and how the current war with Iraq needs the same 5 factors. First, is the level of resistance by Iraqis themselves. It must be acknowledged that this was the number one reason for the US pulling out of Vietnam, that the Vietnamese resistance movement was too strong to be defeated. The Iraqi resistance after just 3 years has already proven they will not easily be defeated. Second, the resistance of US soldiers and veterans of the Vietnam war were the backbone of the US resistance, both domestically and in Vietnam. See the documentary Sir, No Sir for an excellent analysis of the types and level of US troop resistance to the war in Vietnam. This US soldier resistance is happening now with Iraq, but the anti-war movement needs to build greater solidarity with Iraq war vets and their families if the current soldier resistance will have an impact. Third, domestic opposition must occur. While there has been a great deal of organizing over the past 4 years, too much of the planning has centered around symbolic protest that allows business as usual to continue and doesn't involve any risk by anti-war participants, risks necessary to make the US power structure afraid that if the occupation doesn't end the country will explode. Fourth, there was substantial international opposition to the US war in Vietnam. This seems to be the case with the current war, if not by governments, certainly by people all around the world who continue to organize against the war in greater numbers than the US, despite their countries have less or no direct military involvement in Iraq. Lastly, the growing economic consequences of the war in Vietnam pushed the corporate sectors to even advocate troop withdrawal. This is not the case currently since the economic costs of the war have not been translated into concrete consequences by the US anti-war movement. We have not bridged the realities and cost of the war to domestic violence, racism, environmental destruction, poverty and political repression. Notice that none of these 5 contributing factors include electoral or partisan politics.

While readers many not agree with all of Arnove's agruments, nor his analysis, it is an important contribution to the discussion of what we in the US can do to end the US war/occupation of Iraq.

Anthony Arnove, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal, (The New Press, 2006)