Why won't the Americans pull out of Iraq? Rather than admitting their real reasons - a fear that it would damage American prestige combined with a stubborn refusal on the part of the President to admit he made a mistake - the US claims that they must stay to protect the Iraqis. If they left, they say, there would be a bloodbath, and the entire country would collapse into anarchy.
Apart from the obvious rejoinder that the US' idea of "protection" leaves a lot to be desired, we also now have an empirical test of withdrawal. Last month, the British pulled out of Basra, relocating to the safety of a nearby airport. So you'd expect the city to be in anarchy, with wall-to-wall murder and death by now, right?
Wrong. In fact, the security situation has improved:
Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.The conclusion is obvious: the presence of foreign troops is making things worse, rather than better, in Iraq. And if the US was truly concerned about the wellbeing of Iraqis, they'd leave.Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
(Hat tip: Jerome a Paris)
