Reply #54: It is, of course, the popular dogma

[markses]

that Iraq will descend in to bloody civil war the day after American forces have withdrawn, should they withdraw prior to the establishment of a stable (and, our friends in the Pentagon no doubt wet their pillows with fervent nightly hopes, "friendly" and "controllable") political structure. I have, like everyone else, seen many strong arguments supporting this contention, but I do sometimes wonder whether ideological or interested assumptions drive the real force of those arguments. We all, of course, remember the supposed bloodbath that would take place were we to exit Vietnam - a bloodbath that never occured. No doubt the vanquished comprador elements and much of the populace suffered greatly for some time after the war (the ethnic Chinese of Cholon, for example, made up much of the "boatlift" population), but the Red Cross reported that "retribution" in the former RVN was less severe than that seen in France and Belgium after WWII (though nobody likes to get into the game of comparative catastrophe). Most former ARVN soldiers spent 3 days in "reeducation" camps, though officers spent more time, and some were killed outright. Still, point being that we should investigate the assumptions that drive these arguments.

I tend to agree that a bloody civil war will erupt should we leave, but sometimes I wonder. Moreover, sometimes I wonder whether our staying isn't what really drives the violence at this point, and I wonder whether our staying is the only preventative solution, or whether other solutions would address the problem without simultaneously spurring the violence.