What Would YOU Think?

I interpret Maliki's statement as pretty much: "You won! We don't need you any more. We can handle it now. Please return home with our love and gratitude."

Whether I'm right about this is immaterial at the moment. I see another, very very bad problem brewing over the comments.
And I'm not sure I see a way out of it for those who believe we should stay. Before I go into my reasoning, I'm going to take the position that those folks are intelligent, capable, patriotic--everything the other side is. But I do believe there are some differences in core beliefs and perceptual filters (let's take the position, for the sake of argument, that their attitudes are basically correct--the problem still exists.)

1) The majority of the Iraqi people, and their elected leaders, seem to want a 16-month time table for withdrawal.
2) The perception throughout the Arab and Muslim world is probably that this is the case.
3) America must look out primarily for its own interests. Like everyone else.
4) If we believe it is NOT in our best interests to leave, we can no longer say "if the Iraqi people want us to leave, we will." We must at that point say something to the effect of "when we believe it is safe for us and/or the Iraqi people, we will go."
5) This might well be sane and smart. Yes, the decision can be defended. But can you fail to admit how this sounds to Arabs? Can you fail to grasp that, EVEN IF YOU ARE HONEST AND SINCERE it sounds like a naked power grab?
6) You are then saying, in effect: "Maliki is incompetant, and the Iraqis cannot handle their own affairs." That, in effect, they are inferior to Americans. I'm not saying this is what you think. I'm saying that you MUST enter the world of the "Other" and see how this looks from their position.
7) So...you have a nationalistic, proud, cocky, testosterone-fueled generation of potential soldiers. Given one situation, they are citizens, shepherds, lawyers, whatever. But when their country or way of life is threatened, these guys (and gals) get two-dimensional, black and white, "us and them" and pick up sharp sticks. Happens all over the world, throughout all history. And you follow the guys screaming "they did it!" and go fight, whether you understand the politics or not.
8) In other words, not respecting Maliki's words, pressuring him to change them (or being perceived as pressuring him) creates the god-damnedest recruitment poster for Jihadism imaginable. Perfectly reasonable Arabs will want to kill us. Hell, if about 60% of AMERICANS think its problematic, what percentage of Arabs will think that? I cannot imagine what we would gain that would be worth what we will lose.
9) I also cannot imagine this attitude coinciding with a sense of respect for their culture, religion, and humanity. How many times on this board alone have we argued about whether Christianity is superior to Islam? And it seems pretty clear from listening to talk radio that a huge percentage of those who are still in favor of our actions in Iraq have a sense that Islam is inferior. Now, there's nothing new about that attitude. I'm quite sure at least as many Muslims feel their religion is superior to Christianity. Sauce for the goose. The problem is that we are on their soil. And that makes it horrifically easy for recruiters to go to otherwise reasonable people and claim that this is a religious war. And horrifically difficult for us to win--wars of occupation have very long supply lines, and tend to break the back of the occupier if he isn't careful.
10) At the same time, it fuels the belief that we are there for the oil. If a big chunk of Americans believe that (I don't have the numbers) don't you dare lie to yourself and say it's unreasonable that Arabs would think it. You might think it unfortunate, that we have the best of intentions, etc...but don't you dare create a situation where the only way to have peace is for the other guy to have more respect for you than you have for him. Don't you DARE.
11) Think about it. A bunch of Saudis rammed planes into our buildings, and the majority of Americans were quite content to believe that attacking Iraq was a direct response. Take the same type of thinking, transfer it to the other side (by simply giving them the same humanity you demand for yourself) and see what you get. They have no better critical thinking skills than we have. They will be, and are, just as proud. And we are taking actions that can EASILY be misinterpreted, if we don't handle this right. This is the kind of thing that could make an otherwise honest and responsible Arab customs agent turn his head when fissionable material marked "to delivery in New York" passes his desk.
##

Other people have no obligation to trust us. Trust must be earned. But too often, I hear something like "Of course they know we mean well. We're Americans!" This is such blindness, and a complete lack of being able to see the world from the perspective of others. It actually reminds me of a Christian lady who said: "of course Jews know Jesus was the son of God. They're just being stubborn."
#
I considered whether to say this next part, and have decided to go ahead.
We talk about the damage done in the oppressor-oppressed relationship. I think that both take damage, but when one group can literally exterminate the others, the underdog damage is far greater. In that situation, the fear of death is a very real thing across the entire group. That fear is an insanely powerful weapon, and if you've never been in a situation where you had to genuinely fear for your life at the hands of another, you may not be aware of how deep it goes. I have often commented that the legacy of slavery includes both the pain of generations of soul-withering "We will kill you if you complain, resist, or run" and the belief patterns that said "We have the right to do this because we are superior to you." It just began to break down in the middle of the 20th century, and arguably has really only broken down within the last generation--leaving hundreds of years of damage to repair. Fair enough.

But there's another side to this. Even for white people, I now suspect, there was real damage from slavery (not as much a there was to slaves, but damage nonetheless.) During slave days, there was a theory of a disease called "Drapetomania"--a slave's desire to run away was, in fact, considered by many to be not a natural human response, but a disease. In other words, a slave was insane for not recognizing how wonderful it was to be chained and abused by white people.

In a slightly milder form, it seems that I've heard this from other empires: the Brits seemed to think that the Indians, Africans, and Chinese should feel blessed to have British rule. The Germans, I believe, did some of this too--although I never heard anything as insane as Germans thinking Jews should be grateful for the Holocaust. The Nazis weren't THAT crazy. But Native Americans should be grateful that we rescued America from them, and them from themselves? Yep, I've heard that one.

Individuals vary, but every group seems to think that God made them first and loves them best (with the exception of black Americans--but that's another subject.)

The point is that it is natural to think you are the best, most honest, smartest, bravest, closest to God. Perfectly natural. And natural perhaps to forget that others feel the exact same way about themselves. But in order to enslave other people, and have an empire over them, it seems that people develop beliefs that they are not only superior, but that there is something WRONG with the other guy for not admitting it. That slaves should be GRATEFUL to be enslaved, and any who aren't, well, there's something wrong with them. Or even that, of COURSE they know we're superior--they're lying if they say they don't.

And that attitude is a sickness of power, of the slave owner, of the Empire-builder. You can't just say "We're stronger, we're going to take it." That would be refreshingly honest. Instead, for whatever reasons, some people have to believe that it is GOOD for the other people to be dominated or enslaved, and if they don't acknowledge it, if they fight back...why, they're a terrorist!

This is a kind of super-hubris, a swelling of ego until it blinds logic and obscures humanity. In researching the South for "Lion's Blood" I came across so many references to Southern superiority and valor that seemed to imply: "We are great enough to rule men as if they were beasts. We are the super-breed. Outnumbered and outgunned, we will turn back the Northern tide because God is on our side." And a number of scholars commented that when the end came, there was a sudden collapse that seemed more moral than material, as if (my words) that false ego-wall came crashing down as the reality of lost battles made them question. Were we really superior? And if we weren't, what does that mean about what we did to these Africans..?

In this case, the hubris of being the "most powerful country in the world", former slave holders (as a culture), led to a massive sense of entitlement. Not just that we were the best, but that everyone in the world should know it, and trust us no matter what we do. I remember when Nicki and I were in Tanzania, there was a Floridian tourist lady who was behaving with such a level of entitlement--she could go where she wanted, do what she wanted--she almost got us killed with an elephant charge--and it hit me that while I've certainly seen worse behavior on the part of black people, there was a very specific attitude that she had, and that some others have had, that I have NEVER seen from black people.

That sense of entitlement, that the world exists to serve you, that you can go where you want ot go, do what you want to do, and that the world loves you for it. That has to be what it was like to be a part of any royal family, or any conquering empire, or any "master class" in history. A pathology of power. And it warps the mind of the master as well as the slave. Iraq will welcome us as liberators. The war will be over in a few months. The oil will pay for it. Help the war effort by shopping. Even if they want us to leave, they're too stupid to realize they need us.

You could take a perfectly reasonable, loyal American. Re-wind the tape of his life until he is an infant. Slip him out of white (or brown or black) skin and put him in Arab skin. Have him watch what is going on in Iraq, and he will come to the conclusion--just as I did following 9/11, that "it's time to go and kill them." For me, the "them" was whoever the hell had hit us. I heard that voice in the back of my head, very clearly. And so will they.
Toward us.
##
I can understand if you think America must do this, and that it is right. That's not what I'm discussing. It is the fact that, if I am right, trying to spin this in ANY way will create more enemies than we can kill. And they will not be centrally located, so no army can simply smash them. And we can win that war at the cost of gigantic amounts of our precious wealth that should be invested in moving America toward our future. It could take generations to recover.

But...how can we know if I'm right or wrong about this? We can't, but I humbly offer an experiment, as follows:
The Question of the Day Is: "If you were an Arab or Muslim, would America setting a time-table to leave Iraq make you more or less likely to want to kill Americans? Why or why not? Would America refusing to set a time table now make you more or less likely to want to kill Americans? Why or why not?"

Let's assume that those answering on either side are honestly conveying their attitudes. I suggest to you that we can use this to estimate the response toward our actions, worldwide.

Remember: in communication, it doesn't matter what is in your heart. What matters is the way your actions are interpreted. And there is grave danger of our attitude being interpreted as:
"We're better, smarter, and closer to God than you. We know what's good for you, better than you do. We're powerful enough to take whatever you want. We're having an energy crisis at home, and you're sitting on an ocean of oil. Do the math."

And any brilliant arguments you have "proving" that that's not what Republicans , Right-wingers or Neocons want has NOTHING to do with whether reasonable people could interpret our actions in such a way. And if you say: "Well, anybody who thinks that's possible is an idiot!" you're just kinda proving my point, unless said people routinely get worse results than you in terms of health, income, and happiness. If you ain't outperforming them in these arenas, any superiority complex is completely unearned.

Anyway, I think I've expressed my concerns here. The rest is up to you guys. Remember, please. The question is not: "Does America have good reasons to stay" but rather "could the refusal to make solid plans to leave be interpreted by a sane, intelligent Arab as an act of war against the Muslim world?" I think, to a disturbing degree, the answer is yes. There is a gap between action and interpretation, and we could flush our entire way of life down the toilet if we don't stop blaming slaves for running away...or patriots for fighting for their own damned country and culture, just the way we would.