Bring 'em home

Historian and iconoclast Howard Zinn on the war in Iraq

Get out now.

That's Howard Zinn's position on the war in Iraq. The outspoken leftist, historian and author of several books, most notably A People's History of the United States, is uncompromising on this point. While many who oppose the war say a U.S. pullout now would surely damn Iraq to civil war and a fever of Islamic fundamentalism, Zinn doubts that would happen. In fact, the 81-year-old iconoclast identifies the well-intentioned "can't pull out now" fervor as yet another parallel to the Vietnam War.

"It's exactly the same language that was used in the early years of the Vietnam War," he says from his home in Auburndale, Mass. "When it was obvious we weren't getting anywhere, we said, 'We mustn't cut and run, we must stick it out, we'll lose credibility, we've got to show the world we're not afraid.' Now the exact same argument is being made. 'Well, if we pull out, there's going to be a bloodbath.' We pulled out in Vietnam and there was no bloodbath. There are all these dire predictions being made if the imperial power leaves. Right now, a very bad scene is happening, with their deaths and injuries and ours. But when you have a choice between certain things that are certainly terrible and an uncertain future, the uncertain future is to be preferred."

Zinn's solution? A U.S. pullout followed by the formation of an international coalition made up of regional powers. "We could have an international group consisting largely of powers from the Arab world who would try to negotiate among the Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds, and try to work out a solution which would give them all some measure of sovereignty, some kind of federal republic of Iraq. It seems to me once the military force is out, the situation will be very greatly improved."

In this scenario, the group would be appointed by the United Nations, which would pick Arab countries that "have not benefited from involvement in the military occupation of Iraq," Zinn says. A pipe dream? Maybe, but Zinn points to what he considers a historical precedent: post-World War II Yugoslavia. "In World War II, the Germans were driven out of Yugoslavia, an area which consisted of elements similar to those who've been fighting recently, the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins and so on. They were unified in a country called Yugoslavia and lived at peace with one another."

But Zinn admits there's no neat historical parallel for the war in Iraq, whether it's WWII or Vietnam. "But what is clear to me is that military force has no historical precedent in bringing democracy or stability to a country."

Whether you call it isolationism, waging peace or cowardice, pulling out of Iraq--complemented by a general rollback of U.S. military presence in the Middle East--would likely solve more problems than it would cause, Zinn says.

"Countries that are not militarily involved outside their borders do not become targets of terrorism," he says. "Sweden and New Zealand aren't targets of terrorism. Does that mean I think [the terrorists] were right in bombing the Twin Towers? No. The point is understanding that there are reasons for that kind of terrorist action."--Andrew Kiraly