(From the diaries -- kos)

Now that the British military has all but left southern Iraq, the International Herald Tribune is reporting that violence has fallen by 90 percent in Basra—Iraq’s second largest city.

Here’s why it’s happening:

The thing you have to understand about an occupation like the one in Iraq, is that much of the violence results from the unrest that occurs when people have no sense of a permanent presence of authority. At the risk of going completely unscientific here, it’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher. The people have no need to please or respect the occupier, because they know that ultimately, that occupier will give way to a more long-term power.

In such a situation—where there is no sense of permanent authority—dozens and dozens of groups vie for power. They all want to end up being that more long-term power. And their agendas are varied—as are their methods for causing trouble. I described it this way when I returned from the middle of the Iraqi insurgency:

There are a few fighters who have a real political agenda for killing both the invaders and those who would build a new government; there are a few foreign zealots, a few religious zealots, a few more foreign religious zealots, and then there are the rest of them—the overwhelming majority of whom are young, impressionable, male, unemployed, bored, and pissed about, among other things, the fact that their uncle was killed in an air strike or their cousin was killed at a traffic control point for not stopping soon enough. Without this last group there would be no insurgency.

::

And with these types of insurgencies, the longer you stay there the worse it gets. On a long enough timeline, an occupying force will eventually piss off everyone. That’s just what happens, even when you come with the best of intentions.

When I wrote that, I failed to include the category of common criminal gangs and thugs—the other major problem in Iraq.

Either way, the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is exacerbating the already prevalent tension and conflict between the many groups there. When we pull out, there may very well be an uptick in violence at first, but there is no reason to believe Republican fear-mongering when they argue that a general conflagration will ensue.

A prominent Iraqi activist and blogger summed up in the Washington Post earlier this year why this conflagration is not likely to occur:

Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi who directs the Iraqi Project of the human rights group Global Exchange, said it is time to bring the troops home and turn over control to the Iraqi people, who, he said, have been governing their country for centuries.

“Governing their country for centuries,” he said.

The logic of the Kagans and Kristols of the world is asinine and arrogant when you consider Jarrar’s statement.

There is no reason to believe that Iraq’s only means of national survival is to depend on a 160,000-person fighting force of Americans. And the British withdrawal from Basra just highlights that.

Even Ron Paul got this one right recently:

The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them?

That’s a good question. And now, I think the British have finally begun to answer it in a very concrete way. They’ve pulled out of Basra. And violence is down 90 percent.

It is now time for American forces to implement a similar plan, over time, throughout the rest of Iraq.