Stay in Iraq until Democracy is Assured
This morning's Seattle Times brings an oped from one Resat Kasaba, professor of international studies at the UW, arguing for an immediate U.S. withdrawl from Iraq:
The United States has lost its ability to achieve its goals in Iraq. The American administration no longer has any moral standing among the people there. The longer U.S. military and civilian personnel stay involved in Iraq, the more enemies they make.
This sweeping statement, unsupported by evidence, is directly contradicted by Iraqi blogs as
late as yesterday. "I'm an Iraqi citizen and I want to thank president GWB from all my heart for the great service he's done to the Iraqi people by freeing us from one of the worst tyrants in history." Perhaps Prof. Kasaba has convincing evidence, but his argument would be better if he presented it rather than assuming facts not demostrated.
The only clear way out of this situation is for the United States to leave Iraq as soon as possible...
Only then can Iraq move toward a free and democratic future, which it most certainly deserves.
Ok, the U.S. should leave Iraq. And who should replace us? Wait for it...
There is a way in which this transition can be carried out so that it does not lead to chaos and anarchy. As the very first step, President Bush should convene a summit that includes the secretary general of the United Nations and the leaders of major European powers, neighbors of Iraq (including Iran), Egypt, China and Japan.
Yes! The U.N. And Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China. All of which have such a stake in creating democracy in Iraq, and such experience with democracy in their own countries.
And by the way, Israel is a close neighbor of Iraq; would the other generous countries in this new coallition welcome her participation?
Such an extraordinary gathering would serve two purposes. One, the United States would be announcing to the world that it is changing course and reaching out to the world community in dealing with the situation in Iraq. Second, such a gathering would draw attention to the fact that if Iraq fell into anarchy and civil war, this would have serious consequences for not only the security and stability of the region but also for the world at large.
In other words, those who would be most directly and immediately affected by Iraq's further slide into chaos would be invited to help prevent it.
For half of the countries on Prof. Kasaba's list, "security and stability" means rule by a strong man. They are hostile to democracy, and a democratic Iraq is anathema to them. For Arab leaders, it would deligitimize their own governments, which are all dictatorships. They long to be in a position to restore Saddam-like stability to Iraq.
A key goal of such a summit would be to create a truly international military force to help Iraq with its security. This force should be under the command of a U.N. officer. As soon as this force is constituted, all the U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. A small number could be reintroduced subsequently but only as part of the multinational force, and under the command of the U.N. officers.
Who are these U.N. officers? The U.N. has no military force of its own, but relies on member states for troops. Would Prof. Kasaba suggest U.S. troops serve under Syrian command?
Contrary to the pontifications of pundits and other "experts," the Middle East has a long tradition of electoral politics going back to the 1840s.
Examples would really help here. How about a modern tradition of elections? The Turks hold regular elections and have a functioning democracy, but they have a deliberately secular country whose army has regularly overthown governments thought to be too religious. The Palestinian Authority had an election in 1996 in which Yasser Arafat was elected to a five year term, but there was no election in 2001. Perhaps Prof. Kasaba means the Israeli tradition of elections going back to the 1940s.
Given the opportunity, Iraqis would certainly be capable of organizing themselves and determining their future in free elections.
And who is giving them the opportunity? The U.S. The Army and Marines and the CPA have organized hundreds of local elections for city councils and provincial governments. And Prof. Kasaba is right: the Iraqis have generally stepped up to the challenges of running city governments, and there is every reason to believe they can handle national democracy. President Bush has made that his goal, and
outlined a timetable on Monday.
The five points Bush listed in his speech Monday amount to little more than a restatement of general goals few people would disagree with. We still don't know how these goals are supposed to be achieved and what June 30 will bring to the country or the region.
And the president will be giving five more speeches over the next few weeks, presumably to fill in the details. But we can't know exactly how the transition will unfold, as events in the country will change any plan we announce today. And when the plan is challenged, better the guarantors of Iraq's democracy are democratic Britain and America, not theocratic Iran and Baathist Syria.
Leaving Iraq as I've suggested should not be seen as a defeat. By reassuming moral leadership and regaining its international legitimacy, the United States would find itself in a much better position to affect the international system.
This is either naive or disingenuous, depending on how charitably you want to read it. Of course it will be seen as a defeat. By the American people, who will wonder what happened to our leaders' resolve. By U.N. and E.U. bureaucrats, who will be able to gloat over putting the U.S. "back in the box." And most devastatingly by al-Qaeda, who will have another example
ala Beruit and Somalia to demonstrate to their followers that America is decadent and can be outlasted.
This is a much better route than the one we are embarked on now, where countless lives and reputations are being wasted and the country's treasure is being spent for a cause no one is able to articulate anymore.
Prof. Kasaba is himself able to articulate the cause rather well: free elections for Iraqis, stability for their country. The only waste of lives and treasure that would occur is for the U.S. to give up halfway through and turn over the rest of the process to dictators with no more regard for Iraqi freedom than for that of their own people. The only route, hard as it is, is to stay in Iraq until democracy is established and its preservation is assured, if it takes two years or twenty.
Posted by awm at May 26, 2004 08:14 PM