Here’s a question. Various news reports recently have spelled out that Bremer and the Bushies are now prepared to change just about any aspect of the infamous “Rube Goldberg” scheme to hold anti-democratic political “caucuses” in Iraq within the next few months– any aspect, that is, apart from the timing. Administration people across the board all seem quite adamant that the June 30 date for some kind of a political-transition “event” in Iraq is sacrosanct…
But why should everyone else in the world kowtow to that demand?
You should realize, folks, that you’re reading the words of a person who has argued here quite consistently that what the US should do is pull its troops out now, immediately, this instant, if not yesterday… I have no patience at all with people who bring forth some version of a “white man’s burden” argument that the US at least “owes it” to the poor benighted Iraqi people to stick around and do what it can to bring peace and security to their benighted country…
So I’m not necessarily saying that the US troops should stick around in Iraq for very much longer than June 30. In fact, I’d still love it if they would all withdraw today, pronto, now.
But I really don’t see why anyone in other countries (or, indeed, most Americans) should consider the June 30 deadline to be hewn in stone.
How about this for a plan? Sometime soon–next week, say, or perhaps this week– the US and coalition forces in Iraq are put under the command of a UN political operation there. With the UN pols then firmly in charge, some sensible arrangements are then made for a UN-sponsored transition involving a one-person-one-vote election and the crafting and adoption of a new Iraqi constitution.
The proportion of US forces in the new UN force could be radically drawn down during the period of time in which this transition occurs. Many US forces may indeed end up being withdrawn from Iraq long before June 30, with their place being taken by units from other UN member-nations that have (dare I say it?) considerably more experience in peacekeeping and nation-building than the US forces. Other US units might end up staying in Iraq–though still under UN command– until well after June 30… (But that is the case under all versions of the administration’s present plan, friends, anyway.)
The UN force as a whole would stay in Iraq as long as it takes for the transition to succeed.
What would be so terribly wrong with such a plan? Maybe, that it would mean that the UN had “won” in Iraq? Or that a plan like this might not fit in with the plans for George Duh-bya’s re-election campaign??
Gimme a break. Why should anyone in the world outside of a small coterie of Republican activists give a toss for arguments like those?
I have no patience at all with people who bring forth some version of a “white man’s burden” argument that the US at least “owes it” to the poor benighted Iraqi people to stick around and do what it can to bring peace and security to their benighted country… So I’m not necessarily saying that the US troops should stick around in Iraq for very much longer than June 30. In fact, I’d still love it if they would all withdraw today, pronto, now.
For all practical purposes I am beginning to come around to this point of view. Initially my attitude was not a “white man’s burden” notion at all, so much as a dread at the prospect of the Bush Admin adopting Harlan Ullman’s strategy of using “shock and awe” tactics against a long succession of recalcitrant regimes, then allowing them to fester. In fact, I strongly suspect that Rumsfeld & Co. have a theory of fighting terrorism based entirely on threatening leaers with extinction if they don’t curry his favor. Now is perhaps not the time to explain why an emphatic opponent of the war might have felt an effort at reconstruction was in order. (Hint: I actually don’t think the GOP would be hurt at all if the UN took over).
At this point, I really think we need a renewed anti-War movement. That will be interpreted as pressure on the Administration as pressure to cut and run. Well, so be it.
Helena,
Much as I would like the US to hand over things to the Iraqis, ASAP — just like you — I have to say that the left has had no appropriate response to the very significant possibility that there could be a civil war in our absence. Is a UN peacekeeping presence going to cut it? And what about the issue that there seem to be plenty of Iraqis who don’t like the UN any more than the US. … or who, at least, don’t see a UN presence as an advance in terms of Iraqi autonomy?
I do think the left has to respond articulately to these issues… Consider this a request for a specific blog topic on your part.
Vivion,
You write of, the very significant possibility that there could be a civil war in our absence and ask me to address this concern on behalf of “the left” in a full-scale post sometime.
I did address it a little in this early-December post, and also in something I wrote for our local Quaker meeting at around the same time. (Notably not quite the same thing as doing it for “the left”.)
I don’t have time to write much more about it right now, though I agree with you it’s an important topic. I’ll just say a couple of things.
Firstly, the way you frame the issue sort of assumes that there is social peace in Iraq with “our” current presence there (i.e. the presence of USUK troops). That is totally NOT the case, nor can we reasonably predict that it would soon be the case if the USUK forces stay. So there’s an important base-line issue to deal with there.
Secondly, the crucial indicator is what Iraq’s people themselves say about the situation and about their preferences. I think the ORI poll of last November was pretty clear in that regard, and I can’t imagine that GI Joe and GI Jane have made a whole lot of new Iraqi friends since then.
To me, the key issue is envoicing, enfranchising, and empowering the Iraqis on the issue of how they’d like to see their security served. Please let’s not get into a whole bunch of paternalistic, “white-man’s-burden-y” discussions about what the “enlightened” white experts think about this! (Btw, I really am NOT accusing you of doing this. Come to think of it neither you nor I is a white man… But I do think the role of “well-meaning outsiders”, or however we characterize ourselves in this regard, should be to stress the importance of the agency and real decisionmaking power of the Iraqis themselves. Hard to find out what their preferences are? Sure. But the effort to try to do so, and/or to seek to engage Iraqis authoritatively as the authors of their own fate, is really the best effort we “outsiders” can make.)
Gosh, sorry about being repetitive there. It’s late… Maybe I will blog more articulately about this question at some other time.
Hi, there — thanks for responding.
I completely agree with you — and I am very sensitive to the “white man’s burden ” thingy… BUT you still haven’t answered the question about whether you think the UN can really cut it, and the fact that the UN isn’t exactly seen as the be-all and end-all in Iraq, as far as I’ve heard.
Also, some devil’s advocate stuff, here’s an article suggesting that many Iraqis are worried about civil war, as well (ok, ok, it was a poll sponsored by the CPA, but still….)
Basically, what’s wierd about the position the left is in right now, vis-a-vis occupation, is that it is awfully close to the original Rumsfeld-Cheney line, what with their having wanted to leave Iraq, pronto, and forget about this nation building cockamamy.