My column in Thursday’s CSM on the Iraqi transition is now up on their website. I’ve also archived it here.
Here’s the core of what I’m writing:
- Can the hoped-for handover of power [in Iraq] to a permanent elected body take place without further major crises? I believe that two parallel sets of steps – one to be undertaken by the US alone and the other by the US in conjunction with Iraq’s transitional leadership – would help a lot.
In Washington, the Bush administration should issue an authoritative declaration that the US has no claims of its own on Iraq’s territory or natural resources, and no desire to constrain the decisionmaking of a freely elected Iraqi parliament in any way. This would do a huge amount to reduce suspicions and tensions inside Iraq. It would also rightly focus the attentions of all Iraqis on finding a good formula for getting along with one another rather than – as some have done – relying on US power to bolster their own group’s position.
In Baghdad and Washington, meanwhile, policymakers should certainly consider tweaking the terms of the US-designed TAL so that what is drafted and voted on this year would be only an interim constitution, rather than the final thing. At the same time, the two planned end-of-2005 referenda could be consolidated into a single vote – which would be both a general vote of confidence in the interim constitution and the election of a sovereign democratic government based on it. Smaller details of the final constitution could be worked out later, and submitted to a referendum at that time.
Maybe it’s too timid and incrementalist. Maybe I should have been bolder? But what I wanted to make quite clear was that insisting on sticking by the letter of the (unwieldy, US-designed) TAL would probably be a recipe for disaster, and that there are reasonable, constructive alternatives.
Also, I think the point about the US making an authoritative “no lasting claims” declaration is really, really important. Why on earth don’t they just do it?
Helen,
Although I like the idea of the US making a statement about not having an interest in the resources of Iraq, I don’t think it will happen.
What in the world makes you think the current administration doesn’t want to have a permanant presence in Iraq. It has been suggested that bu$hCo has plans for 14 permanant bases in Iraq, (or to use a faux news technique, some people say the administration wants 14 permanant military bases).
Asking them to make a statement even is crazy, they have proven time and time again that they have no problem lying to the American people. They made a statement that we were going to have a final vote in the UN before we committed to war in Iraq. Then when it didn’t go the way they wanted, they just ignored the UN, and went into Iraq unilaterally.
What has changed to make you think they don’t want a permanant presence in Iraq?
Helena,
I attended a talk last week given by Dahr Jamail, an independent reporter who has covered Iraq extensively. He was in Fallujah during the first US assault in April 2004.
Jamail mentioned that 4 US military bases – large and expansive complexes – have been built. He added that another 10 are planned or being built.
The bases are an empirical fact. The US is pouring billions of dollars into them and there is absolutely every indication that they are meant to be there for decades. In fact, Ret. General Jay Garner, the first US administrator of Iraq, explicitly spoke of having US forces in Iraq for “the next few decades”. (see http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020604cdam3.htm ) And as you know, Bremer’s senior advisor, Larry Diamond, has made it clear that the US is building permanent bases. This was all planned before the invasion and the NY Times reported on it back in April 2003.
In light of this, it does not reasonable to assume that the Bush administration intents to leave Iraq. (Is there any evidence to support such an assumption?) They haven’t issued the kind of statement you call for precisely for this reason. I don’t see why we should pretend things are otherwise.
It isn’t happening. The people currently in power in the US have shown no intention of leaving Iraq. Now the Iraqis will almost certainly eventually throw the US out, one way or another, not necessarily or even most likely, with a bloodbath
Re:”I think the point about the US making an authoritative “no lasting claims” declaration is really, really important. Why on earth don’t they just do it?”
Maybe because they’ve finally begun to realize that the liars, liars whose pants get on fire could be them?
The issue of bases is separate from the issues of resources, and of political influence. The US has many bases in Germany and in South Korea, yet has no hold on natural resources in either country. And the US does not intervene politically in either country. Likewise Italy and Israel.
“the Bush administration should issue an authoritative declaration that the US has no claims of its own on Iraq’s territory or natural resources, and no desire to constrain the decisionmaking of a freely elected Iraqi parliament in any way.”
Rumsfeld was just there the other day telling the new government who they cannot purge from the security forces. What amazes me is that he went on TV and said it – no pretending that the new Iraqi government is sovereign.
And when you talk to most Americans they will agree we need to get out of Iraq, and they even believe we will (when Iraq is “stable”). Add the word “immediately” and they balk…. they still think the US is providing some stability and safety to the Iraqi people.
I think the main reason we need to get out IMMEDIATELY is so that US troops are not sitting there when Israel/USA bombs Iran. Iran, I fear, will hit back with a vengeance, and with hundreds of US troops dead, the vast majority of Americans will feel we need to stay and fight, and “win”.
I sure hope I am wrong about this one.
Suzan wrote : “And when you talk to most Americans they will agree we need to get out of Iraq, and they even believe we will (when Iraq is “stable”). Add the word “immediately” and they balk…. they still think the US is providing some stability and safety to the Iraqi people.”
This is so much like the first colonizations. Then, the Spanish/French/British where sending missionaries abroad in order to convert “pagans” and “savages” to Christianism and to teach them how to earn their salvation. Now the US pretends she is bringing Iraq “freedom” and “democracy”.
Warren,
A number of influential and knowledgeable people, including Bremer’s senior advisor Larry Diamond and former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman have emphasized that a statement that the US intends to leave Iraq and will not seek military bases would help to quell the insurgency. (Even John Kerry alluded to this.)
The notion of the US with its military implanted in Iraq for a long time is very unpopular with Iraqis, just as it was in Saudi Arabia. In fact, polls show that most Iraqis want the US to leave either immediately or soon.
(Incidentally, the US has used its influence with the Saudi monarchy to moderate oil production according to US preferences. The countries mentioned (S. Korea, Italy, Germany, Israel) don’t have much by way of important natural resources.)
The chief architects of this war assumed that the US would be warmly welcomed indefinitely in Iraq. Now they have a dilemma, but they don’t appear to have abandoned their original plans yet.
Good posts by Patrick and Christiane.
little dick and bu$hco still push the concept of “how did our oil get under their sand”.
Until imperialism is stopped by the current administration, I don’t see it getting better.
“What an amateurish piece of work. The TAL was a peice of negotiated work that includeded the Kurds, Sunnis, and especially Sistani… ” [The rest of this comment from JWN stalker Razavipour has been redacted out. What I left, I left because Christiane refers to it below ~HC.]
Razavipour,
You are making a twisted interpretation of Helena’s comment. If she proposes the adoption of a new provisional constitution and the organization of a second row of elections it’s because :
1) In contradiction to what you wrote, Sistani did never accept the TAL. On the contrary, he wrote a letter to the UN, especially asking that the UN resolution don’t endorse the TAL. He was heard, because the TAL isn’t part of the UN resolution.
2) The TAL which was adopted/forced upon a council of US appointed politicians can’t be seen as being legitimate and isnt’t by many Iraqis, which is why Sistani objected. Worse, all can see now : it contains rules slowing down the process of the nomination of a government, this at a time when Iraqis desperately need a government to take care of urgent problems.
3) The revengeful attack of Falludja and her near complete destruction by the US in november lead to a Sunni boycott of the elections. So the result of the january elections didn’t produce a representative assembly. The Sunnis are totally under-represented. The fact that many Shiites have paid lip service to the need of including more Sunnis in the government just proves that the attack of Falludja prevented the success of the democratic process
4) The American are so worried by the threat of the new UIA power that recently Rumsfeld went to Baghdad and warned against large anti baathists purge.
5) Putting the Allawist back on saddle however isn’t a real solution, because it’s done at the expenses of the Sunnis.. There is a real risk that they will be completely rejected in the resistance. Helena is just trying to imagine a better solution, a solution who would take care of all the Iraqis and I agree with her.