We have to get out of Iraq, and apparently...

WilliamPitt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-17-05 02:13 PM
Original message

We have to get out of Iraq, and apparently...

...we have to have this argument again. I'm seeing more than a few posts from people who agree with Franken about staying in Iraq, or even augmenting our force there. I'm not 'Franken-bashing' because I don't listen to his show, so I don't have a valid opinion on him. But if he and anyone else say we have to stay, they are wrong.

Here's why.

We aren't there to bring democracy. Iraq was balkanized before the invasion, and is far worse in that respect today. The Sunnis appear to be about to get shut out of any constitutional recognition, the Kurds want the northern oil fields, and the Shi'ites are going to make sure that whatever laws are enacted there bend to the will of Islam. A democracy with elements of Islamic law is possible - see Turkey - but not likely.

So scratch that of the list.

The other argument is that we have to stay because the place is such a dangerous mess (that we created), and if we leave, we will create another Afghanistan and immesurably increase terror threats to us and the world. The problem is that it is our presence that is creating the problem.

Yes, we made a mess. No, we cannot just jump out of it. But we can leave in a responsible fashion:

* End the Houston-based contracting of work in Iraq and open the doors to Iraqi companies and workers. The believers in privatization here should practice what they preach and allow Iraqis to make money off the work and repairs needing to be done. As funds flow into the Iraqi economy, burgeoning and reconstituted private companies can take it upon themselves to make sure the lights work, the roads are paved, the water is running, and the trash is picked up. Once upon a time, Iraq was the most modern and industrialized nation in that region, filled with highly educated workers who know how to run a country. The Iraqi people must be allowed to run their country once again, and must be paid well for their work by Iraqi employers not beholden to profit margins in the United States.

* Arrange for the creation of a base of operations outside of Iraq where an Iraqi National Guard and police force can be trained to take over the security of their country. The old Christian canon states that whenever two or three people are gathered together to pray, Jesus is with them. In Iraq, whenever two or three people are gathered together to sign up for the army or the police, a suicide bomber is there with them to deal death. Establishing a place away from the violence where Iraqis can be prepared and armed for the work needed to gain control of the country will ultimately allow American forces to back away from policing the country, something that has been the chief aggravating factor among that populace. Doing this away from the violence will allow Iraqis to sign up for this work without fear of being blown sideways out a recruiting station.

* Until the infrastructure is repaired and security forces are assembled, steps must be taken to achieve stability without an American face on the action. Work in good faith with both the United Nations and the Arab League to assemble a large security force comprised of people from the region. Care must be taken to avoid any pitfalls regarding potential ethnic and religious friction between the Iraqi people and these Arab security forces, but this can be managed. Once Iraqi infrastructure is restored and a security and police force is in place, the Arab forces can begin a phased withdrawal. Meanwhile, American forces can be removed en masse.

* Practice what has been preached about bringing democracy to that nation. Democracy is not the installation of some bastardized Vichy government managed by remote control from Washington. The Iraqi people will never accept such a government, and the violence and chaos will never end. Provide security by way of the aforementioned steps and let the people decide how their country will be governed. The recent farce of an election did not achieve this; almost all of the candidates were anonymous because they feared assassination, and large swaths of the populace did not participate because they saw it as the sham it was. Let the government be formed as it will, and prepare for the diplomatic ramifications.

* A vital element to the process will be the establishment of a set timetable for withdrawal. Timetables are dangerous; if they are not met, rage is the inevitable result. Yet the changes required of our status in Iraq need date markers and deadlines to push the process along, and the Iraqi people need to know exactly when their country will be their own again.

Bush and his crew want to stay because they are getting paid by our presence. They want to stay because they still see Pax Americana as a viable plan. Neocon mouthpiece Charles Krauthammer confirmed as much in a recent article. Read this carefully:

Alliances with dictatorships were justified in the war against fascism and the cold war, and they are justified now in the successor existential struggle, the war against Arab/Islamic radicalism. This is not just theory. It has practical implications. For nothing is more practical than the question: after Afghanistan, after Iraq, what?

The answer is, first Lebanon, then Syria. Lebanon is next because it is so obviously ready for democracy, having practiced a form of it for 30 years after decolonization. Its sophistication and political culture make it ripe for transformation, as the massive pro-democracy demonstrations have shown.

Then comes Syria, both because of its vulnerability—the Lebanon withdrawal has gravely weakened Assad—and because of its strategic importance. A critical island of recalcitrance in a liberalizing region stretching from the Mediterranean to the Iranian border, Syria has tried to destabilize all of its neighbors: Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and now, most obviously and bloodily, the new Iraq. Serious, prolonged, ruthless pressure on the Assad regime would yield enormous geopolitical advantage in democratizing, and thus pacifying, the entire Levant.

Some conservatives (and many liberals) have proposed instead that we be true to the universalist language of the President’s second inaugural address and go after the three principal Islamic autocracies: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Not so fast, and not so hard. Autocracies they are, and in many respects nasty ones. But doing this would be a mistake.

In Egypt, we certainly have liberal resources that should be supported and encouraged. But, keeping in mind the Algerian experience, we should be wary of bringing down the whole house of cards and thereby derailing any progress from authoritarianism to liberal democracy. Saudi Arabia has a Byzantine culture, and an equally Byzantine method of governance, which must be delicately reformed short of overthrow. And Pakistan, which has great potential for democracy, is simply too critical as a military ally in the war on al Qaeda to risk anything right now. Pervez Musharraf is no bastard; but even if he were, he is ours. We should be encouraging the evolution of democracy in all of these countries, but relentless and ruthless means—of the kind we employed in Afghanistan and Iraq and should, perhaps short of direct military invention, be employing in Syria—are better applied to enemies, not friends.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12001023_1

That's the game plan, and "staying in Iraq" is central to it. That is the jump-off point.

You want a part of that? Keep preaching the "we need to stay line."

But count me out.