PDA

View Full Version : Teaching Iraq About Democracy


Chris Alger
11-14-2003, 03:05 PM
From today's WSJ, it's something like "count the non-sequiturs":

"So it's time to repeat that the only way to win in Iraq is if Iraqis begin to take charge of their own self-government and security. ... As for a provisional government, we'd be happy if the U.S. simply selected somebody and got behind him--at this stage almost any plausible democrat, a la Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. An alternative would be to let the Governing Council elect one of its own. The important point is that Iraqis begin to exercise authority, take responsibility for doing so, and be recognized for it by the Iraqi people."

IOW, the U.S. can hand-pick Iraq's next dictator or or allow its hand-picked council to select someone the U.S. has appointed to the council. But whether the decision, it will result in a "plausible democrat" who will let the Iraqis "take charge of their own self-government." What about the process by which western political parties select their own, reaching out to the people through local elections, caucuses and conventions? Can't bother with that, we're busy hand-picking the next popular leader of free and democratic Iraq.

adios
11-14-2003, 03:36 PM
Actually the editorial found fault with the left and the right propositions:

The alternative offered by the American left of turning things over to the U.N. is simply a global version of the State Department's 1787 illusion. The Baathist remnants aren't killing GIs because they prefer a "multilateral" transition to democracy. They want to return to power to tyrannize other Iraqis. They are hardly making distinctions now between Americans or Italians, or for that matter Iraqis who are helping us.

The silver bullet offered by some on the right, meanwhile, is more U.S. troops. Senator John McCain is the leader of this camp, and unlike the left he is rooting for American victory. But if more troops were the answer, we assume that the officers responsible for winning this war would ask for them. The line that they are too "cowed" by Donald Rumsfeld is an insult to Generals Richard Myers, Peter Pace, John Abizaid and Ricardo Sanchez, who are well aware of the military criticism of Vietnam-era generals who didn't speak their mind.

More resources might help in some places, but more important is the kind of resources and how they are used. Throwing a field artillery unit into a counter-insurgency operation would merely create more targets. The current U.S. military is constrained in the number of light infantry and military police it can deploy at a given moment. Tours of duty have already been extended, and reserve and National Guard units called up.

In short, there's a limit to what can be accomplished without harming morale and thereby future recruitment and retention. The military brass also recognize that even 100,000 more troops won't make a difference without better intelligence, especially to conduct counter-insurgency in the Sunni Triangle. General Abizaid is also understandably worried that more U.S. troops might signal to many Iraqis that the Americans never intend to leave.

Your point is well taken though. I don't think the Bush administration will follow the recommendation made or will appoint a dictator. We'll see though.

Chris Alger
11-14-2003, 08:59 PM
Yeah, that's a basic rhetorical device: define the alternatives as left and right extremes and put yours in the middle (e.g., (1) surrender/do nothing, (2) nuke them or (3) my way).

Here, the problem is that the "left" version is a fantasy and the right is McCain's maverick carping about Bush's technical incompetence (add more salt). The 1987 "illusion" is the notion that State and the CIA wanted to hold a Philadelphia-style constitutional convention (huh?), which is the Journal's way of describing any power not exercised by Chalabi's faction. From this fancy the Journal contends that UN management of interim Iraq won't work because "the Baathist remnants" don't want democracy, as if the UN were inclined to surrender all political power to the forces that bombed them out of Iraq. It's too ridiculously incoherent to even analyze.

"More troops" is hardly "right wing": even Howard Dean wants this.

This is a straightforwardly Orwellian editorial because recent events haven't vindicated the "Rumsfeld/Chalabi" prescription, they've refuted it. It began when the prewar State Dept. working group recommendations were ignored in favor of Chalabi's advice. The result was mass looting, no police or civil defense, and an incompetent, toothless and unpopular Interim Governing Council. The Pentagon now has now blown it twice, first with Jay Garner and now with the failure of the Chalabi faction to get it's act together, even to the point of being able to draft a constitution (truly incredible, given that Chalabi's group has been trying to assume power in Iraq for over a decade).

The upshot is that Bush has had to intervene again, this time to the point if risking U.S. loss over long-term control over Iraq. Which is good, IMO. The editors at the WSJ know they've lost, so their proposed U.S.-picks-a-dictator, insane and off the table, is their way of kssing off the situation. They brazenly contend they've been proven right and offer something no one supports. Then they can blame whatever goes wrong in Iraq on everyone else.