Iraq for the Iraqis

[adios]

The following is an article from the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal today.


Iraq for the Iraqis

By Ahmad Chalabi

SULEIMANIYAH, Iraq – We the Iraqis are ready to embark on a final journey to fulfill our destiny as a dignified and free nation. Here in northern Iraq, I am surrounded by fellow Iraqi patriots, many of whom are now gathering in this liberated zone. We have long been united around the goal of claiming our country from the hands of tyranny. Our struggle for freedom has been a long epic, but our hour of liberation is now beginning.

While the day of Iraq’s freedom is at hand, a day of reckoning for U.S.-Iraqi relations is also close by. After decades of struggle the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the U.S., have a chance finally to construct a free and democratic society at peace with itself and with the world. This cooperation between the Iraqi people and the U.S. also has the potential of being a historical watershed between the Arab and Muslim world and America.

No doubt the U.S. will carry the heavy burden of the immediate military campaign. However, we in the democratic Iraqi opposition have been carrying the equally heavy burden of the political struggle against Saddam for many long and lonely decades. The polite term of “regime change” is new in the American political vocabulary. But the idea of democracy in Iraq and the liberty for the Iraqi people have been in the conscience of Iraqis for three generations. We have sought it, dreamed of it, and fought for it – always paying a high price in lives lost. As deliverance approaches, we therefore intend to be full participants in shaping the future Iraq. American help is essential-and is welcomed-in winning the fight against Saddam. But the liberation of our country and it reintegration into the world community is ultimately a task that we Iraqis must shoulder.

This is why the proposed U.S. occupation and military administration of Iraq is unworkable and unwise. Unworkable, because it is predicated on keeping Saddam’s existing structures of government, administration and security in place-albeit under American officers. It would ultimately leave important decisions about the future of Iraq in the hands of either foreign occupiers or Saddam’s officials. Unwise, because it will result in long-term damage to the U.S.-Iraq relationship and America’s position in the region and beyond.

The current U.S. plan proposed for Iraq, as outlined by senior officials in congressional testimony and in discussions with the Iraqi opposition, calls for an American military governor to rule Iraq for up to two years. American officers would staff the top three levels of Iraqi government ministries with the rest of the structure remaining the same. The occupation authorities would appoint a “consultative council” of hand picked Iraqis with non-executive powers and unspecified authority, serving at the pleasure of the American governor. The occupation authorities would also appoint a committee to draft a constitution for Iraq. After an unspecified period, indirect elections would be held for “constituent assembly” that would vote to ratify the new constitution without popular referendum.

Here in Iraqi Kurdistan, it is easy to sense the people’s mood of jubilation as President Bush moves closer to ending Saddam and his Baath party’s 35 year reign of terror over Iraq. The Baathist ideology is rooted in racist doctrines of 1930’s facism and Saddam has used Baath to create a one-party totalitarian state.

For Iraq to rejoin the international community under a democratic system, it is essential to end the Baathish control over all aspects of politics and civil society. Iraq needs a comprehensive program of de-Baathification even more extensive than the de-Nazification effort in Germany after World War II. You cannot cut off the viper’s head and leave the body festering. Unfortunately, the proposed U.S. plan will do just that if it does not dismantle the Baathist structures.

We deserve better. The U.S. has a moral obligation to Iraqis to fight for more. Apart from the practical and ethical problems in terms of loss of Iraqi sovereignty, it is a recipe for disaster on two grounds. First, it puts Americans in the position of having to defend Baathists. What will happen when Iraqis step forward to accuse Baathist officials of torture and crimes? Will American soldiers protect these officials? Second it forces American officers to make difficult decisions about Iraqi society and culture with very little knowledge. For example, will an American colonel at the ministry of education decide on the role of Islam in school curricula? How will American officials determine issues of compensation and restitution for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people returning to their homes, which may be occupied by others? Will America, have a seat at OPEC and the Arab League, or the Islamic Conference? Will it redesign Iraq’s flag-or, even worse, keep the existing one, which was created by Saddam?

The truth is, there is more to the liberation of Iraq than battlefield victory or the removal of Saddam and his top-tier cadre of torturers. The transition to democracy-the task of exorcising Saddam’s ghosts for the Iraqi psyche and society-can only be achieved through self-empowerment and a full return of sovereignty to the people. This is our job, not that of a foreign officer. We are a proud nation, not a vanquished one. We are allies of the U.S. and we welcome Americans as liberators. But we must be full participants in the process of administering our country and shaping its future.

Today, members of the Iraqi opposition and representatives of the many resistance groups inside government-controlled areas are gathering for a conference that marks the beginning of the finals phase of our struggle. The biggest joke here is the criticism from our opponents in the West that we are fractured. Iraq is a diverse society and this multifaceted nature of the opposition is not its weakness-it is our core strength on the road to democracy.

In embarking on a journey toward freedom in Iraq, the U.S. does not need to handpick a successor to Saddam, nor does it need to predetermine every single step in the post Saddam era. But we expect the U.S. to make a full commitment to accepting the will of the Iraqi people and not fail us in our desire for justice. The idea that those who struggled against tyranny with blood and lives should have less of a say than those who have found a way to get by inside the tyranny is outrageous. We hope Washington and other allies of the Iraqi people will hear the message from this conference. We are ready to assume responsibility for the transition to democracy.

Mr. Chalabi is head of the Iraqi National Congress.

[adios]

I'm not really surprised that those who oppose disarming Iraq haven't commented on this article. I found the message to be moving. The excitement over being free of oppression and free to establish a democracy was captivating. The major challenge for the USA is handling post Saddam Iraq. For those who disparage removing Saddam because of the potential unrest of different Iraqi factions what think you of this statement (by a Kurd):

"Today, members of the Iraqi opposition and representatives of the many resistance groups inside government-controlled areas are gathering for a conference that marks the beginning of the finals phase of our struggle. The biggest joke here is the criticism from our opponents in the West that we are fractured. Iraq is a diverse society and this multifaceted nature of the opposition is not its weakness-it is our core strength on the road to democracy."

This seems to fly in the face of Alger's bleak prognosis for post Saddam Iraq.

[nicky g]

"This seems to fly in the face of Alger's bleak prognosis for post Saddam Iraq. "

Surely Chalabi makes it abundantly cleear that he is not optimistic about how the US will handle post-Saddam Iraq? There is no way they will implement a proper democracy.

[Jimbo]

There is no way they will implement a proper democracy. nicky g, what would prompt you to come to this irrefutable conclusion? A gut feeling?

[adios]

"Surely Chalabi makes it abundantly cleear that he is not optimistic about how the US will handle post-Saddam Iraq?"

Yes he does and he makes some excellent points that ought to be considered very seriously.

"There is no way they will implement a proper democracy."

Whose they? The Iraqi people, the United States or both?

[nicky g]

They=the uS.

Jimbo: mainly a gut feeling, based on longstanding US policy in the middle east. Plus the refusal to say that they will, or indeed to give any clear idea of what their post Saddam plans are. I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

[adios]

I don't think Mr. Chalabi shares your pessimism. I think it's important to raise people's conciousness about the issues in Iraq and Mr. Chalabi's is one step in that direction. As far as the USA making known their plans note Mr. Chalabi's statement from the article:

"The current U.S. plan proposed for Iraq, as outlined by senior officials in congressional testimony and in discussions with the Iraqi opposition"

It seems that at least Mr. Chalabi is well aware of them and wants them modified.

[nicky g]

I understood he was referring to the immediate plans for a US-occuppied Iraq. If there are concrete plans for beyond that, I'd be interested to hear them. The fact that Tony Blair insisted that many options were being looked at, and Mr Chalabi's warning against missing the opportunity for a democratic Iraq, makes me sceptical. But good luck to him.

[adios]

"I understood he was referring to the immediate plans for a US-occuppied Iraq. If there are concrete plans for beyond that, I'd be interested to hear them."

No he was discussing the USA plan for transitioning Iraq to a democracy. How much of a longer term is there?

"The fact that Tony Blair insisted that many options were being looked at, and Mr Chalabi's warning against missing the opportunity for a democratic Iraq, makes me sceptical."

Skeptical of what? Would you prefer the status quo than an attempt at democracy?

[nicky g]

"he was discussing the USA plan for transitioning Iraq to a democracy. How much of a longer term is there?"

If that's the case why was he worried about the US military government? Regardless, if there are such plans, does anyone have any details of them? And why was Tony Blair so coy in committing to a democratically governed Iraq after Saddam?


"Skeptical of what? Would you prefer the status quo than an attempt at democracy?"

Tom, what I'm saying isn't hard to follow, even if you disagree with it. No, I wouldn't prefer the staus quo; I wold prefer democracy. Hence why I wished Dr Chalabi good luck. I'm sceptical that the US will put a democratic system into place. Itstrikes me from his article that so is Chalabi. I think that was perfectly clear from what I wrote.