Words and Deeds
washingtonpost.com
Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page B06
PRESIDENT BUSH has offered an ambitious first sketch of U.S. aims in the Middle East following an intervention in Iraq. The postwar administration, he said in a speech last week, would "show the power of freedom to transform this vital region." Mr. Bush pledged that American forces would begin by supplying food and medicine to Iraq's 23 million people, along with security against those who would "spread chaos or settle scores." He went on to promise "a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own," that would lead to a new regime in which "all Iraqis have a voice" and "all citizens have their rights protected." Finally, he said his administration would work to encourage the spread of democratic values throughout the region, beginning with "a truly democratic Palestinian state." The neo-Wilsonian rhetoric was alarming to some Arab and European leaders; they worry that the United States will impose an unrealistic agenda on peoples who are deeply suspicious of foreign intervention. While there is reason for caution -- and humility -- we think Mr. Bush is right to make political liberalization a principal postwar goal. But with it comes another danger: that the president's bold rhetoric will not be matched by concerted follow-through on the ground. That has been the pattern in Afghanistan, where Mr. Bush's promise of a "Marshall Plan" has been mocked by the thin flow of resources for security and reconstruction. A repeat of that pattern in Iraq could trap the United States and its troops in a losing situation.
Administration officials spent the past week briefing the press and Congress about what they say are detailed plans for managing the postwar situation. But leading humanitarian organizations say they are deeply worried; the Pentagon, they say, has not made adequate plans for feeding or housing Iraqi civilians and refugees, much less protecting them from possible biological or chemical weapons attacks by Saddam Hussein. Some nongovernmental organizations have not yet obtained the necessary waivers from international sanctions that would allow them to preposition supplies. They also question whether U.S. forces are prepared to maintain order in sensitive areas, such as the ethnically mixed cities of Kirkuk and Baghdad, where civil strife is possible. The open dispute between the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the Army staff about how many occupation troops will be needed -- the staff's number is far higher than that of the political appointees -- is one worrisome sign that the administration may be underestimating the scale of these challenges.
Beyond the first stage of establishing order, the administration's plan looks wobbly. Officials appear to agree, mostly, that Iraq will have to be managed by outsiders for a transition while a new governmental system is built. But it's not clear what the character of that transitional administration will be, and in particular whether it will continue to be American-dominated. Mr. Bush's formulation, of a commitment "by many nations, including our own," ought to be the guiding principle; there will be a far greater chance of success if an international civilian administration, ideally headed by a prominent non-American, manages the country. Extended American rule of Iraq will provide a ready target for extremists throughout the region and likely impede the political liberalization it is meant to promote. Though it may be harder to construct a multinational administration if the United States goes to war without traditional European allies, reconstruction could also provide a platform for reengaging those governments after the conflict.
Europe and key Arab governments also will be needed if Mr. Bush's larger vision for the Middle East is to be realized. In what sounded like a gesture toward those nations, Mr. Bush spoke of his "personal commitment" to the "road map" his administration has prepared for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, in collaboration with European governments. That represented a step forward, because the Israeli-Palestinian front has been another area where an ambitious presidential vision has not been matched by action. The administration can no longer afford such a gap between its words and deeds; the stakes in the Middle East are too high.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
