Is There a Road Map Out of Iraq?
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A19
from the washington post
"When are they coming home?" The question was an obvious reference to U.S. troops in Iraq. But the words weren't spoken by an antiwar activist at a peace rally on the Mall. The question, as I recall it, was raised on the floor of the U.S. Senate by West Virginia's Robert Byrd about two weeks ago. Byrd's query has been on the minds and lips of more and more Americans. And why not?
Yesterday The Post reported that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, said at a news conference that an average of 13 attacks have been launched each day against U.S. and British forces during the past 45 days. Some Iraqi neighborhoods are seething over the U.S. presence, according to Post reporters on the scene. It wasn't supposed to turn out this way.
Daily potshots by sophisticated attackers in a supposedly defeated Iraq aren't exactly what most Americans had in mind when their sons, daughters, wives and husbands shipped out to the Middle East. So it's not disloyal for people to ask how and when this thing is going to end.
And to say in response, "Hey, have patience, we just got there," is no answer at all.
Is this going to be a column that calls for America to cut and run? No. But it is a plea for the Bush administration to produce something more than the shopworn refrain that the postwar Iraq task will be dangerous, expensive and time-consuming.
It's settled; we're in Iraq. But many Americans, while not wanting to abandon the mission, also want to see a road map that leads home.
Vagueness and imprecision helped us get where we are. First we were going to war to produce a regime change in Iraq. Then the administration's goal was to eliminate Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, its nuclear program, the related delivery systems and research and production facilities -- and ultimately its terrorist infrastructure. So said Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith back on Feb. 11. Now it's a democratic Iraq and more freedom-loving countries in the Middle East that we want. Whether the weapons of mass destruction and a terrorist network were inside Iraq at the time of the invasion is now open to question. And whether we'll get around to producing Mideast regimes aflame with love for the rule of law and respect for individual rights is also an issue worthy of debate. What is not at issue, of course, is that U.S. troops are still being killed and injured in a so-called liberated Iraq and that the American commitment, at this stage, has no end in sight.
So it's time, well past time, for the administration to produce some details, including specific objectives for Iraq's economic and political reconstruction. And the administration should unveil its timetables for achieving them. Otherwise how will the American people know whether the goals are being reached?
It's fine for the administration to talk about creating a postwar Iraq that enjoys the rule of law and other institutions of democracy. But what in the real world does that mean? The administration speaks of establishing security for the liberated Iraqis. Does that mean an Iraq in which there are no more street robberies, break-ins and looting? Where people won't be shot to death or where homes are not invaded? Hell, we haven't managed to pull off that trick in the nation's capital or in most U.S. cities.
A corruption-free, trained and professional Iraqi police force committed to equal enforcement of the law? Check with D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey or any big-city police chief. They will tell you that it takes years to produce a taint-free police department, especially out of a police force that existed in a climate of brutality, fear and disdain for individual rights. So what are we talking about, in terms of time?
And speaking of the rule of law: Which legal code will carry the day in postwar Iraq? Will it be Islamic law, favored by some powerful Iraqi clerics? Or is the United States going to insist on a new Iraqi legal structure and laws more to our own tastes? And what effect, if any, will that have on anti-American sentiment?
The Bush administration talks about liberating, not occupying, Iraq. But Iraq is being administered by a U.S. czar backed by more than 100,000 troops. The United States is organizing basic services and substituting itself for Iraqi government ministries. If there is, in reality, a planned transitional phase in which responsibility is to be transferred to Iraqis and a new government is to be established, the plan should be detailed so that both Americans and Iraqis know what is coming and when. Likewise with respect to cost. What is the price of providing humanitarian relief, rebuilding core services and establishing security in war-torn Iraq? True, the Bush administration doesn't like to get pinned down on such matters. But the money is not coming out of the president's pocket.
Americans who aren't exactly receiving the services and security that they would like from their own government are the ones who'll be forced to shell out for the Iraqi people. At least the administration could let us in on how many of our tax dollars will be traveling to Baghdad and for how long. That's not asking too much.
And finally, there is the human cost, the human sacrifice. What does it really matter if U.S. commanders can handle the guerrilla-style attacks by Baath Party loyalists, Islamic radicals and common crooks on a daily basis? If the death and casualty tolls among U.S. and British coalition forces continue to mount, and sentiment for Americans to get out of Iraq grows, will the Bush administration have the courage to reassess our presence in that country?
Sure, resolve to help postwar Iraq. But is there a road map home? |
