Only Iraq's people can fill the abyss
Robert Robb
Republic
columnist
Dec. 3, 2003 12:00 AM
Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Zell Miller, D-Ga., wrote a revealing column for The Arizona Republic's Viewpoints section on Sunday. But what it most importantly revealed was something entirely different than the authors intended.
The two senators were defending President Bush's post-Saddam Iraq policy against critics. They conjured up the following nightmarish scenario, worth quoting at some length, if more power had been ceded earlier to a provisional Iraqi government or to the United Nations:
"The minority Sunni Muslims . . . would probably seize available heavy weaponry and assert control of Baghdad.
"The majority Shiites . . . would take control of southern Iraq and move toward the capital.
"The Kurdish minority in the north would likely form its own country and face off against whatever government could take Baghdad.
"The terrorists . . . (would) make a play for power, too, hoping to create a haven similar to what they had in Afghanistan."
Let's assume, for the moment, that the Kyl-Miller nightmarish scenario is accurate. The premise of the Kyl-Miller argument, then, is that without an assertive U.S. occupation, the people of Iraq would fall into a four-way, armed and deadly struggle for control and subjugation.
Does that sound like a real country to you, bound together by a common heritage, mutual allegiances and shared interests?
Revealingly missing from the Kyl-Miller scenario is any kind of an indigenous force or power fighting for a unified, free and democratic Iraq.
The boundaries of Iraq, in fact, are an artifice of post-World War I European diplomacy. It may very well be that there are, by nature and the preference of the people, three different nation-states within it.
But if the natural inclination of the people living within the current border of Iraq is, indeed, to kill and subjugate each other, what is the basis for believing that a U.S. occupation, however assertive, will be able to forge a unified, free and democratic country there?
Kyl is usually a man of precision, and there is not room in a column for much by the way of nuance.
But the argument for the indispensability of an assertive U.S. occupation of Iraq generally suffers from imprecision.
The United States is in the process of building a better electricity system and oil production capability than Iraq had before the war. Never mind, for the moment, whether this should be an obligation of American taxpayers.
Instead, focus on this question:
Can it seriously be contended that the United States is somehow uniquely gifted in letting and administering construction contracts? And wouldn't it be better for the U.S. if the Iraqis had someone else to complain to regarding their electricity, highways or schools, particularly if that someone was some sort of Iraqi government official?
The United States is indispensable, and morally obligated, to continue doing those things that only a foreign military power can do.
Our military capability is, indeed, unique.
But what are the remaining functions that only a foreign military power can perform?
Finding and securing those ammunition caches Kyl and Miller fear the Baathists will use to regain power is probably one. But even National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is now saying that rooting out the Baathists and the terrorists is best done primarily by the Iraqis, with the U.S. playing a secondary and supportive role.
In fact, the Bush administration now appears to be abandoning the assertive U.S. occupation Kyl and Miller are defending. Contrary to previous policy, it now proposes to turn civilian administration largely over to an unelected interim Iraqi government before the adoption of a constitution. And it appears to want Iraqis to now take the lead in securing the country.
But the decisive factor for Iraq's future isn't the nature of the U.S. occupation. The decisive factor is the missing force in the Kyl-Miller nightmare.
Either there is a critical mass of Iraqis willing to take risks to create a unified, free and democratic country, or there is not.
If there is, then success can be had with a much more narrowly tailored U.S. presence and role. In fact, a substantial case can be made that success will come more easily and quickly with a lighter U.S. touch.
If there isn't, then no amount of U.S. treasure and blood is going to create a unified, free and democratic Iraq.
azcentral.com |
