New York Times Editorial - Trying to contain the disaster in Iraq
New York Times Editorial - Trying to contain the disaster in Iraq
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: October 24, 2006
No matter what President George W. Bush says, the question is not whether America can win in Iraq. The only question is whether the United States can extricate itself without leaving behind an unending civil war that will spread more chaos and suffering throughout the Middle East while spawning terrorism across the globe.
This page opposed a needlessly hurried and unilateral invasion, even before it became apparent that the Bush administration was unprepared to do the job properly. But after it happened, we believed that America should stay and try to clean up the mess it had made - as long as there was any conceivable road to success.
That road is vanishing. Today we want to describe a strategy for containing the disaster as much as humanly possible. It is hardly a recipe for triumph. People can only look back in wonder on the days when the Bush administration believed that success would turn Iraq into a stable, wealthy democracy - a model to strike fear into the region's autocrats while inspiring a new generation of democrats.
If an American military occupation could ever have achieved that goal, that opportunity is gone. It is very clear that even with the best American effort, Iraq will remain at war with itself for years to come, its government weak and deeply divided, and its economy battered and still dependent on outside aid.
The most the United States can do now is to try to build up Iraq's security forces so they can contain the fighting - so it neither devours Iraqi society nor spills over to Iraq's neighbors - and give Iraq's leaders a start toward the political framework they would need if they chose to try to keep their country whole.
The tragedy is that even this marginal sort of outcome seems nearly unachievable now. But if America is to make one last push, there are steps that might lessen the chance of all- out chaos after the troops withdraw:
Start at home
George W. Bush cannot leave office with American troops still dying in an Iraq that staggers along just short of civil war, on behalf of no concrete objective other than "get the job done," which is now Bush's rhetorical substitute for "stay the course." Americans, Iraqis and the rest of the world need clear, public signs of progress.
Bush can make the first one by firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. There is no chance of switching strategy as long as he is in control of the Pentagon. The administration's plans have gone woefully wrong, and while the president is unlikely to admit that, he can send a message by removing Rumsfeld.
The president should also make it clear, once and for all, that the United States will not keep permanent bases in Iraq. The people in Iraq and across the Middle East need a strong sign that the troops are not there to further any American imperial agenda.
Demand reconciliation talks
Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has indefinitely postponed reconciliation talks among the nation's top politicians. He must receive an immediate deadline to start the process.
The Bush administration must demand not only that new talks start, but that they continue until some agreement is reached on protecting minority rights, dividing up Iraq's oil revenues, the role of religion in the state, providing an amnesty for insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and demobilizing and disarming the militias.
In parallel with the reconciliation talks, the United States should begin its own negotiations with the Iraqi leadership about a timetable for withdrawing American troops - making clear that America's willingness to stay longer will depend on the Iraqis' willingness to make real compromises.
Stabilize Baghdad
Most Iraqis have forgotten what security is - or if they remember, it is an idealized vision of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Since neither the government nor the American occupation is able to provide basic services or safety, it is little wonder that Iraqis have turned to the militias for protection. In such a world, retribution will always take precedence over the uncertainties of political compromise.
American commanders have launched a series of supposedly make-or-break campaigns to take back the streets of Baghdad. The problem is not one of military strategy; their idea of "clearing" out insurgents, "holding" neighborhoods and quickly rebuilding infrastructure is probably the only thing that could work. The problem is that commanders in Baghdad have been given only a fraction of the troops - American and Iraqi - they need.
There have never been enough troops, the result of Rumsfeld's negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories rather than listen to his generals. And since the Army and Marines are already strained to the breaking point, the only hope of restoring even limited sanity to Baghdad would require the transfer of thousands of American troops to the capital from elsewhere in the country. That likely means moving personnel out of the Sunni-dominated west, and more mayhem in a place like Anbar.
But Iraqis need a clear demonstration that security and rebuilding is possible. So long as Baghdad is in chaos they will have no reason to believe in anything but sectarian militias and vigilante justice. Once Washington is making a credible effort to stabilize Baghdad, Iraqi politicians will have more of an incentive to show up for reconciliation talks.
Convene the neighbors
America's closest allies in the region are furious about America's gross mismanagement of the war. But even Iran and Syria, which are eager to see America bloodied, have a great deal to lose if all-out civil war erupts in Iraq, driving refugees toward their borders. That self-interest could be the start of a discussion about how Iraq's neighbors might help pressure their clients inside Iraq to step back from the brink. Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich neighbors - whose own stability could be threatened by an Iraqi collapse - need to be pressed into providing major financing to underwrite jobs programs and reconstruction.
Acknowledge reality
While the strategy described above seems the best bet to us, the odds are still very much against it working. In America, almost no one - even the administration's harshest critics - wants to tell people the bitter truth about how few options remain on the table, and about the mayhem that will almost certainly follow an American withdrawal unless more is done.
Americans will probably spend the next generation debating whether the Iraq invasion would have worked under a competent administration. But anger at a president is not a plan for what happens next.
When it comes to Iraq the choices in the immediate future are scant and ugly. But there are still a few options to pursue, and the alternatives are so horrible that it is worth trying once again - as long as everyone understands that there is little time left and the odds are very long.
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: October 24, 2006
No matter what President George W. Bush says, the question is not whether America can win in Iraq. The only question is whether the United States can extricate itself without leaving behind an unending civil war that will spread more chaos and suffering throughout the Middle East while spawning terrorism across the globe.
This page opposed a needlessly hurried and unilateral invasion, even before it became apparent that the Bush administration was unprepared to do the job properly. But after it happened, we believed that America should stay and try to clean up the mess it had made - as long as there was any conceivable road to success.
That road is vanishing. Today we want to describe a strategy for containing the disaster as much as humanly possible. It is hardly a recipe for triumph. People can only look back in wonder on the days when the Bush administration believed that success would turn Iraq into a stable, wealthy democracy - a model to strike fear into the region's autocrats while inspiring a new generation of democrats.
If an American military occupation could ever have achieved that goal, that opportunity is gone. It is very clear that even with the best American effort, Iraq will remain at war with itself for years to come, its government weak and deeply divided, and its economy battered and still dependent on outside aid.
The most the United States can do now is to try to build up Iraq's security forces so they can contain the fighting - so it neither devours Iraqi society nor spills over to Iraq's neighbors - and give Iraq's leaders a start toward the political framework they would need if they chose to try to keep their country whole.
The tragedy is that even this marginal sort of outcome seems nearly unachievable now. But if America is to make one last push, there are steps that might lessen the chance of all- out chaos after the troops withdraw:
Start at home
George W. Bush cannot leave office with American troops still dying in an Iraq that staggers along just short of civil war, on behalf of no concrete objective other than "get the job done," which is now Bush's rhetorical substitute for "stay the course." Americans, Iraqis and the rest of the world need clear, public signs of progress.
Bush can make the first one by firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. There is no chance of switching strategy as long as he is in control of the Pentagon. The administration's plans have gone woefully wrong, and while the president is unlikely to admit that, he can send a message by removing Rumsfeld.
The president should also make it clear, once and for all, that the United States will not keep permanent bases in Iraq. The people in Iraq and across the Middle East need a strong sign that the troops are not there to further any American imperial agenda.
Demand reconciliation talks
Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has indefinitely postponed reconciliation talks among the nation's top politicians. He must receive an immediate deadline to start the process.
The Bush administration must demand not only that new talks start, but that they continue until some agreement is reached on protecting minority rights, dividing up Iraq's oil revenues, the role of religion in the state, providing an amnesty for insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and demobilizing and disarming the militias.
In parallel with the reconciliation talks, the United States should begin its own negotiations with the Iraqi leadership about a timetable for withdrawing American troops - making clear that America's willingness to stay longer will depend on the Iraqis' willingness to make real compromises.
Stabilize Baghdad
Most Iraqis have forgotten what security is - or if they remember, it is an idealized vision of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Since neither the government nor the American occupation is able to provide basic services or safety, it is little wonder that Iraqis have turned to the militias for protection. In such a world, retribution will always take precedence over the uncertainties of political compromise.
American commanders have launched a series of supposedly make-or-break campaigns to take back the streets of Baghdad. The problem is not one of military strategy; their idea of "clearing" out insurgents, "holding" neighborhoods and quickly rebuilding infrastructure is probably the only thing that could work. The problem is that commanders in Baghdad have been given only a fraction of the troops - American and Iraqi - they need.
There have never been enough troops, the result of Rumsfeld's negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories rather than listen to his generals. And since the Army and Marines are already strained to the breaking point, the only hope of restoring even limited sanity to Baghdad would require the transfer of thousands of American troops to the capital from elsewhere in the country. That likely means moving personnel out of the Sunni-dominated west, and more mayhem in a place like Anbar.
But Iraqis need a clear demonstration that security and rebuilding is possible. So long as Baghdad is in chaos they will have no reason to believe in anything but sectarian militias and vigilante justice. Once Washington is making a credible effort to stabilize Baghdad, Iraqi politicians will have more of an incentive to show up for reconciliation talks.
Convene the neighbors
America's closest allies in the region are furious about America's gross mismanagement of the war. But even Iran and Syria, which are eager to see America bloodied, have a great deal to lose if all-out civil war erupts in Iraq, driving refugees toward their borders. That self-interest could be the start of a discussion about how Iraq's neighbors might help pressure their clients inside Iraq to step back from the brink. Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich neighbors - whose own stability could be threatened by an Iraqi collapse - need to be pressed into providing major financing to underwrite jobs programs and reconstruction.
Acknowledge reality
While the strategy described above seems the best bet to us, the odds are still very much against it working. In America, almost no one - even the administration's harshest critics - wants to tell people the bitter truth about how few options remain on the table, and about the mayhem that will almost certainly follow an American withdrawal unless more is done.
Americans will probably spend the next generation debating whether the Iraq invasion would have worked under a competent administration. But anger at a president is not a plan for what happens next.
When it comes to Iraq the choices in the immediate future are scant and ugly. But there are still a few options to pursue, and the alternatives are so horrible that it is worth trying once again - as long as everyone understands that there is little time left and the odds are very long.
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 10:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home