June 29, 2004
Premature Pull Out
In an effort to forestall disruption of the handover of sovereignty to Iraq, and probably still smarting from the embarrassment of the last elaborately staged event, L. Paul Bremer quietly handed over the keys to Baghdad two days early, and then quickly left town before the door could hit him where the good Lord split him.
So what's changed? Maybe not much, but possibly quite a bit. Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority was a fairly moderate government in the midst of a region that has seen very little moderation in anything lately. Prime Minister Allawi, and many of the former Iraqi Governing Council members who make up the new interim government, have already shown an unwillingness to give up power. Allawi is currently considering martial law, curfews, and bans on demonstrations, and if you add that to his recent unwillingness to commit to a firm date for national elections, you have the makings of a new, Saddam-like, strong man and president-for-life.
I believe it was a mistake for President Bush to hand over sovereignty before at least establishing security, an uncorrupt judiciary (we can't even trust them to keep Saddam locked up), and a stable economy. Continued violence threatens to delay elections beyond next January, and a scandal involving the whereabouts of billions of Iraqi oil dollars is already brewing. Iraq could easily go the route of most oil rich countries in the region: a non-transparent government ensuring riches and power for a corrupt few, and poverty and discontent for the rest.
If Afghanistan is any indicator, it's clear that US troops, probably more than are currently in Iraq, will be needed to ensure a peaceful handover to an elected Iraqi government and to protect this fledgling democracy. The outcome rests on President Bush resisting political expediency, as he failed to do when he pulled US troops out of Fallujah and Najaf thus creating refuges for terrorists and insurgents, and when he handed over Iraqi sovereignty to an unelected, unrepresentative government.
Posted by American Pundit at June 29, 2004 04:34 AMAP:
The transfer of authority is a wonderful sign for Iraq. It is, of course, certain to be frought with challenges, but so too would any step towards a free Iraq.
It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and take one of two positions: A) The U.S. has occupied too long for (pick any reason: oil revenue, land grab, U.S. evil intent, etc) or B) The U.S. is leaving too soon before establishing peace, prosperity and security for the Iraqis.
Now…lets see how this works. If the US stays, we become occupiers, and if we leave, we do so prematurely. You have positioned the argument nicely in order to find fault in either plan. That much is rather easy to do.
What is far more difficult to do is to recognize the inherent problems and dangers in both options. Whichever strategy the US takes, it opens the door for nay-sayers to proclaim gloom and doom. From reading many posts, it is obvious that to many of you, there will always be a dark cloud in front of that silver lining.
This step by the U.S. is a wonderful step for the Iraqi people. Yet it is only a step, and not the conclusion. The terrorists (and yes i use that word intentionally and correctly) may step up their attacks on innocent civilians in an attempt to thwart the transfer of power. They know their window of opportunity is closing and they become ever more desperate. Now is the time to close ranks and show them that terror will not be the victor.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 29, 2004 07:03 AMThe attached article gives a well thought out analysis of the successes the US has achieved, along with the challenges we still face in Iraq. It also shows how expectations are being artificially raised (this gives people the ability to minimize any successes), as well as showing how past strategies in other parts of the world have been viewed.
Yes, I know it is written by Bob Dole, so some of you will simply discount its content. Others of you (those with intellectual curiousity) will read it for its content, rather than ignoring it because of its author.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 29, 2004 07:26 AMI mean no disrespect to American Pundit when I say, his blog is precisely why modern media technology is counter to any process that takes more than 10 minutes to consummate.
In the aftermath of WWII, it took approximately 7 years to bring complete order to post-Nazi Germany. Insurgents popped up like weeds well into 3 years after official hostilities had ceased.
Just because we have immediate access to information does not mean there will be immediate resolution to the problems that come to our attention.
If you look at the big picture and extrapolate that trend forward a few years…Iraq is much better off than it was 15 months ago, under a Saddam Hussein regime. And, if progress continues, it will be even better situated 15 months into the future.
All the Henny-Penny bawling that takes place after every little upset or setback only fuels the aspirations of an “insurgency” that, from all appearances, is gasping for survival.
Sure, last week was a well-coordinated attack. But, ask yourself, how often and with what frequency can the “insurgency” conduct such operations and survive the ultra-well-coordinated response visited upon them by the U.S. military on that very day? Zarqawi suffered immeasurable losses (and damn near lost his own life) the day of those well-coordinated attacks.
Sometimes, people just need to shut up, sit down, and let the professionals do their job. Now that Mr. Bremer is gone from Iraq, the U.S. military and the rest of the “coalition of the willing” are there at the pleasure of the interim Iraqi government. Did we place conditions on our continued presence in Iraq? Absolutely. We’re not, after all, the Iraqi military…we’re now an allied security force.
If the interim Iraqi government contacted Ambassador Negroponte and told him to remove U.S. forces from Iraq, what choice would we have?
I really don’t get the point of all the “glass-half-empty” hand-wringing. I believe the Iraqi “democratization” project is way ahead of schedule.
Posted by: Yonivore at June 29, 2004 11:14 AMAll the Henny-Penny bawling that takes place after every little upset or setback only fuels the aspirations of an “insurgency” that, from all appearances, is gasping for survival.
Yes, because the insurgents in Fallujah read American liberals’ political blogs.
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 29, 2004 01:36 PMBottom line, we will not see the real Iraq until the United States presence has left.
I am prone to look at the handover of Iraqi “sovereignty” in a negative light but it is important to stand back and let a little time pass. Allawi does not have a good history and it will be interesting to see if he follows orders or tries to wrangle away more authority from the United States. History does not bode well for Iraq and after the U.S. eventually leaves it could lapse into civil war, become a Muslim theocracy or another dictatorship. To achieve democracy in this part of the world (as Bush promises) would require a huge change in a cultural mindset thousands of years old. Of course, American troops could remain indefinitely with Iraq remaining a puppet government for United States interests.
From ceejayoz:“Yes, because the insurgents in Fallujah read American liberals’ political blogs.”
Well, not exactly, but they do read the New York Times, watch Al Jazeera, and listen to Ted Kennedy. And, if not them, directly, they receive word from sympathetic “surrogates,” from all over the world, about how their actions are playing out in the United States and elsewhere.
If you think the Iraqi “insurgency” is existing in a vacuum, void of external media sources and informants, you’re naive.
Posted by: Yonivore at June 29, 2004 02:41 PM
Your message being: Should we all shut up for fear of helping the terrorists? No more public airing of ideas (except the “correct” ones) or our dirty laundry? America, love it or leave it? An inherent problem with freedom (of speech) is the potential you describe. An inherent problem with our legal system is sometimes the guilty get off. Would you like to change this? Perhaps, we should all tow the government line and quietly let our leaders run the show? Sounds a bit off to me.
Dennis McCowan said:“Of course, American troops could remain indefinitely with Iraq remaining a puppet government for United States interests.”
I truly believe this misses the point entirely. If the U.S. sustains a presence in Iraq, beyond that necessary to ensure security until Iraq has it well in hand and the transistion between the Iraqi Governing Council and the new Interim Iraqi Goverment is consummated, it will (in my never-to-be-humble opinion) be in the form of allied bases such as we have in Germany.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the personnel currently stationed Western Europe were to be re-deployed to Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld has all but suggested it — hinting at an “eastward” migration of bases into Eastern Europe and beyond — particularly in light of the continued slights we receive from our “allies” the Germans and the French.
Those bases were established to ensure the security of Western Europe in the post-WWII and Cold War eras…and, it worked; without U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets, I hasten to add. I think our job there is done…and, even if it isn’t, those bastards can take care of themselves.
I believe your pessimism belies a larger preconception than just the inability of Islamic countries to embrace democracy — that’s already happened in other places, Turkey being a good example.
I believe your pessimism is grounded in a fundamental prejudice that Muslims do not have the sophistication to institute a democratic government that will result in religious liberty and civil rights.
I reject and disagree with that assessment. But, only time will tell.
Posted by: yonivore at June 29, 2004 03:06 PMDennis McCowan said:“Sounds a bit off to me.”
And you, sir, sound a bit paranoid to me.
Nowhere in my response did you see an advocation that we abridge any first amendment right to free speech. I was merely exercising my own to illustrate the point that such speech may only serve to embolden the enemy.
Just as I wouldn’t abridge your right to own a gun; I might, however, point out how dangerous it is to look down the barrel while it’s loaded and cocked.
Also, in a world of immediate communication combined with a uniquely Western mindset that demands instant gratification, there tends to be a lot of going off half-cocked on issues — particularly by Americans.
I don’t know how many articles I’ve read where Iraqis, yes those people over there in that distant battle ground who have a direct and vested interest in the outcome of this war, are bemused by all the machinations taking place in America over the various news emminating from there.
Posted by: Yonivore at June 29, 2004 03:15 PMPlease do not play the prejudice card, that’s a cheap debate technique. It has nothing to do with Muslims lacking the sophistication to institute democracy. Heck, that part of the world was the cradle of modern civilization. It has to do with the RIGHT people obtaining power, keeping it long enough to institute a democratic form of government and maintaining it.
For sake of argument, what should our response be if after our assistance, Iraq decides to become a theocracy similar to Iran and asks the U.S. to leave? Do we say, yes, you have the right to self-determination or do we stay and force democracy on them? What about other countries? Do we have the resources to help all of them convert to democracy and deploy large amounts of troops for years to insure success? Unfortunately, many people in different parts of the world do not see our form of government as the best. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Dennis McCowan:“For sake of argument, what should our response be if after our assistance, Iraq decides to become a theocracy similar to Iran and asks the U.S. to leave?”
I’m sorry, I don’t do hypotheticals — it leads to too many alternate realities and the present one is complicated enough.
Suffice it to say that, right now, as we speak, Iraq is much better off than it was 15 months ago. And, I’m betting there were more than Liberal Pundits sitting around the table when the Iraqi Governing Council, the new Interim Iraqi Goverment, and Paul Bremer’s group sat around the table and arranged for yesterday’s transition of sovereignty.
These are a group of people solidly (as much as our founding fathers) behind the self-determination style of government. Will it mirror our Representative Republic form of government? Probably not. Hell, most Americans think we live in a Democracy…why should Iraqis be expected to know any better?
I’m sorry, but once the genie of individual liberty has been released, you’d be hard pressed to find a country (in the modern era) that has reverted back to totalitarianism.
Posted by: yonivore at June 29, 2004 04:30 PMYou have positioned the argument nicely in order to find fault in either plan.
joe, that’s just not true. I and most Democrats have always been concerned that Bush would succumb to political expediency and pull out early, just so he could declare “mission accomplished” before November. Most Dems in this forum have thrown out numbers like five or ten years of US administration, similar to the amount of time we administered Germany and Japan while those countries were pacified and rebuilt, before handing over sovereignty.
It’s Bush who wants it both ways. If - despite inadequate security, corruption, intermittent electricity and water, and an unstable economy - the new Iraqi government somehow succeeds in creating for itself a liberal democracy, Bush can claim victory. If it fails, Bush can blame the Iraqis and avoid any responsibility.
Handing over sovereignty ASAP to an unelected, unrepresentative government is clearly a win-win situation for Bush, but a long-odds gamble for a free, democratic Iraq.
My June 29 comment disappeared, so here it is again.
Well, I have to agree with joebagodonut’s and Yonivore’s general assessment about the pessimism of this article (though I prefer joe’s reasoned tone to Yon’s rather snippy tone). It really does live up to many of the accusations about the left that are thrown out by our friends posting on the right - it finds fault with everything Bush has done regardless of either his involvement or it’s success in the face of extreme difficulty. I think we have to come to terms with the fact that we are all going to have to live with the consequences of this administration’s policy choices. And like it or not, we might have to live with Bush for another four years, too. Maybe we shouldn’t burn every bridge.
The unanimous choice by the IGC of Allawi as prime minister and the early transfer of sovereignty have been two very good signs regardless of all the surrounding turmoil. If Afghanistan can pull off its upcoming election despite the rather overt lack of resolve on the part of the international community, we can all count that as another victory.
Neither situation is ideal, of course. There are years of hard work left to be done. We do need to be mindful of losing focus or getting out of control and cynicism always helps with that, but I don’t think we need to try to undermine absolutely everything that happens as a consequence of Bush policy.
It wasn’t a premature pull out. It was strategically early. It’s just the smart thing to do. Martial law is unfortunate but arguably necessary. Comparing Allawi to Saddam on speculation about his motives behind declaring a state of emergency seems extremely unfair. Besides, it would be utterly bad form if Allawi in any way tries to obstruct the inevitable transfer of power to an elected body. I would imagine it would hasten his demise and regardless of whatever megalomania might lurk within him, Allawi would realize this, too. If he wants to maintain legitimacy he’s going to have to act the part. And not committing to a firm date for the elections right now isn’t really a bright flashing warning beacon complete with air raid siren. The date of the handover of power: June 28, 2004. The post date of this article: June 29, 2004. The date of my comment: June 29, 2004. Give it some time. Let them work a few more pressing issues out first.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2004 07:06 AMPundit:
Bush has been castigated by the left for wanting to “occupy” Iraq. Many on the left have called this an “occupation”. Many on the left have cited Iraqi claims that they want the Americans to leave Iraq to Iraqis as proof that we should not be there.
Then, the very moment that Bush dashes those ideas by handing over sovereignty to the Iraqis, we find the “left” complaining that we havent stayed long enough, that we should remain in full power longer etc.
The left requires such a delicate balancing act, and creates such a high expectation in every event that it is virtually impossible to accommodate them. I suppose there could be a perfect day and within that day, a perfect hour, and within that hour, a perfect moment for a handoff. Yet I suspect the left would still find some reason to complain.
We have seen the concerted efforts to maintain simultaneous assualts on the Bush programs. A) He is gonna cut and run and B) He is gonna occupy Iraq. Within this construct, there can be NO way to please the left, since to silence the first crowd means emboldening the second, or vice versa.
Joseph:
Thanks for your comments (Well, I have to agree with joebagodonut’s and Yonivore’s general assessment about the pessimism of this article (though I prefer joe’s reasoned tone…
Usually, I’m called arrogant or some such word, but I’m glad you have the capacity to see through to the real me. lol
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 1, 2004 07:51 AMAh joe, I see what your problem is. You’re talking about the “peace at any price” far-left wackos. I’m a Democrat.
And regardless of the lying that got us into Iraq, Democrats have always said, now that we’re there, we should work hard to ensure that Iraq actually becomes a stable democracy. Too bad the President doesn’t feel the same way. He’s dropp9ing Iraq like a hot potato, much the same way he did with Afghanistan.
But like I said, whether Iraq succeeds or (more likely) fails, it’s now a win-win situation for Bush. Bravo!
