WASHINGTON — Events on the ground in Iraq are deteriorating so quickly that President Bush’s dream of establishing the first Arab democracy is looking more like a nightmare. With casualties mounting and costs escalating, politicians and policymakers alike are searching
WASHINGTON — Events on the ground in Iraq are deteriorating so quickly that President Bush’s dream of establishing the first Arab democracy is looking more like a nightmare. With casualties mounting and costs escalating, politicians and policymakers alike are searching for a way out that would not continue to damage U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Bush is at a fork in the road: Eighty percent of Iraqis say they want the American occupation to end, yet a quick exit by U.S. coalition forces would almost surely spark a civil war. Bush can use the June 30 deadline to turn over sovereignty to an as yet unknown Iraqi government as an excuse to depart the country. Or he can recalibrate his policy to achieve something more tangible, which is stability.
It’s hard to tell whether Bush is digging in deeper or paving the way for a drawdown of the U.S. presence. On the one hand, the administration is taking steps that signal staying: Congress will soon vote another $25 billion to continue operations in Iraq; newly confirmed Iraqi ambassador John Negroponte is setting up shop in Baghdad in what will be the largest U.S. embassy in the world; and the Pentagon is reassigning troops from South Korea to Iraq to beef up security.
But as any military man will tell you, you go in big just before you leave. For example, the Israelis say they’re leaving Gaza, but that doesn’t stop them from bulldozing Palestinian homes on their way out. It’s one way to look strong and in charge even when you’re in retreat. So don’t be fooled into thinking Bush has made a long-term commitment to Iraq. As we mentioned earlier, the June 30 date is the administration’s way of keeping its options open.
One plan advanced by both supporters and critics of the war is to let the Iraqis decide. Once they get a government in place and hold elections, the almost certain result will be a leader who campaigns on nationalism — Iraq for the Iraqis — and demands that the American occupiers leave. Whether that constitutes defeat or a clever victory is open to debate.
The problem is that a single leader is unlikely to emerge who can unify the country. A more likely outcome is a country that erupts into bloody civil war and then divides along ethnic lines with a Shiite state in the south, a Kurdish state in the north, and a Sunni state in the troubled central area that was once Saddam’s stronghold.
The former President Bush stopped short of deposing Saddam in the first Gulf War for fear that Iraq would splinter apart and make the oil-rich country prey to its more powerful neighbors, namely Iran.
What’s different today is that American air power proved that it could protect the Kurdish enclave in the north. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Kurds enjoyed a measure of independence that stopped just short of statehood. American air power could do equally well over-flying ethnically separate states for the Shiites and the Sunnis.
Iraq is less stable now than it was a month ago, or a year ago, or under Saddam. As currently deployed, American troops are more a part of the problem than they are the solution. To stay the course is to court disaster. A three-state solution would be an incentive to the Iraqis to create ethnically separate armies and police forces under a protective U.S. or NATO umbrella.
Bush wouldn’t have to give up on democracy, but stability has to come first.
Political Correspondent: Eleanor Clift
Copyright 2004 Anderson and Cohn
Distributed by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
