World Affairs: November 2003 Archives

The Frontline Iraq episode, "Truth, War and Consequences", which I've mentioned before as one of the best summaries of our situation in Iraq will be replayed tonight at 8:30pm on KBDI Channel 12 in Denver. If you're not in Denver, you can always watch it online anytime.

Nicholas Kristof observes that Bush's plans for Iraq are starting to sound an awful lot like his plans for Afghanistan. Take the quiz below, and then read the column to see if that is a good thing or not.

1. In the two years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production has:

(A) virtually been eliminated by Hamid Karzai's government and American forces.

(B) declined 30 percent, but eradication is not expected until 2008.

(C) soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin.

2. In Paktika and Zabul, two religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school:

(A) has quintupled, with most girls at least finishing third grade.

(B) has risen 40 percent, although few girls go to school.

(C) has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all schools there.

The folks that revealed the Iraq war perception biases of consumers of different news sources a month or so back have a new study on the public's feelings looking back on the leadup to war. There are some very interesting numbers in here, but I'm only going to concentrate on one for now:

College Park, MD: According to a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (55%) believe that the Bush administration went to war on the basis of incorrect assumptions. An overwhelming 87% said that, before the war, the Bush administration portrayed Iraq as an imminent threat, while a majority (58%) believes that the administration did not have evidence for this and only 42% believe that it was the case. A majority believes that the US went to war precipitously, with 61% saying that the US should have taken more time to find out if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and 59% saying it should have taken more time to build international support.

For those that are trying to pretend through tortured semantic games that the Administration wasn't selling Iraq as an imminent threat, there is only one response: 87%. The proof is in the pudding.

If you're interested in the whole study and the other findings, including the 77% who think we have to keep our forces in Iraq until a stable government is in place, it's available here.

[via Juan Cole]

Kevin Drum and I had similar reactions to Bush's recent speech, which makes all the right noises but is unfortunately belied by Bush's actions.

So I don't get it. I really don't. Hawks are in favor of scaring the Middle East into reform through force of arms, but George Bush isn't willing to take the political risks it would take to do that. Doves are in favor of softer efforts that rely on diplomacy and multilateral institutions, but Bush is pretty obviously not interested in that either.

In other words, he's not willing to do any of the things that might conceivably bring democracy and liberalization to the Middle East.

So: nice speech. But regardless of whether your ideas are good or bad, you're doomed to certain failure unless you're willing to seriously follow up on them. George Bush isn't, and since I think failure here has the potential to be catastrophic, I'll be voting for someone else next November.

This is the speech he probably should have started out the whole Iraq effort with, but unfortunately he didn't.

As I said just before the war started:

Those that are deceiving themselves into thinking Bush actually plans to follow through with the Grand Plans to democratize the Middle East are living in a fantasy world as should be readily apparent by now. Just because you hope something will happen doesn't mean Bush has any intention of letting it happen. And even if he does, the chances of it resulting in a government that's friendly to America are just about nil.

Boot Bush.

In an op-ed for the Boston Globe, General Clark previews his "success strategy" for Iraq. In summary his points are:

• End the American monopoly.

  "I would transform the military occupation into a NATO operation with US forces in charge. With US command, NATO authority, and UN endorsement, other NATO countries would send troops, and Arab countries would also step in."

• Find the right force mix.

  "The more conventional forces we have, the more logistics we need. The more unarmored Humvees on patrol, the more unnecessary American deaths from roadside bombs."

• Better border protection.

  "To stanch the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq, we must seal the borders. That requires assistance from Iraq's neighbors. Using carrots and sticks, we can persuade these countries to cooperate."

• Secure ammunition.

  "Weapons dumps throughout Iraq are unguarded. It is estimated that 500,000 tons of ammunition is still not secure. We must patrol these sites and destroy these weapons."

• More intelligence resources.

  "Right now too many of our linguists and intelligence experts are working on the search for weapons of mass destruction. International inspectors should take over that search, which would free up enough experts to help us track down those who are killing our soldiers and creating chaos."

• Formidable Iraqi security forces.

  "We should recall the Iraqi Army to duty right now. If given good pay, good training, and solid background checks, Iraqi civilians can also help fill the intelligence and security gap."

• Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success.

  "It would be wrong to transfer authority to the Iraqis before they are ready to succeed, but we can give Iraqis more control over their destiny. The administration says the Iraqis can't have a sovereign government without a constitution. This is backwards. Iraqis, appointed by representatives from Iraq's 50 elected regional councils, should name an interim government even while a constitution emerges. That is what our Founding Fathers did.

  If we give the interim government control over oil revenues and transfer authority on an ongoing basis, it will be easier for the Iraqi people to see that those blowing up pipelines are sabotaging their future. If we give civilians a stake in stemming the violence, they will help us solve this problem."

  
  

The plan will be more fully fleshed out in a speech he will be giving today in South Carolina.

[UPDATE]
Another important point from a USA Today article about the speech:

Clark said even though he opposed sending troops to Iraq, they must stay to finish the job. "Early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither," he said.

Retreat is not an option. We made this mess and we must clean it up.

[UPDATE 2]
A more fleshed out version of this is available on General Clark's web site. The key additional points in my view:

Create a new international governing authority. The Coalition Provisional Authority, which is the American-led de facto government of Iraq, should be replaced. But the United Nations is neither able nor willing to assume the daunting task of governing Iraq. General Clark would create a new international structure—similar to those used in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan to govern Iraq. The interim government would have representatives from the European Union, the United States, neighboring countries and others who support our efforts to build a democratic Iraq.

[...]

Elect a truly representative government. The Iraqi people have already elected 50 city and regional councils in Iraq. These councils could elect a new interim government in Iraq just as state legislatures once elected members to the U.S. Senate. This new government would represent Iraq internationally and control oil revenues, funds and any frozen assets through a transparent, internationally audited process. Transfer of government functions to this new government would progress week by week. The interim government would launch a new process to write a Constitution. This constitution would be an Iraqi document—not written by Americans or people appointed by Americans—and would set the terms for
free and fair elections.

It also contains some thoughts on how we could avoid Bush-esque foreign messes in the future.

• Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot maintain stability in the Middle East, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.
• Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. General Clark proposes a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.
• Restore our moral standing abroad. General Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same ingenuity we have brought to the challenge of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and it will gain us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask countries to support us with our concerns, when they see us helping them on theirs.

[via Political Wire]