THAT HAWK/DOVE THING AGAIN:

Clash of the Administration Titans: Old rivals Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld square off in a new battle over how to rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq (MICHAEL DUFFY AND MASSIMO CALABRESI, April 05, 2003, TIME)

Pentagon officials said repeatedly last week that the military wants to turn the country over to the Iraqis in stages, as soon as possible. Some of them say they need only six months to build a democracy. But officials at the CIA and State believe there is no way the U.S. can even begin to create a stable democracy in six months in a country that has never had one. CIA officials believe a rush to elections might result in the kind of winner—let's say a radical Islamist party—that the U.S. might be forced to reject outright, a distinctly undemocratic precedent. The Pentagon hard-liners think this attitude underestimates the Iraqi people and note that some former Soviet-bloc countries made the transition in a matter of months.

Looking for reinforcements, Powell was in Europe last week, feeling out allies to see if they might lend a hand with the postwar mess. British Prime Minister Tony Blair favors using the U.N. to help with humanitarian and reconstruction projects, partly as a way to bring the U.S. and Europe together again after the damaging breach at the Security Council last month. When Blair and Bush meet early this week in Belfast, Blair will echo Powell's line and push the President to seek international help. But the hard-liners are adamantly opposed, saying the U.N. will only make things more expensive and complicated. Besides, they say, if you weren't with us on the takeoff, you don't deserve to be there for the landing.

But the most important debate of all is one that is only being hinted at. The fight about postwar Iraq is also a fight about whether and where Bush will again deploy troops to root out terrorism and transplant democracy. Military officials report that using force against Syria or Iran once Iraq is stabilized is a "live issue" in Bushland. That idea gives the State Department and allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt rolling heart attacks. "The camps are dividing on the question of will we push for a vision of a new democratic Middle East, or will we listen to the lobbying of some of the countries in the region," says Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "State wants to keep as many people on our side as possible, but the Defense Department is saying, 'Look, this is about a big, bold vision, and we're willing to push it forward.'"

No one can say this Bush lacks the vision thing, which may be a pretty good indicator of where he falls in the great Powell-Rumsfeld debate. In just over two years in office, the President has displayed a preference for the bold stroke—and there may well be others in the offing.

Note that it is the supposedly neo-colonialist hawks who want to devolve power to the Iraqis as quickly as possible--just in case you're wondering who the Pentagon source is for the story, Paul Wolfowitz repeated the 6 months line on Meet the Press today--while it the sensitive internationalist doves who envision an interminable occupation. In the long run the overarching case that the hawks have been making--that the Middle East will democratize if its people are given a chance--may well prove to be wrong. The doves may be right and Muslims/Arabs may be incapable of enlightened self-rule. But it's certainly strange that in media accounts it is the hawks who are portrayed as the sinister bad guys, while the doves, whose position is based on genuine contempt for the Islamic world and a desire to retain autarchs, are the good guys. Who respects these people more, those who want to rule them or those who think they can rule themselves?
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 6, 2003 6:40 PM