September 9, 2003
ONE & DONE:
Whatever It Takes (DAVID BROOKS, September 9, 2003, NY Times)
The Bush administration has the most infuriating way of changing its mind. The leading Bushies almost never admit serious mistakes. They never acknowledge that they are listening to their critics. They never even admit they are shifting course. They don these facial expressions suggesting calm omniscience while down below their legs are doing the fox trot in six different directions.Sunday night's presidential speech was a perfect example. The policy ideas Bush sketched out represent such a striking series of policy shifts they amount to a virtual relaunching of the efforts to rebuild Iraq. Yet the president unveiled them as if they were stately extensions of the policies that commenced on Sept. 11, 2001. [...]
The decision to go to the U.N. is not the most important policy revision Bush executed. The coming U.N. debate will give a lot of second-tier powers the chance to preen about sending troops they don't have and making contributions they can't afford, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking it is in any way crucial to the region. Powell has estimated there may be a mere 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops. Some technocrats from the Sorbonne may supplement the ones from Johns Hopkins, but the U.N. offensive is a long journey for only a modest reward.
The truly important initiatives Bush launched were, first, to sharply increase the level of spending on Iraq, and therefore increase the likelihood that major infrastructure problems will be addressed. With this, Bush is not only taking on the antiwar Democrats, but also the so far silent but oh-so-sullen fiscal conservatives in his own party.
Second, Bush has finally signaled that the U.S. is going to hand over real authority to newly selected Iraqi ministers. Yesterday, Bremer released a seven-step process for handing power back to the Iraqis that reads like a treatment program for Imperialists Anonymous. If this process is carried out, Americans administrators will be serving Iraqi executives, not the other way around.
Some close advisers suspect the violence may not abate in Iraq until early next year, and it will be interesting to see whether Americans can sustain their morale over that time.
You can't have it both ways: this can not have been both a speech saying that we're switching our policy and will now do whatever it takes and, on the other hand, that we're in the middle of the always contemplated hand over authority, a handover that, not coincidentally, will be complete right around the time violence is expected to be winding down next Spring, creating the conditions for us to be redployed by Memorial day. Mr. Brooks, it will come as no surprise, is trying to spin as a neocon victory what is a crushing defeat. Where the neocons wanted us to stay for years and make Iraq a base of operations for a continuing war, we will instead be essentially gone (at least militarily) a year after the war was won.
MORE:
Iraq's Path to Sovereignty (L. Paul Bremer III, September 8, 2003, Washington Post)
No thoughtful person would suggest that the coalition should govern Iraq for long. Although Iraqis have freedoms they have never had before, freedom is not sovereignty and occupation is unpopular with occupier and occupied alike. We believe Iraqis should be given responsibility for their own security, economic development and political system as soon as possible.Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2003 12:15 AMSo, then, how can we get Iraqis back in charge of Iraq?
Elections are the obvious solution to restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people. But at the present elections are simply not possible. There are no election rolls, no election law, no political parties law and no electoral districts.
The current constitution is a Hussein-dictated formula for tyranny. When Hussein loaded two trucks with money and fled the advancing coalition forces, he left behind a vacuum. Electing a government without a permanent constitution defining and limiting government powers invites confusion and eventual abuse.
So, to hold elections Iraq needs a new constitution and it must be written by Iraqis. It must reflect their culture and beliefs. Writing a constitution, as all Americans know, is a solemn and important undertaking. It cannot be done in days or weeks.
Nonetheless, the path to full Iraqi sovereignty is clear. The journey has begun and three of the seven steps on this path have already been taken.
I don't know whether the neocons wanted to rule Iraq as an American province for many years to come or not. But it wouldn't surprise me if the US would retain some military bases in Iraq, probably in the north and the south, so as to be able to keep an eye on the Iranians, the Syrians, the Sauds and the Turks who already have a fundamentalist government and who may soon become an outpost of the neo-Bonapartist Empire of Chirac (aka the EU).
Posted by: Peter at September 9, 2003 3:34 AMWe won't know whether it's a neocon victory or defeat until we know to where the army redeploys: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or the US.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 9, 2003 6:53 AMNobody went into this war with a strategic goal of using Iraq as a military base for future operations. Therefore, the lack of attaining it, if indeed that does happen, cannot be called a "defeat" by any resonable definition.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at September 9, 2003 7:37 AMJeff:
I'll see if I can find more later, but here's James Bennet saying we should be there 20 years from now:
http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20020907-123922-6588r
Of course the neocon vision is that Iraq can be the base from which we democratize the whole Middle East. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. "
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2003 9:14 AMIt would surprise me if the U.S. does not maintain forward basing of some sort in Iraq for many years to come. We already do so all over the world, as Robert Kaplan recently pointed out in a fine (but, one suspects, underappreciated article): http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/07/kaplan.htm
It won't be the stronghold envisioned by Bill Kristol and friends, but that was never going to happen. Brooks should stick to social and cultural analysis, where he is stronger.
Posted by: kevin whited at September 9, 2003 9:48 AMAny spin would have been entirely unnecessary if the President had given firm indication after Baghdad's fall on the nature and length of the occupation, perhaps a length not in time but at least milestones accomplished. Incidentally, this would also have calmed many other interested parties as well, from foreign governments to concerned Americans. Bush's vagaries might allow him (and America) more wiggle room in action, but it also takes an unneeded toll on morale.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 9, 2003 12:50 PMOJ -
I always saw the goal of "democratizing" the ME as something we would/should do by helping them get started governing themselves - a free Iraq run by Iraqis is a better example for the rest to follow anyway.
I still don't see how a failure, within 6 months, to realize such a lofty goal - spreading liberty, the rule of law, property rights, and all the economic goodness that flows from those - rates as a defeat. It is much too early to judge success or failure on that front.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at September 9, 2003 1:29 PM