Experts propose an early exit for US: What’s next for Iraq?
By the Guardian Report
LONDON: Improving security, establishing a stable government and reviving the Iraqi economy are the three key steps to resolving the crisis in Iraq.
SECURITY: The facts speak for themselves. More than 260 coalition troops have died in Iraq since May 1. Suicide and roadside bombings continue and international organizations have been pulling out. All our experts agreed that the Americans had got it wrong. How to put it right was where they differed.
For Danielle Pletka, of the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, improved security was a matter of being tougher. The US should “stop acting as a weak power, because that is what is giving encouragement to the terrorists”, she urged.
Closing Iraq’s borders effectively, to prevent infiltration from neighbouring countries, she added, was half the battle.
Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington was also relatively sanguine and suggested the difficulties might be short-term.
While these sentiments may strike a chord with the Bush administration, many on our panel were eager for the US to pull out as soon as possible — though there was a range of views on how and when that should happen.
American troops in Iraq provided a potent target, said Toby Dodge of Warwick University. “There has to be the introduction of troops who will not be shot — and that means the United Nations.”
Ba’athist remnants would continue to shoot at UN forces but the Fallujah element might be persuaded not to. The resistance is fighting in the name of liberation “and if you had Pakistani, Indian or Sri Lankan troops, that would cut out the occupation argument”.
French expert Guillaume Parmentier disagreed. “It is the responsibility of the occupying powers to ensure law and order; it is not the duty of the United Nations,” he said.
Dr Bernhard May of the German Council for Foreign Relations believed US and British forces would now have to stay the course.
Reducing Americans on the streets and replacing them with Iraqis would be one alternative, according to Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
“The plan is for the Americans to withdraw into fortified bases and run specific, targeted, raids from them, just as they have done in Afghanistan,” he said. “Security on the ground would thus be in the hands of regional political figures.”
Said Aburish, who wrote a biography of Saddam Hussein, thought “some kind of neighbourhood militia” would help. “This (the neighbourhood) is where the guys with the RPGs are coming from and it is one way to neutralize them,” he said.
Dr Kamil Mahdi of Exeter University distinguished between the security problems faced by Iraqi citizens and the attacks on occupation forces. “On the second, there’s one way, and one way only, of solving it — that the US should announce immediately the date for a firm and complete withdrawal,” he said.
Ali Muhsen Hamid of the Arab League focused on the much- criticized US decision to disband Iraq’s army and pointed to its restoration as a possible solution.
“The security problem is going to be solved mostly by the Iraqis themselves,” he said. “There are people who are afraid of reactivating the old system, but in the Arab world every new regime depends on the old people and gradually reduces its dependence on them.”
Security in Iraq could also be helped by progress on the political front, according to Laith Kubba, one of the founders of the Iraqi National Congress who later fell out with its leadership.
“There can be no real security in Iraq without an inclusive government,” he said. So far, he said, the political process had not engaged the eight main Sunni tribes, who represent two to three million people. “They were the backbone of the regime, and have taken hits because of that but they have to be offered a ladder from which to step down.”
Retired Air Marshal Sir Tim Garden also felt security was not entirely a matter for the military. “Nothing will happen unless there is some sense of political strategy to match military strategy.”
GOVERNMENT: Plans are afoot for a new constitution and elections. In the meantime, the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority has appointed a temporary governing council of Iraqis, though it is widely regarded as impotent and unrepresentative.
The current plan was “pretty good”, said Mr O’Hanlon, though he would like to see the Iraqis given more control in order to damp down nationalist rallying cries. “We shouldn’t rush into elections, but there should be some kind of a process by which Iraqis help elect members of the governing council,” he said.
Re-establishing Iraqi sovereignty was a priority, in Dr Mahdi’s view. “The whole situation so far is one of US officers — both political and military — interfering directly in all political decisions in Iraq. That will simply ensure that any political process is compromised and rejected,” he said. “There has to be immediately a broad Iraqi conference, under the auspices of the UN, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference Organization, while the US steps aside from domestic politics in Iraq.”
Mr Dodge also favoured a more international approach. “It is painfully apparent that the Americans do not have the expertize to rebuild a state and/or understand Iraqi society,” he said. “If this war is to leave a stable, peaceful and, hopefully, democratic Iraq, then the UN, and behind it a true international coalition, has to take up the onerous task.”
But Ms Pletka was more optimistic. “Things are going, in many ways, better than expected,” she said. “Surprisingly enough, the Iraqis are working extremely well together. They have great commonality of purpose ... Some of the biggest problems really come from us, not them.”
Several experts pointed out that the American political plan — to work out a new Iraqi constitution and then to hold elections — was taking too long.
One way to shorten the timescale, Mr Hamid suggested, would be to hold elections under a temporary constitution which would not need a referendum.
“The whole question of a new constitution is really a red herring,” Dr Mahdi said. “The country is in a dire position in every respect and a constitution will not solve anything. It is possible to have elections that will produce a much more credible administration without a new, fully-fledged constitution.”
There were also different views on federal government in Iraq.
“The federal system is a Kurdish demand,” Mr Hamid said. “People are asking whether this would involve two regions — Kurdish and Arab — or three. Three federal regions would be harmful, increasing the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims.”
The important thing, Ms Pletka said, was to avoid federalism based on tribal lines, “so that we don’t get Kurdistan, Shia- stan, and so on”.
The big question, Dr Mahdi said, was whether federalism would be a step towards national unity or dissolution of the state. A decision should not be rushed.
The removal of Saddam Hussein, several experts noted, had left Iraq without a figurehead. “What needs to emerge,” Mr Aburish argued, “is a person, a human being, someone with a name. You put the bicycle pump in and inflate him and the name will become bigger immediately.”
ECONOMY: The Iraqi economy is on its knees and the US is planning to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction, but Iraqis are suspicious of American intentions, especially regarding oil. Our experts were unanimous that the first step towards economic revival was improved security but several also highlighted an urgent need to restore infrastructure, without which resentment could only grow.
“People in Iraq now feel that they are worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, so it’s really crucial,” Mr Parmentier said.
Tackling unemployment would contribute to security, Dr May suggested.
Creating jobs quickly involved putting money back into the public sector, Mr Kubba said. “You need to pump money into the consumer market and one way is through state jobs,” he continued.
A lot of the economic stimulus over the next few months would be artificial, Mr O’Hanlon added. “We need to find ways not to forget the lessons of earlier foreign aid. Aid needs to be focused on the local level, and the big impressive things should be coupled with grassroots efforts that are more likely to produce long-term jobs.”
Some experts thought much more care was needed in American economic efforts, so as not to arouse Iraqi hostility.
“In terms of reconstruction, you have to avoid giving the impression that the country is being looted,” Mr Parmentier said.
According to Mr Kubba, Iraqi businessmen were complaining that the US had placed them in an unfair situation.
Dr Mahdi put it even more strongly, arguing that the US was actually destroying Iraq’s indigenous economy.
“So-called reconstruction funds are opening up mass economic destruction in Iraq and will bring benefits to a very narrow group of Iraqis,” he said. “Businesses cannot operate. Virtually any industry or productive activity is subject to random attacks, and to mafia-style protection rackets,” he said.
Foreign businesses, though, were better placed to survive because they came in with their own security firms and arrangements with the occupation authorities, he added. “These are, in effect, stepping in where local business capacity is being destroyed.”
Mr Hamid linked economic recovery to political stability as well as improved security. “An independent Iraqi government should also have an independent economic policy serving the interests of the Iraqi people, not the occupying power,” he said. “Oil is the crux of the matter. But at present nobody knows where the oil money is going.”—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.
