[Marxism] NYT editorial: "America Adrift in Iraq"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most interesting phrase: "If any of the goals Americans wanted to
achieve in Iraq may still be salvageable...."  The first concession by
the Times that they may never have been or may no longer be attainable.

Fred Feldman


New York Times editorial


America Adrift in Iraq

Published: May 15, 2004


Six weeks of military and political reverses seem to have left the Bush
administration doing little more in Iraq than grasping at ways to make
it past November's presidential election without getting American troops
caught in a civil war. The lowering of the administration's expectations
might be therapeutic if it produced a realistic strategy for achieving a
realistic set of goals. Unfortunately, there appears to be no such
strategy, only odd lurches this way and that under the pressure of
day-to-day events. That pattern heightens the danger of an eventual
civil war or anarchy, the two main things that American forces are
ostensibly remaining in Iraq to prevent.

At times, the only unifying theme for Washington's policies seems to be
desperation. American field commanders have now signed over the city of
Falluja to former officers of the same Baathist army they came to Iraq
to fight a little more than a year ago. The original plan of having
American marines storm Falluja to avenge the mob murders of four private
contractors there was not a wise idea. Handing over the town to these
politically ambitious soldiers looks even more shortsighted.
Subcontracting security and territory out to rival Sunni, Shiite and
Kurdish warlords can only increase the risks of an eventual civil war.

In the diplomatic arena, White House aides are now beseeching the same
United Nations they once belittled to rescue the transition, hoping that
its special emissary, Lakhdar Brahimi, can somehow produce a plan for an
interim government after June 30 that will rescue the nation-building
efforts American occupation authorities have badly botched. This could
be a positive development. If President Bush is now prepared to yield
real authority to the U.N. over transition arrangements, for example, it
may create a sense of legitimacy that Washington itself is no longer in
any position to bestow. But at this point it may be beyond the U.N.'s
power to convince a skeptical world that Iraq will regain any meaningful
sovereignty after June 30 if the real decisions on security and
reconstruction are still made by Americans.

Members of the discredited, American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council
are maneuvering to ensure a share of power for themselves after the
council is dissolved next month. This is a terrible idea, linking the
new interim government to the occupation regime and prejudicing future
elections by giving council members an unfair inside track. Yet the
administration seems to be wavering, reluctant to upset the transition
timetable by antagonizing any of its few remaining Iraqi allies.

If any of the goals Americans wanted to achieve in Iraq can still be
salvaged, it will take more than fumbling crisis management driven by
the needs of the Bush re-election campaign. A clear and coherent new
course needs to be set without further delay, beginning with aggressive
policy and personnel changes to undo the damage of the Abu Ghraib prison
scandal. The U.N. should be given clear authority over transitional
political arrangements after June 30, with Washington fully backing Mr.
Brahimi's efforts to assemble a caretaker government of credible Iraqis
who are not associated with the occupation and are willing to put aside
their own political ambitions.

Important constitutional and political decisions should be deferred
until elections can be held, but the interim government should assume
administrative control over oil revenues and economic reconstruction
projects and exercise sovereign authority over the Iraqi police and the
courts. And if, as is now generally assumed, it consents to the
continued presence of American occupation forces, it will also have to
work out a new relationship with these troops, who will remain
accountable to Washington, not Baghdad. This will go more smoothly if
the administration stops subcontracting security to former Iraqi
warlords and private companies and makes sure that all American troops
are properly trained for the tasks assigned to them.

In the short run, replacing these proxies will probably require sending
more troops, or delaying scheduled rotations out of Iraq. But over time,
if the administration is finally ready to accept international oversight
and a real measure of Iraqi sovereignty, Americans may see a reduction
of violence and increased peacekeeping help from other nations. With
June 30 rapidly approaching, Washington will soon have to choose its
course.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism