Lounsbury: An excellent editorial by Ignatius

« Cole II: an important comment | Cohen: "Blind in Iraq" »

April 13, 2004

An excellent editorial by Ignatius

Let me say that over the past several months, the key, best editorial writer in the United States regarding the Middle East has been Ignatius of The Washington Post

Back To the Basics
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, April 13, 2004; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6752-2004Apr12.html
Some excerpts - I suppose it is not bad his suggestions resemble my own.

... The Bush administration must recognize that Iraq is now a three-alarm fire. American policy there is stumbling, and the causes need to be addressed urgently. The basic problem continues to be security, but it doesn't have a purely military solution: We can't fix this one simply by sending in more troops, occupying more cities or patrolling more Shiite neighborhoods. That way leads to a brutal quagmire.

Indeed. Indeed. Indeed.

What the "crush them" crowd forgets is that the "rally round the flag" effect is not simply a domestic phenom that applies to them, it happens elsewhere, and in Iraq in its tribal society, the motors are particularly hostile to foreigners/outsiders.

Program:
What's needed is a "New Deal" for Iraq -- a post-June 30 plan that evokes the crash efforts of Franklin D. Roosevelt to turn the momentum of the Great Depression. No more administration pieties about democracy and terrorism, please. In the nine months before Iraq is to hold elections, the United States must focus on the basics: Put people to work, make them feel that the United States and its allies are bringing a better life. Some specifics suggested to me by Iraqi friends:

� Provide electricity everywhere, 24 hours a day, by the scheduled handover of sovereignty. If it takes an airlift of C-17s carrying generators, do it; if it means expensive temporary fixes, do it. The lack of electric power has been a symbol of U.S. failure in Iraq; make reliable electricity a symbol of success.

� Speed up the $18 billion in reconstruction spending the United States promised in January. That effort was supposed to deliver 50,000 new jobs by June 30. Iraqis need to see action, now.

� Put more money on the streets quickly, through crash public works projects. The coalition cleaned up Baghdad last summer by paying thousands of kids a few dollars a day to sweep streets. Do it again. Put more money into the hands of local political, tribal and religious leaders. Some of it will be wasted, but in a good cause.

Good so far.

The politics:
A New Deal for Iraq means correcting some of the political errors that led to the current mess. The Pentagon (which failed badly at nation-building in Iraq) must give way to the State Department. Occupation czar L. Paul Bremer (a brave man who deserved better support from Pentagon civilians) will be replaced June 30 by a new U.S. ambassador. Because so much of the job will involve liaison with the United Nations, a good choice would be the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John D. Negroponte. And surely it's time to end any remaining Pentagon subsidies to the mercurial Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi and let him fly solo in the new Iraq.

Well, I am not a fan at all of Negroponte, and indeed I think his (required to be sure) public involvement in the run up is a liability. That aside, the underlined notes, I think are important. Certainly I have hammered home the failure of the CPA, and I largely put that in the laps of the DoD civlians. The other item is certainly we should not be subsidizing Chalabi. Period. To continue to do so is to set ourselves up for failure. Even more so than normal.

The Iraqi security situation will remain a nightmare for months and probably years to come, but there are ways to avoid making it worse. Despite last week's spasm of violence, the United States should stick to its earlier plans for pulling troops out of populated areas and moving them to garrisons from which they can deploy rapidly.

Perhaps.

I think rather it would do well to not retreat into fortresses, but rather spend time training with British on how to engage in proper engagement with the Iraqi population, bringing security but without using Helo gunships.

Iraq's own security forces clearly aren't ready to take over yet, so the transition will be ragged. But last week's surprising unity of Sunni and Shiite religious and political figures suggested that perhaps the country's leaders now hate the United States more than they hate each other. Maybe they can find unity in their Iraq-ness. And to gain Iranian help in stabilizing the budding Shiite insurrection, Britain is said to be holding secret talks with Tehran. ....

I am not sure unity around hatred of the US is positive, but... well throw me a bone as they say.

And I agree, engage Tehren and Damascus. It is their neighborhood, they will be around longer than us, and the capacity of actors, official or even worse, free agents, to blow things up from their side is far larger than US ability to punish. Better to engage them in not being spoilers than this idiotic blustering.

April 13, 2004

An excellent editorial by Ignatius

Trackback Pings

Comments

Comment Subscription