Opinion | Columnists
A call to support democracy in Iraq
Not only would abandoning the country to its fate now be irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to disintegration and dictatorship.
- By Samir Sumaida'ie, Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service
- Published: 00:00 August 24, 2006
As the debate on Iraq rages on, we hear more and more voices that call for throwing in the towel and leaving the mess to Iraqis to sort out. A new and unexpected proponent of this argument is Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, who said in a recent column that it's time for "Plan B''. Only a few months before, he was arguing that it would be time for the United States to pack up and go only "when we don't see Iraqis taking the risk to build a progressive Iraq''.
Now, under the weight of bad news from Baghdad, he seems ready to abandon those very same brave men and women fighting valiantly to establish peace and justice in Iraq. I am an admirer of Friedman, who is generally thoughtful, well informed and supportive, but in this case he and many like him have gone dangerously off-track.
Plan B, advocated by Friedman and others, is to abandon the region to religious fanatics and Baathist terrorists. It is nothing but a declaration of defeat dressed up to look like a vision for the future.
Our enemies' strategy has never changed: creating mayhem and making Iraq ungovernable, thereby driving the Americans and their allies out and installing a Saddam Hussain look-alike to "make peace''.
Just as they kept to their strategy and adapted, we should do the same. In this context, "staying the course'' should mean being ready to adapt and learn while also standing firm for democracy and for a new vision for the country and the region. If we abandon our effort, our enemies win by default.
To argue that American withdrawal from Iraq would create a "huge problem for Iran'' is disingenuous. Iran is fairly secure within its borders. Any problems in Iraq will be for Iraqis to suffer. If there is a collapse and a civil war in Iraq, it is Iran's proxies who will do the fighting and when the dust settles these proxies will most likely end up with the oil-rich southern region of Iraq a significant strategic gain for Iran. There would also be the psychological impact of the perceived defeat for America. That would encourage all the enemies of the United States to be bolder and readier to challenge its interests everywhere. A new super-radical, geographically contiguous bloc would be born: Iran, Syria and a radicalised, totalitarian, fragmented Iraq.
Argument
As for the argument that the very presence of the foreign forces is a source of tension and that their departure would remove a prime source of violence: It may appear plausible at first glance, but it is in fact without merit. We need to understand precisely who is ready to fight to drive foreign forces out; it is only the Saddamists and the religious extremists (Al Qaida and the like).
Other Iraqis range from those who, while irritated by the foreign forces, would not go so far as to actually fight them to those people who know that there would be big problems for them and the country if those forces were withdrawn prematurely. This majority includes Sunnis as well as Shiites and Kurds.
The question that must be addressed here is what to do now in the face of the combined onslaught of insurgents, terrorists, criminal gangs and sectarian militias. A policy for success should include:
- Developing, with the Iraqi government, workable measures for reforming the security forces and making available the necessary resources to implement them.
- Supporting the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in its efforts to disarm the militias. What is needed is a detailed multifaceted approach that encompasses political, economic and public information considerations as well as coercive measures.
- Applying maximum pressure on regional powers to refrain from undermining security in Iraq and to help stabilise it.
- Mobilising the people to oppose the extremists in their midst.
- Taking the initiative from our enemies by acting boldly and aggressively. Our posture should not be defensive. That is a recipe for defeat.
- Back here in the United States, where Iraq has become a divisive issue, working out a bipartisan understanding aimed at success; an attitude to win this war for America, Iraq and democracy. This item is for American leaders to achieve; the others are collaborative US-Iraqi endeavours.
- Is all this achievable? We know it is. Iraqis are resilient. They thirst for normality and a chance to build a future in freedom and dignity.
The US cannot escape responsibility for the current situation in Iraq. Not only would abandoning Iraq to its fate now be irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to disintegration and dictatorship, with a high risk of a wide regional conflict. It would be catastrophic not just for Iraq but also for the United States and for world peace and stability for decades to come. On the other hand, winning this war would be one of the best gifts the US could make to the world and to its own people.
Samir Sumaida'ie is Iraq's ambassador to the United States.
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Threat of German amnesia
By Joschka Fischer, Special to Gulf News
Rarely has the country been as isolated as it is now. Hardly anyone understands its dogmatic austerity policy, which goes against all experience
-
Moral implication of America's security mindset
By Gordon Robison, Special to Gulf News
After a decade in which torture became official government policy, America’s moral standing when it comes to looking at other governments’ human rights failings is much-diminished
-
Europe's salvation lies in euro's demise
By Bruce Anderson
A return to national currencies is the only hope, but it won’t be easy or cost-free
Your turn
