The Iraqi elections have been declared a success, with a turnout estimated at around 60%. That's something to celebrate, at least. These elections were the one good thing which can be salvaged from the entire bloody mess of Iraq, and while I do not think they were worth the estimated 100,000 excess deaths, they at least are some compensation which will hopefully lead to a better future for Iraqis.
Meanwhile, former British foreign minister Robin Cook sees the elections as an opportunity to change the direction of British policy in Iraq. He starts by making the obvious point:
we must recognise that the longer the occupation has continued, the stronger the resistance to it has grown. There can be no credible programme to reduce support for the resistance unless we convince the Iraqi people that we have an exit strategy within a realistic timeframe.
In this, he's simply recognising the empirical data on why occupations succeed or fail. One of the key determinants in whether an occupation will be successful is whether there is a credible guarantee to withdraw and turn over power. So far this has been entirely lacking in Iraq, with the US government engaging in manipulation to ensure a compliant, pro-US puppet regime.
His second point should also be familiar to those who read the Dobbins piece on disengagement:
[we must] avoid repeating the mistake of the past year in which we have allowed the interim government to become identified with the occupying authorities. We should welcome, not discourage, any measure of independence demonstrated by the new assembly, such as repealing the Bremer decrees on the foreign purchase of Iraqi assets.
To this end, he suggests ending the taint of collaboration with the occupiers by relocating the Iraqi government outside the Green Zone, putting the reconstruction in the hands of Iraqis rather than companies widely seen as Bush's cronies, and ending all rhetoric about Iraq being "a model for the region". The underlying idea, which has been so-far absent from American plans, is that Iraqis should get the government they want - not the one that people in Washington or London want.
It's a sensible plan; the only question is whether the British and American governments will accept it, or whether they will continue to try and gain some return on their "investment"...
"These elections were the one good thing which can be salvaged from the entire bloody mess of Iraq, and while I do not think they were worth the estimated 100,000 excess deaths, they at least are some compensation which will hopefully lead to a better future for Iraqis."
ReplyDeleteHow very utilitarian of you to say so.
Brian S
Brian: just because I'm not a much of consequentialist does not mean I can't recognise that the elections, flawed as they are, are a genuinely Good Thing and a positive step.
ReplyDeleteAL: The problem with Bush's promises is that Iraqis for some reason just don't believe him. maybe it's their long experience of broken promises over such basics as power and water, maybe its the broken promises about their being allowed to determine their own destiny (which is why the American procurator in Baghdad tried to fundamentally restructure their economy and then entrench the provisions, without consulting Iraqis), or maybe its just the background hum from American hawks about how the desert bases they're planning to build will give them strategic dominance of the region and allow them to threaten Iran and Syria.
As for "resistance", I believe it is the correct term for someone who resists an invader. But feel free to call them something else if you'd like.
You may call them what you will, but it makes very little difference to the dozens dying every day whether it's from insurgent/terrorist bullets and bombs or liberator/occupying force bullets and bombs.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that those who have taken authority have a moral and legal duty to return the place to some kind of order. Cook and Dobbins' suggestions strike me as eminently sensible and I son't see too many other proposals out there aside from "we're staying the course", and hasn't that worked so well.
"So i repeat: why are you describing people who knowingly plot against Iraqis and a future democratic Iraq as a "resistance"?"
ReplyDeleteAL - You know why. It is because the author of this blog is a moral relativist who basically hates America.
Brian S