Richard Cohen writes:
The way the United States leaves places matters. Having armed mujahedeen fighters to undo the Soviet empire in Afghanistan, America lost interest in a backwater. Payback came in the form of Afghan-trained holy warriors bent on the destruction of the West. That was careless.
It is important to be less careless in Baghdad. As reports on Iraq reach Congress this month, it’s worth considering that blow-back from an oil-rich country at the heart of the battle for the Middle East could be even more severe than the violent legacy of funding Islam to fight communism in Kabul.
Nothing can undo the American blunders in Iraq that turned the liberated into the lacerated. Hubris is bad, careless hubris worse. The fraying Bush administration still can’t work out who took the decision to disband the Iraqi Army in 2003; that’s grotesque. Nobody in the administration should sleep easy over its ethical responsibility for calamitous mistakes.
Agreed, and then:
But what we did matters less today than how we leave Iraq. It’s far easier to score backward-looking political points against Bush than serve the forward-looking interests of 27 million Iraqis. Still, the latter is more important than the former.
I agree completely and this is exactly what’s often missing in the debate in America. Sure, some people act as if Iraq will turn into a peaceful and prosperous country once the US withdraws, but most people know this not to be the case. Instead of truly addressing this issue, quite some people simply yell “bring our troops home” and that’s that.
Cohen looks at the situation, and the potential for success there still is – and the risk of a premature withdrawal – and, of course, the two opposing views: one that says that real progress has not been made, another that says that real progress has been, but that it’s coming from the bottom-up. Cohen writes:
Both views of Iraq are right: the situation is awful and, four years on, cleverer U.S. commanders are winning a few. The enduring horror counsels a swift exit. The positive shifts bolster a catchphrase Cordesman found doing the rounds in Baghdad: “strategic patience.†I side with the latter, provided the patience is indeed strategic and not just a means to kick the mess into the post-Bush world.
He goes on to explain that such a strategy should “involve the following elements”:
- Local Sunnis willing to work with the US have to be supported and their power has to be bolstered
- Although the Shia-led government is weak, the US should pressure it into agreeing to share oil, money and power with Sunnis and Kurds
- The US has to talk with Iraq’s neighbors. To achieve this, the US should involve the UN
- The US has to recognize that “all Middle Eastern problems are tied and that the U.S. needs a coherent diplomatic strategy for containing jihadist fanaticism through ideological persuasion”
- Help and protect the Iraqis who supported the US
I basically agree with Cohen, although I do have to object to his statement that if the US wants to have peace in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) it shouldn’t support Israel as much as it does. I find that to be silly; the idea that Israel is responsible for the problems in the Middle East seems to have taken possession of quite some people, but that doesn’t make it true. Of course, no nation should be supported without asking questions. This goes for Israel as well. If and when Israel does something wrong its allies should say something about it. The reality is, however, that this is already happening. Those in the Middle East who argue that in order to achieve peace in the region, the West has to distance itself from Israel, are often the same ones who call for Israel’s destruction. It seems to me that we might be wise not to do everything they say.
Having said that, I can agree with just about every other point Cohen makes. The UN and other countries should indeed be involved – sadly, the US cannot bring peace and stability to Iraq by shear willpower.
