In relation to the above, see Under Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith's testimony given before the Senate yesterday, about the postwar plans for Iraq. Probably the most important parts are these:
* First, demonstrate to the Iraqi people and the world that the United States aspires to liberate, not occupy or control them or their economic resources. * Second, eliminate Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons, its nuclear program, the related delivery systems, and the related research and production facilities. This will be a complex, dangerous and expensive task. * Third, eliminate likewise Iraq’s terrorist infrastructure. A key element of U.S. strategy in the global war on terrorism is exploiting the information about terrorist networks that the coalition acquires through our military and law enforcement actions. * Fourth, safeguard the territorial unity of Iraq. The United States does not support Iraq’s disintegration or dismemberment. * Fifth, begin the process of economic and political reconstruction, working to put Iraq on a path to become a prosperous and free country. The U.S. government shares with many Iraqis the hope that their country will enjoy the rule of law and other institutions of democracy under a broad-based government that represents the various parts of Iraqi society.
If there is a war, the United States would approach its post-war work with a two-part resolve: a commitment to stay and a commitment to leave.* That is, a commitment to stay as long as required to achieve the objectives I have just listed. The coalition cannot take military action in Iraq – to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi tyranny’s threats to the world as an aggressor and supporter of terrorism – and then leave a mess behind for the Iraqi people to clean up without a helping hand. That would ill serve the Iraqis, ourselves and the world.
* But it is important to stress also that the United States would have a commitment to leave as soon as possible, for Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Iraq does not and will not belong to the United States, the coalition or to anyone else.
How will the Iraqis be involved in governing themselves?
The following are examples of the ways in which Iraqis might play a progressively greater role in administering the country. While final decisions have not been made, and, in the nature of the case, cannot be made until the actual circumstances are known, these examples illustrate various mechanisms under consideration:Daunting? Yes. And the moral alternative is...?* An Iraqi consultative council could be formed to advise the U.S./coalition authorities.
* A judicial council could undertake to advise the authorities on the necessary revisions to Iraq’s legal structure and statutes to institute the rule of law and to protect individual rights.
* A constitutional commission could be created to draft a new constitution and submit it to the Iraqi people for ratification.
* Major Iraqi governmental institutions – such as the central government ministries – could remain in place and perform the key functions of government after the vetting of the top personnel to remove any who might be tainted with the crimes and excesses of the current regime.
* Town and district elections could be held soon after liberation to involve Iraqis in governing at the local level.
My major objections to war has always been a distinct lack of this sort of talk. I have seen over the several months a change in tone; the closer the invasion gets, the more I have heard from this administration about Iraqi constitutional self rule...
With this, my last objection is removed. I’ll hold the Administration to this, of course, but I don’t know how much more they can do before the bombing starts. War now seems like the lesser evil. So be it.
That SHOULD silence all the administration critics who repeat "It's all about the oil!"
Two difficulties with this.
1. How likely is it to be done? If the Bush administration doesn't follow through with something in this spirit, what are you and I going to do about it? Andrew, I'd be interested in how you would hold them to this.
2. what exactly is being promised in the document?
-An offer to demonstrate good intentions seems vague to me. Is this a nebulous way of stating what is said a bit more clearly in item five, or is this something else?
-Removing weapons facilities and dismantling terrorist infrastructure are the main justifications we have been given so far. Fair enough to state the intent, but it is hardly something new.
-"safeguard the territorial unity of Iraq" means frustrate the seccessionist factions within Iraq. I would suggest there are some legitimate reasons that some of the communities presently incorporated into Iraq would be better off independant. This freedom may well cause stress in the region, probably harming Turkey. The US has chosen sides and will enforce that choice. This doesn't really demonstrate that the US aspires to liberate as per item 1.
- Iraq will be governed by the rule of law and other democratic institutions. What happens if the Iraqis, through a democratic institution, choose to do something contrary to the interests of the US administration? Does the US put pressure on them to change their minds? As much pressure as required?
This is devil's advocate stuff, but let's be up front here. If we build in Iraq a society in which Iraqis cannot make the decisions, will any of us who post here so bravely today lift a finger? Now is the time to ask that question. The US administration, in our name, is about to kill a lot of Iraqis, including many innocent ones. In my opinion it is not worth those deaths to install something like Pinochet's regime.
I for one am a little tired of folks who talk of Pinochet as if it is a given that this was a case of American evil. So let's remember a few things:
Salvador Allende was a proven Communist who was moving his state toward deep friendship and cooperation with North Korea and Cuba, and was receiving both money and arms from the Soviet Union.
There were people tortured and brutally killed by Allende's regime. When we backed Pinochet's coup, it was in part because we saw every reason to believe that Allende was planning to create a communist dictatorship--just exactly as had happened in every other regime that behaved as his was doing.
Pinochet's uprising included significant segments of labor unionists and the middle class. The truth & reconciliation commmittee after Pinochet's rule found that as many atrocities were committed by the Allendeists as by Pinochet and his supporters.
With substantial pressure from the U.S. and the U.K., Pinochet eventually stopped most human rights abuses. And eventually moved the country toward a referendum on whether they wanted to keep him in power or not. 45% voted to keep him in power. 55% voted against, and he promised to step down and leave quietly.
He did exactly that. Chile is now a quiet, prosperous and free society, with a healthy economy, stable democracy, freedom of speech and the press, and arguably the least troubled and most successful state in South America.
In large part because of the American committment to both keep Chile free of communism AND to bring them back to democracy.
The assumption that the U.S. did evil, evil, evil in Chile needs to be questioned at every opportunity. Indeed, one could argue that if we did exactly what we did in Chile, the average Iraqi's life would be far better.
But that's clearly not what we're planning. We're planning a democratization.
Yes, it will be tricky. Yes, some things may be forced on them that they don't like. For example, the Turks have obviously made it clear that they will not support us unless we oppose the creation of an independent Kurdistan--and the Kurdish leaders have already publicly stated that they are willing to give that up and to work toward a unified Iraqi state.
That there will be challenges here is not under question, Doug. I think all your questions are valid, and are things we are going to be wrestling with.
What gets me is the assumption that, somehow, because these difficulties exist, we would assume that the Americans, the Europeans, and the U.N. itself would not work toward what we've promised to work toward.
I believe in democracy in Iraq. I will argue for that position after liberation as much as I argue for it today. I hope you will too.
"I for one am a little tired of folks who talk of Pinochet as if it is a given that this was a case of American evil. "
Well, it's your web site, but that's way off topic. Your crusade to rehabilitate Pinochet has about as much chance of success as Holocaust denial.
"Indeed, one could argue that if we did exactly what we did in Chile, the average Iraqi's life would be far better.
But that's clearly not what we're planning. We're planning a democratization."
Are you saying that the intention of the US sponsored coup in Chile was to install a dictatorship? That it was not intended as democratization? I suggest that democratizing Chile was what the US administration said it was doing in 1973. Back then we didn't hold them to their word. Maybe you intend to do better this time around, but you seem already to be staking out the less noble position when you say that Iraqis would be lucky to have a dictator like Pinochet ruling over them.
Dean, this is bizarre. Are you really saying that you'd be content if the US went to war with Iraq, killed thousands of Iraqis, and installed over the survivors a dictator like Pinochet?
"...some things may be forced on them [ the Iraqis ] that they don't like. For example, the Turks have obviously made it clear that they will not support us unless we oppose the creation of an independent Kurdistan--and the Kurdish leaders have already publicly stated that they are willing to give that up and to work toward a unified Iraqi state."
Or what? Or we'll bomb them to extinction? Or we'll give their homeland to loyal Turkey? Or we won't invade Iraq? Probably none of those. Probably we simply drop these folks and recognize other Kurds, who *are* willing to abandon their nation's independence, as the Kurdish leaders. Does that square with fostering democracy? If you don't believe this scenario, then I'm open to knowing what has made them "willing to give ... up" on independance.
How can these Kurdish leaders make such a promise? If democracy reigns, they can be replaced, through elections, by other Kurds whom the people may choose precisely because they are not willing to give up on their nation state. Will these results be overturned by US military might? How does this square with fostering democracy?
"I think all your questions are valid, and are things we are going to be wrestling with."
Yes, well... Thanks for the eight paragraphs defending Pinochet.
"What gets me is the assumption that, somehow, because these difficulties exist, we would assume that the Americans, the Europeans, and the U.N. itself would not work toward what we've promised to work toward."
What gets me is the assumption that if politicians say they'll do something, they will do it. Oh defender of liberal traditions, is it not the case that the people must be vigilant in a democracy?
"I believe in democracy in Iraq. I will argue for that position after liberation as much as I argue for it today."
I suppose that passes for lifting a finger. If the victors chose not to install a democracy in Iraq, how much further would you go? Would you vote other than Republican? Would you march in the streets in protest? In what way would you hold your elected rep to his promise?
Mr. Barrett, you're the one who brought up Pinochet, not me. And my interpretation of Pinochet and his rule is something that is agreed with by many Chileans, as well as a number of respected historians. Comparing that to holocaust revisionism is an obscenity. I would like an apology, please.
I have already made it quite clear that I don't want to see another dictator installed in Iraq, and I do not believe we will have one. I merely tire of the frequently-used example of Pinochet is the ne plus ultra of American "betrayal." He is not--not even close. He is, in fact, proof that even when we're faced with a bad situation, America works hard for democracy and human rights. Backing Pinochet was the right thing to do in a situation where we had no better choices. And in the end, we triumphed, bringing democracy and human rights back to a nation that Allende had very nearly destroyed.
The Pinochet body count stands at approximately 2,000, with equivalent figures for Allende and his Stalinists. Even Amnesty International agrees that human rights abuses stopped in Chile by 1983, a full seven years before Pinochet peacefully surrendered power. Saddam Hussein has already killed orders of magnitude more people than that.
Still, if we could get him to stop all human rights abuses today, and guarantee that he would step down peacefully after free elections, that would seem like a pretty good deal. But that's obviously a fantasy--because Saddam Hussein is hundreds of times worse than Pinochet ever was.
As for what I will do in the unlikely event that the administration betrays all its promises and installs a dictatorship? Criticize the President harshly and consider campaigning against him in 2004. As a registered Democrat, I plan on supporting Lieberman in the primaries anyway. I haven't decided yet who I'll vote for in the general election, although right now I like Bush a lot. We'll see what happens on election day.
So what will you do, oh condescending man who confuses documented fact with holocaust revisionism? Will you vote for Bush if he proves that he is a man of his word?
I'll wait for my apology. I won't expect one, although I do deserve it.
Very good. Now I must apologize for an imagined insult, or I must defend my statements to explain why an apology is not forthcoming. In either case, we are safely distracted from the issue I sought to discuss. Oh well...
"Your crusade to rehabilitate Pinochet has about as much chance of success as Holocaust denial." DB Feb 19/03
You would like me to apologize for saying that building up Pinochet in the eyes of the public is a nearly hopeless task. Type into Google something like "Pinochet Chile Truth Reconciliation" and browse through the results. You will find the vast majority condemn Pinochet far more severely than they condemn Allende. See, for example,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/pinochet/overview.htm
You wish to change public opinion on this matter. Well go for it, but its not a windmill I'd care to tilt at.
I could have picked a less emotionally-charged analogy than holocaust denial. I could have said UFO-logy or Atlantis or that the 10 lost tribes of Isreal are really North American Indians or something. (Would you still have demanded an apology?) But none of these fringe beleifs include the awkward and disturbing idea that fewer deaths mean greater morality. You want an apology from me for noticing this connection?
"Mr. Barrett, you're the one who brought up Pinochet, not me."
I did bring up Pinochet, and I am certainly sorry for that. I was not aware at that time that you held the beleifs you do. Now I know. Would you care to suggest a really bad American-sponsored foreign dictator whom we could say was worse than Pinochet, and assume his name instead in my original post?
May I make another suggestion? Start up a page about Pinochet's reputation. You feel strongly about it. I don't. This is the windmill I tilt at.
"...in the exceedingly unlikely event that the administration betrays all its promises..."
The promises in Feith's Senate testimony seem inconsistent. They sound noble but taken as stated they allow a wide range of negative outcomes. These are promises that look tailor-made for breaking without penalty. If we are going to kill innocent Iraqis, we owe it to the survivors to put something good in place, not just a harsh regime that compares favorably by body count to Hussien's.
I appreciate that you'd be willing to criticize Bush and even campaign against him if he set up a dictatorship in post-conquest Iraq. I don't think that would be enough for me if I endorsed war. I'd want to make sure there were strong gaurentees of real democracy, unabiguously stated, before we went in. Something that a US politician might loose his job over, maybe face a jail term for if the promise was broken.
And I was not being condescending in my earlier post. I was pointing out an irony. It's OK, though. No need to apologize.
I just happened across this article, re the Kurds and US plans for Iraq.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
I am not attempting to "rehabilitate" Pinochet. I take that as another uncalled-for remark.
Not one single thing I've said is unsupported by the historical record. And my point remains: if we could get Saddam to stop all human rights abuses (as we got Pinochet to do) and submit to democratic elections (as we got Pinochet to do), Iraq and the rest of the world would be a lot better off. Wouldn't it?
There is no dictator the U.S. has ever supported -- "support" being a very slippery term, given our record of working with tyrants when no better choice was available -- who is as bad as Saddam Hussein, save perhaps Saddam Hussein himself.
Thank you for the article on the angry Kurds. I'm not surprised that they're upset.
I guess we'll call "no harm no foul" and I'll just say that anyone who believes I am attempting to "rehabilitate" Pinochet should simply read what I actually said.
"Mr. Barrett, I am not attempting to "rehabilitate" Pinochet. I take that as another uncalled-for remark."
LOL! OK, I don't know what yor intentions are with regard to Pinochet's record. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Also, I owe you a thank you. In the course of our discussion and against my better judgement I have reviewed web sites about Pinochet and Allende. It is an interesting story. I really wish you would set up a page about it: I'd be happy to contribute. Thank you.
"...if we could get Saddam to stop all human rights abuses (as we got Pinochet to do) and submit to democratic elections (as we got Pinochet to do), Iraq and the rest of the world would be a lot better off. Wouldn't it?"
Yes. Not the best we could do, but better than now. Sadly, we are not going to do this "as we got Pinochet to do". We did not blockade Chile and we did not go to war with Chile. I find these two steps too hard to justify.
"There is no dictator the U.S. has ever supported ... who is as bad as Saddam Hussein, save perhaps Saddam Hussein himself."
You are on side with the Bush administration. I get it. Anyone reading your site gets it. There is no need for further proof of loyalty. You know what I was asking to help our discussion and you give me duck-speak.
You asked me earlier if I would vote for Bush in 2004. I avoided that question at the time because I didn't want to distract us from the main theme. There seems no point in worrying about that now. I am Canadian.
I've made my points as well as I can in the posts above regarding Feith's statements. I won't add anymore for now. I'll check back in the following days to see if anyone responds.
Yes, I am down with the administration's current plan as-stated. I expect it to make no one perfectly happy, but it looks practical and thoughtful to me.
They've also made it clear that they'll be flexible. Which also makes sense.
I'm sort of hoping that Turkey pulls out and that we wind up having to go in from different directions. I hate to hope that because it makes our military people's job harder. But then it leaves in the Kurds in a much better position, and I really feel for those folks.