The New York Times has published the following amazing article:
The [Iraqi] men refused to accept that their image of the United States might be distorted by the rigidly controlled Iraqi news media, which offer as unreal a picture of America as they do of Iraq. But when it was suggested that they could hardly wish to be liberated by a country they distrusted so much — that they might prefer President Bush to extend the United Nations weapons inspections and stand down the armada he has massed on Iraq's frontiers — they erupted in dismay.The whole article is worth reading. All the more amazing that the Times, which has been viscerally opposed to the war to an almost comical degree, would publish it."No, no, no!" one man said excitedly, and he seemed to speak for all. Iraqis, they said, wanted their freedom, and wanted it now. The message for Mr. Bush, they said, was that he should press ahead with war, but on conditions that spared ordinary Iraqis.
Anyone who understands America knows that our campaign of awe and wonder will spare civilian targets. Our technological abilities to avoid hurting civilians is simply amazing, and well-proven in recent conflicts. We are also a kind and decent people--and we will only need our GIs to be the fine people that they are to prove that to the people they liberate.
After that, it is up to America to prove that we are still their liberators. Fortunately, it will not be hard to do just that. It only takes an administration that keeps its word, and a modicum of political pressure from us here at home to make sure they continue do the right thing. Those of us who believe in democracy and human rights in Iraq will surely do.
And we certainly can do it. We did before. We can do it again. Just ask a Kosovar. Or a Kurd.
We just need to do it soon.
Those of us who believe in the liberation of Iraq should also keep in mind past history. Listen to what Joe Conason is saying here:
Critics of the antiwar demonstrators arraigned them for their naiveté -- an accusation always directed at advocates of peace, sometimes plausibly. But how naive are those who believe that the aim of the impending war is to "liberate" Iraq?
[Prime Minister Tony]Blair's rhetoric about democracy and human rights is already giving way to the more realistic prospects for postwar Iraq: namely, an authoritarian government that squashes the Kurdish and Shia peoples while protecting the Baathist remnant.
Kanan Makiya, one of the more respected figures in the Iraqi exile opposition, angrily exposed those U.S. plans in the London Observer on Sunday. This is Makiya's description of the plan presented to him by Zalmay Khalilzad, the former oil company representative who now serves as U.S. envoy, and other American officials:
"The United States is on the verge of committing itself to a post-Saddam plan for a military government in Baghdad with Americans appointed to head Iraqi ministries, and American soldiers to patrol the streets of Iraqi cities.
"The plan, as dictated to the Iraqi opposition in Ankara last week by a United States-led delegation, further envisages the appointment by the U.S. of an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government."
Meanwhile, the Turkish government is demanding billions in tribute and the right to invade northern Iraq and crush nascent Kurdistan.
The Independent's excellent Patrick Cockburn, reporting from Erbil where he interviewed Kurdish leaders, says they now "fear that a U.S.-led war against President Saddam might be the occasion for a Turkish effort to end the de facto independence enjoyed by Iraqi Kurds for more than a decade."
How terribly predictable it is that the supposed friends of Kurdish self-determination would betray them yet again.Is Conason right? I have no idea, but I wish that these scenarios were being more widely discussed here and elsewhere in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media.
Here is a link to another account of the meeting in Ankara from the Washington Post.
Ahmed Chalabi, the expatriate Iraqi who heads the [Iraqi National Congress], warned that the U.S. plan would leave Hussein's followers in charge even if Hussein were removed by a U.S. attack.
Chalabi, who did not attend the meetings in Ankara but was briefed on them, said the U.S. plan envisions that only the top two officials at each Iraqi ministry would be removed and replaced by U.S. military officers.
"Power is being handed essentially on a platter to the second echelon of the Baath Party and the Iraqi officer corps," said Makiya, an adjunct professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.
By leaving in place Hussein's "structure of power," Makiya said, the U.S. plan offers a leg up in eventual elections to the Sunni minority that has run Iraq for decades, even though a majority of Iraq's 23 million inhabitants follow the Shiite branch of Islam.
"I can see Saudi Arabia preferring this option over any other position," Makiya said, naming the country that regards itself as the protector of Islam's Sunni branch.
"What concerns us a lot is the perception of the Arab governments and their friends in Washington about the effect the example of Iraq will have on the future of the Arab world," Chalabi said.
Another opposition leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed. "The Shiites are not going to like this," he said.
The fact that the top guys at the INC are disturbed by these recent rumblings is unsettling to me.
Ultimately though I have to ask myself: is this report accurate? And if it is, will this be in the best interests of the United States?
I have no idea.
But shouldn't we be discussing this at greater length?
Here's what I see: after a year and a half of planning, the administration has come forth with a perfectly respectable plan that makes a great deal of sense. It involves a military occupation wherein Arab advisors from other states are brought in to help with cultural issues, keeping low-level Baathist functionaries who have no known record of human rights abuses in place to minimize chaos. Local elections will be held as soon as possible, then a constitutional convention wherein the Iraqis can decide their own destiny.
Meanwhile, the Turks have made it clear that their support--their allowing us to use their bases--is contingent upon there not being a Kurdish state. And low and behold, the government of Kurdistan has published a letter in the New York Times within the last two weeks, publicly declaring their goal of a unified Iraq and their willingness to give up the idea of a Kurdish state.
Some Iraqi activists are angry and don't like the plan. Some others in America are using this as an excuse to add still more handwringing toward the end of the game in order to... what? Suggest that we DO give Kurdistan their own state? Suggest that the whole thing be called off if anyone who was ever a member of the Baath party be involved in anything during reconstruction?
It strikes me as worth debating what the occupational government should be like. But it also strikes me that it is guaranteed that some in the Iraqi resistance won't like what we come up with, no matter what it is.
The plan presented so far by the administration looks solid to me. And when I see words like "quisling" and hear about how the Turks want to "crush" people, it sounds like someone with an agenda to me.
Some Iraqi activists are angry and don't like the plan...
"Some Iraqi activists?" Do you know who any of these people are? You ought to.
Start with Chalabi. Chalabi is something more than just "an activist."
His bona fides are pretty impressive. This is one hell of a guy. Besides being the titular head of the Iraqi National Congress, he has risked his life for the cause of defeating Saddam and liberating Iraq. Don't dismiss him so lightly.
Just be aware that the US State Department hates this guy. They screwed him once before after the Gulf War. And I'm waiting to see if they do it again.
I have read a lot of stuff by a lot of Iraqi resistance leaders. Are you suggesting that Chalabi is the most important one?
As one activist among many, what he has to say is important. But I don't believe he is the most important man in Iraq--he's just the one voicing the loudest objections at the moment.
Anything else I'd say would be repeating myself. Except that he won't get "screwed" just because he doesn't get everything his way. In reading all this stuff, all I see this amounting to is, "I don't want any Baathists in power, and I want a bigger seat at the table."
Maybe he'll get his wish. Maybe he won't. I suspect it'll be somewhere in the middle.
I have read a lot of stuff by a lot of Iraqi resistance leaders. Are you suggesting that Chalabi is the most important one?
I have no idea.
But I have been reading here and here and here that the administration wants him. So when he talks, I listen carefully.
On the other hand, are they running it up the flag-pole just to see who salutes it? Could this be just an old-fashioned trial-balloon sent aloft to see who complains?
I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
Look what's already happened: his detractors have come out in the media. The list includes officials right here at home in the State Dept. It's an old story about shady business dealings and bankruptcy, etc. Chalabi has answered the "charges" numerous times in the past, but the desk-jockies at the State Department apparently have had it in for the guy for at least two administrations.
Ultimately, I'd like to ask all of these guys some questions about their future plans for peacefully co-existing with Israel.
Thanks, I'll try to read those today.
As for the State Department: I've often had fantasies about someone going through there with a book full of pink slips. "Here ya go boys, early retirement time. See ya."
I suspect most Secretaries of State have had the same fantasy. Those people seem like they do whatever the hell they want over there. It's creepy.