State of the Union: Iraq
The President Wednesday night pre-empted Democratic demands for a timetable on withdrawal from Iraq. In the Democratic response, Stepford House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made exactly that demand. She was wrong to do so, for reasons the president gave. But the president himself was wrong about withdrawal from Iraq. America hasn’t left Germany or Japan, yet. What makes anyone think Iraq is different?
For the sake of accuracy, here is exactly what Mr. Bush said as proudly lifted from CNN's website:
We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.
And Ms. Pelosi said, “We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight.” She, then, went on to enumerate three things that must occur as part of a Democratic plan for American withdrawal. “First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible . . . . Second, Iraq's economic development must be accelerated . . . . Third, regional diplomacy must be intensified.”
“The Pelosi Plan” is probably too grandiose a name for it, but the three conditions are all correct. Without them, American forces can’t reasonably leave – unless the White House decides to, in the congresswoman’s phrase, “slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos.” Unfortunately, these conditions are unlikely to be achievable in a timeframe measured in less than years, and more probably in decades.
To take the congresswoman’s middle point first, economic development doesn’t occur in a quarter or two. It is the result of years of work both by the government to establish the necessary legal framework for the market, and by the market to simply permit people to work, earn and trade. One of the most remarkable development stories of the 20th Century was South Korea, which achieved average 10% per annum growth from 1970 to 1995 – giving it a per capita income of US$9,700 at the end of that year. Twenty five years to get there, and Iraqis starting from a point no more advantageous.
On security, why should an Iraqi government fight a civil war against Iraqi and foreign insurgents when it has Americans to do the fighting for it? A generation ago, it was called “Vietnamization,” and it worked only to the extent that, when the American’s left, the North Vietnam took over. There is a difference, and that is the Shi’ite militias. Thus far, they have been held in check by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who is turning out to be America’s trump card. Once a Shi’ite government is in place thanks to the latest elections, these militias may be able to form a core of a security force. Yet, these are not West Point grads, and such an army won’t be controllable. Perhaps a continuing, if diminished, American presence would keep it in line.
Which brings up the third point – regional diplomacy. Unlike the US, Iraq is in a dangerous neighborhood. Syria lies on one side, Iran on the other, the Arabian Peninsula to the south, and the former Soviet Union to the north. This means security demands are greater than those of, say, Luxembourg or Costa Rica, which have more benign neighbors. Better security treaties and disbarment would be a good idea – but again, these things don’t happen over night. Years of tough talking lie ahead, and Iran with The Bomb, might make it impossible.
The long and short of it is that American troops aren’t leaving Iraq for years yet, if ever.
© Copyright 2005 by
The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without
written consent.
Home
|
|
|
