Foreign Policy's question on Iraqi exit (5 parts)

[nietzsche]

Avoiding Betrayal

By Lawrence F. Kaplan Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

Critics of the decision to go to war would do well to recognize that we are no longer debating the merits of invading Iraq; we are debating the merits of abandoning Iraq. Now that the United States has turned that country inside out and created conditions that Iraqis do not have the means to remedy alone, a premature withdrawal would hardly right what most advocates of doing so consider to be the wrongs of the past. And greater wrongs do exist. One is indifference; another is betrayal. If we “bring the troops home” before stability is returned to Iraq, the United States would be guilty of both.

Aside from the staggering moral calculation involved in leaving to its fate a country the United States has invaded and destabilized, how would a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq at this early date work in practical terms? It wouldn’t. The result would be a strategic catastrophe. Preventing Iraq from coming apart at the seams means preventing the country from becoming what Afghanistan was until recently—a vacuum filled by terrorist organizations, which is what one National Intelligence Council report suggested Iraq is now fast becoming. Only an Iraqi government that possesses a relative monopoly on the means of violence can prevent this outcome. Alas, Iraq’s security forces are nowhere near their goal of fielding sufficient numbers of police, national guard, and soldiers. In the meantime, then, either the U.S. military will fill the gap or no one will.

This would seem to be a rather obvious truth. It certainly is to Iraq’s leaders. Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari predicts, “If the United States pulls out too fast, there would be chaos,” while his colleague, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, calls the prospect “a recipe for disaster.” Yet from the vantage point of the United States, whose troops continue to bleed in Iraq, it isn’t so obvious. Hence, Americans must ask themselves exactly what they owe Iraq. If U.S. policy truly has a moral component, which I believe it does, the answer must be something better—or, at the very least, not worse—than what went before. That does not mean garrisoning Iraq in perpetuity. But it does mean staying until, at a minimum, Iraqis have the ability to subdue forces unleashed by our actions.




Lawrence F. Kaplan is senior editor at The New Republic and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

[nietzsche]

Get Out Now

By George A. Lopez Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

The new Iraqi authorities must be able to challenge the insurgency on nationalist, political, and religious grounds. But Iraqi leaders will not have the cultural and political space to do so unless the United States takes several difficult steps.

First, the United States must announce and execute a phased withdrawal of troops to be completed by February 2006. For this action to be credible, the United States must also scale down its embassy, making it equivalent in size to others in the region. Next, the United States must dismantle the military bases now under construction to remove the image of an Iraqi government dependent on U.S. force.

There are two principal objections to this strategy. The tactical objection is that an announced deadline provides insurgents with a substantial advantage in their own planning. In the political realm, critics assert that these steps constitute a “cut and run” strategy that will be interpreted by both our allies and enemies as a sign of weakness.

The first claim is not credible. U.S. leaders have been consistently incorrect about the scope, motivations, and strategies of the insurgency. During the past two years, the administration has announced that attacks would ebb after the capture of Saddam Hussein, after the handover of authority by the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iyad Allawi interim government, after the reconquest of Fallujah, and after the January election. Instead, the insurgency has intensified and solidified. It is now apparent that the pervasive U.S. presence motivates quite disparate dissenters to spread anarchy. Announced deadlines will provide Iraqi authorities the best bargaining leverage they can have in this environment.

The fear that aggressive withdrawal will signal U.S. weakness misses the point. Iraq’s desire to be rid of the occupiers is clear. A January 2005 Zogby opinion poll found that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favor U.S. withdrawal “either immediately or after an elected government is in place.” Withdrawing in the face of such strong national consensus is not a policy of weakness but one of appropriate deference to the wishes of the Iraqi people. And through its subsequent actions, the United States ultimately will be able to determine how that withdrawal is judged. A continued commitment to economic aid and to the political choices Iraqis make for themselves will provide ample positive data for history. A U.S. withdrawal would be a victory of good sense over exaggerated fears.




George A. Lopez is senior fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

[nietzsche]

A Job Half Done

By Kenneth R. Himes Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

With great efficiency and military skill, the United States won an unjust war in Iraq. Then, with poor planning and inept management, the administration put at risk a just peace. Given this shoddy scorecard, should the United States simply withdraw from a place it never should have invaded?

Just war theorists are used to inquiring into the justice of a war’s cause (jus ad bellum) and its conduct (jus in bello). Now we must probe the jus post bellum: What obligations does the occupier have and when are they discharged?

St. Augustine, one of the founding figures of the just war tradition, helped us understand that peace is not simply the absence of conflict. This understanding suggests that America’s work is only half done—if that. The invasion has created a moral obligation for the victors to maintain a measure of social order, while reestablishing the government and institutions of the defeated nation. The moral imperative during the occupation is Iraqi well-being, not American interests.

Accordingly, the United States and its allies must not depart until basic social institutions are in place or until it is clear that occupying forces are either unwanted or unable to contribute to the creation of those institutions. For those Americans eager for their country to get out of Iraq, it is tempting to argue that the U.S. presence is the cause of the insurgency and that withdrawal is already ethically proper. But that is only half correct: The insurgents will oppose any non-Sunni-dominated government, and the present Iraqi security forces are still unable to maintain order.

The United States should do all it can to see that a political regime, with the approval of a majority of Iraqis, assumes sovereign authority promptly. The January elections gave the next government a healthy chance at legitimacy, but the United States must still ensure the stability of the new government. When an independent and representative government of Iraq assumes power and tells the United States to leave, it should withdraw speedily. If it asks foreign forces to continue their presence or provide other forms of assistance, the United States must be open to the request. An unjust war must not become an excuse for leaving behind an unjust peace.




Kenneth R. Himes is chair of the theology department at Boston College.

[nietzsche]

Tightly Tied to the New Iraq

By Jean Bethke Elshtain Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

To wage a just war, states must aim to punish aggressors or remedy a massive injustice. The goal is a more just situation than the one that existed before the resort to armed force, and the occupying power is obliged to do everything it can to prevent a worse outcome. Given this rough and ready framework of evaluation, what does an ethical exit require?

First, the country that has committed to, and completed, military operations must assess its degree of responsibility for the postwar situation. If its role was minor, its responsibility is proportionately diminished. In the case of Iraq, of course, the United States and its allies bear the heaviest burden. The United States in particular has a direct responsibility for postwar Iraq that no other country or organization shares. This state of affairs is obviously not ideal. A major power should bring as many allies on board as possible when it commits to war. Given what we know of U.N. stalling and ineptitude where dictatorial regimes are concerned, however, the formal involvement of the international community will often be impossible. The international community has a huge stake in the outcome and should help rather than hinder, but ultimate ethical responsibility lies with the powers that unseated Saddam Hussein.

The countries responsible for the postwar situation bear a major burden in repairing infrastructural and environmental harm that is the direct result of military operations. Civilian affairs teams should first concentrate on the basic necessities of life—water and electricity, and then schools, hospitals, and other basic institutions of civic order. Repairing the political infrastructure is just as essential to creating a just peace. That means leaving the people in the invaded country, as well as the wider international environment, in better shape than before the intervention. Installing legitimate authority in Iraq is a delicate balancing act.

The occupying powers must also provide defense and security. If a country has been disarmed, the occupying power has taken on responsibility for its security and protection from external and internal enemies. How long this provision will be, and how extensive, will depend on the threats it faces and the speed with which Iraq can rebuild its own defense and internal security capability.

Finally, the occupying powers must react if yet another Saddam-type regime of fear begins to emerge. Even as the United States protected postwar Western Europe—including a new democratic state in West Germany—throughout the Cold War and decades of bipolarity, so the United States must remain tightly tied to a new Iraq. Just as the Allies would never have permitted a Nazi state to reemerge in Germany, so must the United States show vigilance with Iraq, should internal forces of stability and decency falter and collapse. The Iraqi people must not be victimized again.




Jean Bethke Elshtain is professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago·s Divinity School.

[nietzsche]

An Islamic Solution

By Sohail H. Hashmi Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

As the United States struggles for the best way to get out of Iraq, the Muslim world should contemplate how to get in. Muslim civil, political, and religious leaders must move beyond the resentment and hostility engendered by the Iraq war. Not one Muslim state committed troops to the “coalition of the willing,” and few have assisted beyond token measures in the postwar stabilization of the country. Animosity toward the United States and its policies in the region has grown steadily in the Muslim world. Perhaps most significant, some Islamic scholars have not only condemned the American invasion but issued fatwas calling on Muslims to assist the insurgency.

After the January elections in Iraq, however, Muslims cannot afford to continue harping on the wrongs of the war. Islamic ethics require that they help their Iraqi brethren build a more peaceful and prosperous country. As the Koran commands, “Let not enmity of any people divert you from justice. Be just: That is closest to piety.”

Above all, Islamic ethics require that Muslims refrain from materially or morally assisting murderers and terrorists masquerading as mujahideen. Because many Muslims sympathize with the insurgents’ goal of driving the United States out of Iraq, they tacitly accept the atrocities these insurgents are committing. Kidnapping, torture, beheading, and the random killing of civilians through suicide bombings are not the work of mujahideen. They are the acts of criminals and should be firmly denounced as such by all Muslims.

Muslim troops approved by the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference should replace American, British, and other European forces as interim peacekeepers until Iraqi security forces are properly trained. This force cannot come from countries neighboring Iraq, which might have their own designs on its territory, but it could draw on troops from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, or Bangladesh.

The drafting of the country’s constitution will undoubtedly stoke old controversies within and outside Iraq about the compatibility of Islam and democracy. These disputes should not be allowed to divert attention from a central moral principle: the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination. The constitution that best provides for the security, welfare, and justice of all Iraqi citizens—Sunni and Shia, Muslim and non-Muslim—will inherently be an Islamic constitution. A successful Iraqi democracy will benefit all Arabs and all Muslims; a collapse of the Iraqi experiment into civil war will help no one.


Muslim leaders have an obligation to avoid the mistakes they committed in the lead-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, not just in 2003 but in 1991 as well. They had an obligation to isolate and to remove the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran, terrorized his own people, and invaded Kuwait. Yet for decades, Arab leaders either did nothing or actively supported Saddam. Their action and inaction made U.S. intervention all too easy.

Now that Saddam is facing trial for crimes against humanity, he should be tried under both international and Islamic law. Iranians and Kuwaitis should be allowed to participate in the trial, not just as aggrieved citizens of a foreign country but as Muslims victimized by a dictator who disguised himself as a Muslim ruler. One famous hadith, or saying of the prophet Muhammad, states: “The highest form of jihad is speaking truth to the tyrant.” Holding Saddam accountable under Islamic law will help other victims speak truth to their tyrants.



Sohail H. Hashmi is associate professor of international relations at Mount Holyoke College.

[empath]

if we stay, when do we stop asking this question? This adventure is doomed to failure. No matter how long we stay, Iraq is going to collapse into chaos and civil war. Might as well get it over with now.

[empath]

I think we should withdraw in 6 months, pick a side to support with money and guns and let the Iraqis fight it out. I don't see anything good coming out of American troops staying there.

[NYGblue]

Originally Posted by empath

if we stay, when do we stop asking this question? This adventure is doomed to failure. No matter how long we stay, Iraq is going to collapse into chaos and civil war. Might as well get it over with now.

Thats not a foregone conclusion, and I think it would be wrong to leave... as I see it, we committed a wrong in going in, but can commit a right by leaving when things are calm. Of course if another 5 years go by and nothing changes, perhaps reevaluation will be necessary. I think the question needs to be, how much londer should we stay before leaving. Is failure acceptable, when would it be acceptable. Personally I think the US has an obligation to the people of Iraq. A lot of blood was spilled, something positive needs to come out of this.

[DeAtHmOnGeR bEaR]

Excellent read - thanks.

This is pretty much where I'm at...

Originally Posted by nietzsche

A Job Half Done

By Kenneth R. Himes Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

With great efficiency and military skill, the United States won an unjust war in Iraq. Then, with poor planning and inept management, the administration put at risk a just peace. Given this shoddy scorecard, should the United States simply withdraw from a place it never should have invaded?

Just war theorists are used to inquiring into the justice of a war’s cause (jus ad bellum) and its conduct (jus in bello). Now we must probe the jus post bellum: What obligations does the occupier have and when are they discharged?

St. Augustine, one of the founding figures of the just war tradition, helped us understand that peace is not simply the absence of conflict. This understanding suggests that America’s work is only half done—if that. The invasion has created a moral obligation for the victors to maintain a measure of social order, while reestablishing the government and institutions of the defeated nation. The moral imperative during the occupation is Iraqi well-being, not American interests.

Accordingly, the United States and its allies must not depart until basic social institutions are in place or until it is clear that occupying forces are either unwanted or unable to contribute to the creation of those institutions. For those Americans eager for their country to get out of Iraq, it is tempting to argue that the U.S. presence is the cause of the insurgency and that withdrawal is already ethically proper. But that is only half correct: The insurgents will oppose any non-Sunni-dominated government, and the present Iraqi security forces are still unable to maintain order.

The United States should do all it can to see that a political regime, with the approval of a majority of Iraqis, assumes sovereign authority promptly. The January elections gave the next government a healthy chance at legitimacy, but the United States must still ensure the stability of the new government. When an independent and representative government of Iraq assumes power and tells the United States to leave, it should withdraw speedily. If it asks foreign forces to continue their presence or provide other forms of assistance, the United States must be open to the request. An unjust war must not become an excuse for leaving behind an unjust peace.

Kenneth R. Himes is chair of the theology department at Boston College.

...with a smattering of this...

An Islamic Solution

By Sohail H. Hashmi Page 1 of 1


May/June 2005

As the United States struggles for the best way to get out of Iraq, the Muslim world should contemplate how to get in. Muslim civil, political, and religious leaders must move beyond the resentment and hostility engendered by the Iraq war. Not one Muslim state committed troops to the “coalition of the willing,” and few have assisted beyond token measures in the postwar stabilization of the country. Animosity toward the United States and its policies in the region has grown steadily in the Muslim world. Perhaps most significant, some Islamic scholars have not only condemned the American invasion but issued fatwas calling on Muslims to assist the insurgency.

After the January elections in Iraq, however, Muslims cannot afford to continue harping on the wrongs of the war. Islamic ethics require that they help their Iraqi brethren build a more peaceful and prosperous country. As the Koran commands, “Let not enmity of any people divert you from justice. Be just: That is closest to piety.”

Above all, Islamic ethics require that Muslims refrain from materially or morally assisting murderers and terrorists masquerading as mujahideen. Because many Muslims sympathize with the insurgents’ goal of driving the United States out of Iraq, they tacitly accept the atrocities these insurgents are committing. Kidnapping, torture, beheading, and the random killing of civilians through suicide bombings are not the work of mujahideen. They are the acts of criminals and should be firmly denounced as such by all Muslims.

Muslim troops approved by the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference should replace American, British, and other European forces as interim peacekeepers until Iraqi security forces are properly trained. This force cannot come from countries neighboring Iraq, which might have their own designs on its territory, but it could draw on troops from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, or Bangladesh.

The drafting of the country’s constitution will undoubtedly stoke old controversies within and outside Iraq about the compatibility of Islam and democracy. These disputes should not be allowed to divert attention from a central moral principle: the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination. The constitution that best provides for the security, welfare, and justice of all Iraqi citizens—Sunni and Shia, Muslim and non-Muslim—will inherently be an Islamic constitution. A successful Iraqi democracy will benefit all Arabs and all Muslims; a collapse of the Iraqi experiment into civil war will help no one.


Muslim leaders have an obligation to avoid the mistakes they committed in the lead-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, not just in 2003 but in 1991 as well. They had an obligation to isolate and to remove the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran, terrorized his own people, and invaded Kuwait. Yet for decades, Arab leaders either did nothing or actively supported Saddam. Their action and inaction made U.S. intervention all too easy.

Now that Saddam is facing trial for crimes against humanity, he should be tried under both international and Islamic law. Iranians and Kuwaitis should be allowed to participate in the trial, not just as aggrieved citizens of a foreign country but as Muslims victimized by a dictator who disguised himself as a Muslim ruler. One famous hadith, or saying of the prophet Muhammad, states: “The highest form of jihad is speaking truth to the tyrant.” Holding Saddam accountable under Islamic law will help other victims speak truth to their tyrants.

Sohail H. Hashmi is associate professor of international relations at Mount Holyoke College.

[DeAtHmOnGeR bEaR]

I agree - I'm mostly with those two as well.

So, I've changed my mind over the issue of if we should withdraw now or not... if nothing else we owe the people over there not to leave them with the potential of an even worse situation that the one we "liberated" them from.

So - Bush is going to outline his plan in detail tonight at 8 hopefully - I wait to see what he intends to do.

[nietzsche]

From the White House:

Today, President Bush will address the American people in a prime time speech to mark one-year since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people.



The President will discuss the importance of completing the mission in Iraq and the blow that a free Iraq will deliver to the terrorists. He has talked about the difficulties and dangers that remain and he will talk about the nature of the enemy we face.



The President will thank the troops and their families for their tremendous sacrifice as well as discuss in specifics the path forward to victory. He will talk about the importance of training and equipping the Iraqi security forces so that they're able to defend themselves, and he will recognize the determination the Iraqi people are showing to build a free, democratic and peaceful future.

[DeAtHmOnGeR bEaR]

Yeah - I'm actually going to sit down and watch this pretty closely tonight. I want to see a real plan - show that we're still actively doing something rather than just reacting to the situation.

[empath]

Originally Posted by nietzsche

From the White House:

Today, President Bush will address the American people in a prime time speech to mark one-year since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people.



The President will discuss the importance of completing the mission in Iraq and the blow that a free Iraq will deliver to the terrorists. He has talked about the difficulties and dangers that remain and he will talk about the nature of the enemy we face.



The President will thank the troops and their families for their tremendous sacrifice as well as discuss in specifics the path forward to victory. He will talk about the importance of training and equipping the Iraqi security forces so that they're able to defend themselves, and he will recognize the determination the Iraqi people are showing to build a free, democratic and peaceful future.

The networks are going to actually bother showing that crap? Isn't there a re-run of American Idol they can show or something?

[DeAtHmOnGeR bEaR]

Why do you think it's crap?

I mean, if it's the same as it's been before then it's crap, but everything I'm hearing right now indicates that he's going to be much more serious and on-topic tonight. He not faced intense public pressure telling him to pull out from Iraq yet, but I'm sure it'll come to that soon if something isn't done....