There's an excellent Jonathan Schell article in the Nation (link below) arguing the "moral mission" of our time is not, as Condoleeza Rice would have us believe, the building of a democratic Iraq, but, rather, ending the US occupation of Iraq. He argues a conqueror is ill suited to such a task and to whatever degree a democratic Iraq can be built (and history suggests there's no guarantee it can be), the United Nations is much better suited to undertake the project.
He doesn't directly say this, but I think it's fair to argue a joint US/UN operation will simply discredit the UN by tarring them with the hatred Iraqis already have for the US. In addition, while losing is not always something to be joyously embraced, adoption of Schell's proposed course would help stall, and, one can hope, bring an end to the Bush Administration's imperialist policies.
Not surprisingly, Dennis Kucinich has already proposed a US withdrawal for Iraq. He advocates the introduction of UN peacekeepers to takeover the reconstruction of Iraq. He also wants the US to provide funds for reconstruction and wants the arrangement to provide for the planning of a transition from UN control to self-determination by the Iraqi people. I've linked below to his position.
I'm wondering what other DUers think about this. It seems the Democrats have four options (smarter people will be able to figure out additional options). Which would best serve the party?
1. Agree with Bush and agree to fund the additional $87 billion.
2. Use the appropriation request as an opportunity to excoriate the Bush Administration for its rush to war and its lack of a post-war policy, then reluctantly approve the $87 billion.
3. Excoriate, but refuse to approve the $87 billion unless the Bush Administration agrees to power sharing with the United Nations.
4. Refuse to approve the $87 billion, advocate an appropriate sum for reconstruction, and demand the Bush Administration agree to negotiate a withdrawal of US troops and a UN takeover of Iraq.
LINKS:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030728Iraqst.htmlKucinich Renews Calls For The US Withdrawal From Iraq“Assertions by the President, and his Administration, that the war is over and that our mission was accomplished, like their claims about Iraq’s ‘vast stockpiles’ of WMD’s, are false and misleading. This weekend, with the deaths of 5 US troops, we were once again reminded of the dangers facing US troops in what has become a quagmire. To date 243 US troops have died in Iraq.
“It is time that the United States begin the process of withdrawing our troops, and allow a UN peacekeeping force to take over the reconstruction of Iraq.
“This Administration has no exit strategy for removing US troops from harm’s way. It is now clear, that in their rush to war the Administration failed to adequately prepare for the post-invasion period.
“The United Nations must be brought in. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the US letting go of the contracting process.
“The UN must also take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq’s oil profits. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self- determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction.
more...
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16720The Importance of Losing the War
By Jonathan Schell, The Nation and TomDispatch.comThe basic mistake of American policy in Iraq is not that the Pentagon – believing the fairy tales told it by Iraqi exile groups and overriding State Department advice – forgot, when planning "regime change," to bring along a spare government to replace the one it was smashing.
The mistake was not that, once embarked on running the place, the administration did not send enough troops to do the job. Not that a civilian contingent to aid the soldiers was lacking. Not that the Baghdad museum, the Jordanian Embassy, the United Nations and Imam Ali mosque, among other places, were left unguarded. Not that no adequate police force, whether American or Iraqi, was provided to keep order generally. Not that the United States, seeking to make good that lack, then began to recruit men from the most hated and brutal of Saddam's agencies, the Mukhabarat.
<edit>
Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war – a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies. This is the true moral mission of our time (well, of the next few years, anyway).
The cost of leaving will certainly be high, just not anywhere near as high as trying to "stay the course," which can only magnify and postpone the disaster. And yet – regrettable to say – even if this difficult step is taken, no one should imagine that democracy will be achieved by this means. The great likelihood is something else – something worse: perhaps a recrudescence of dictatorship or civil war, or both. An interim period – probably very brief – of international trusteeship is the best solution, yet it is unlikely to be a good solution. It is merely better than any other recourse.
The good options have probably passed us by. They may never have existed. If the people of Iraq are given back their country, there isn't the slightest guarantee that they will use the privilege to create a liberal democracy. The creation of democracy is an organic process that must proceed from the will of the local people. Sometimes that will is present, more often it is not. Vietnam provides an example. Vietnam today enjoys the self-determination it battled to achieve for so long; but it has not become a democracy.
more...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
