Smeagol-Gollum
13-04-2004, 01:23
Iraq is unravelling. Here's what must be done
April 13, 2004
Iraqi moderates are too scared to stand up. They need the support of the entire world, writes Thomas L. Friedman.
The US operation in Iraq is hanging by a thread. If it has any hope of surviving this Hobbesian moment, we need three conversations to happen fast: George Bush needs to talk to his father, the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons - and daughters - and we need to talk to the Iraqi Governing Council.
President Bush, please call home. You need some of your father's wisdom right now. The old man may not have had the vision thing, but he did have the prudence thing. He understood that he could not expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait without a real coalition that included Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other key Arab states, not to mention all the NATO allies and the United Nations. America would not have had the legitimacy to operate in that theatre for the length of time required without Arab and European cover.
What was true for expelling Saddam from Kuwait was triply true for expelling Saddam from Iraq and is quadruply true for expelling the diehard Baathists from Fallujah and the Shiite radicals from Najaf. The deeper we try to penetrate Iraqi society, especially with tanks and troops, the more legitimacy we need.
advertisement
advertisement
When things were going all right in Baghdad with the political process, America could have its way by buying legitimacy with cash or imposing it with muscle. But when you are talking about killing rebellious Iraqi young men and clerics, you can't buy the legitimacy for that, and you can't compel it. Iraqi moderates are just too frightened to stand up and defend that on their own. Indeed, they will run away from the United States. Only a real coalition of the UN, Arab and Muslim states and Europe might bolster them. It may be too late for that now, but the Bush folks had better try.
If it is America alone against the Iraqi street, we lose. If it is the world against the Iraqi street, we have a chance.
And we need two other conversations. I have nothing but respect for the Kurds of Iraq. They have a democratic soul. But in the debate in the governing council over Iraq's interim constitution they overreached, and the Bush team made a big mistake in letting them overreach, by giving the Kurds effective veto power over Iraq's final constitution. I believe the Kurds need and are entitled to some form of protection. But too many moderate Shiites, led by Ayatollah al-Sistani, are feeling that the Iraqi interim constitution tilts so far in favour of minority rights that it unfairly limits majority (read Shiite) rights.
If the interim constitution has any hope of surviving this fighting, and being accepted by the moderate Shiite majority, it needs to be recalibrated - through a dialogue among Iraq's factional leaders and with us. Otherwise, a stable transfer of power is impossible (if it isn't already).
Arab leaders also have a vital interest in working with the United States to quell the turmoil in Iraq and to re-empower the potentially moderate centre. As unpleasant as it may be for them to help the Bush team - and as worrisome as free elections in Iraq might be to unelected leaders of the Arab world - having oil-rich Iraq taken over partly by Baathist radicals happy to work with al-Qaeda and partly by Shiite radicals happy to work with Iran will be even worse. It will empower radicals across the Arab region, and freeze the infant reform process there.
And that's why the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons and daughters. If the Arabs miss yet another decade of reform, because Iraq spins out of control while the world speeds ahead, they will find themselves outside the world system and dealing with plenty of their own Fallujahs. Talk to Arab youth today, and you will find so many of them utterly despondent at the complete drift in their societies. They are stuck in a sandstorm, where opportunities for young people to realise their potential are fading.
What is going on in Iraq today is not only a war between radical Islam and America, it is, more importantly, a war within Islam - between those who want an Islam with a human and progressive face that can meld with the world and those who want an Islam that is exclusivist and hostile to the world.
So, yes, we need all the Arab and Muslim support we can get to see Iraq through to some decent outcome. But the Arab-Muslim world needs a decent outcome in Iraq just as much - if not more.
Thomas L. Friedman is foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times.
SOURCE> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/12/1081621892080.html
COMMENT >
Away from the issue of whether the war was or wasn't just.
The present situation is a mess, and looks like deteriorating further.
I seem to recall the the most recent outbreaks of violence were in response to a ham-fisted attempt to close down a newspaper. This sort of action only makes the US stated aim of creating a democracy look absurd, and lend an air of credibility to the newspaper that it may not otherwise have had.
Welcome comments on the "what now".
Sensible suggestions please, none of the "nuke 'em all" trolling.
April 13, 2004
Iraqi moderates are too scared to stand up. They need the support of the entire world, writes Thomas L. Friedman.
The US operation in Iraq is hanging by a thread. If it has any hope of surviving this Hobbesian moment, we need three conversations to happen fast: George Bush needs to talk to his father, the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons - and daughters - and we need to talk to the Iraqi Governing Council.
President Bush, please call home. You need some of your father's wisdom right now. The old man may not have had the vision thing, but he did have the prudence thing. He understood that he could not expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait without a real coalition that included Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other key Arab states, not to mention all the NATO allies and the United Nations. America would not have had the legitimacy to operate in that theatre for the length of time required without Arab and European cover.
What was true for expelling Saddam from Kuwait was triply true for expelling Saddam from Iraq and is quadruply true for expelling the diehard Baathists from Fallujah and the Shiite radicals from Najaf. The deeper we try to penetrate Iraqi society, especially with tanks and troops, the more legitimacy we need.
advertisement
advertisement
When things were going all right in Baghdad with the political process, America could have its way by buying legitimacy with cash or imposing it with muscle. But when you are talking about killing rebellious Iraqi young men and clerics, you can't buy the legitimacy for that, and you can't compel it. Iraqi moderates are just too frightened to stand up and defend that on their own. Indeed, they will run away from the United States. Only a real coalition of the UN, Arab and Muslim states and Europe might bolster them. It may be too late for that now, but the Bush folks had better try.
If it is America alone against the Iraqi street, we lose. If it is the world against the Iraqi street, we have a chance.
And we need two other conversations. I have nothing but respect for the Kurds of Iraq. They have a democratic soul. But in the debate in the governing council over Iraq's interim constitution they overreached, and the Bush team made a big mistake in letting them overreach, by giving the Kurds effective veto power over Iraq's final constitution. I believe the Kurds need and are entitled to some form of protection. But too many moderate Shiites, led by Ayatollah al-Sistani, are feeling that the Iraqi interim constitution tilts so far in favour of minority rights that it unfairly limits majority (read Shiite) rights.
If the interim constitution has any hope of surviving this fighting, and being accepted by the moderate Shiite majority, it needs to be recalibrated - through a dialogue among Iraq's factional leaders and with us. Otherwise, a stable transfer of power is impossible (if it isn't already).
Arab leaders also have a vital interest in working with the United States to quell the turmoil in Iraq and to re-empower the potentially moderate centre. As unpleasant as it may be for them to help the Bush team - and as worrisome as free elections in Iraq might be to unelected leaders of the Arab world - having oil-rich Iraq taken over partly by Baathist radicals happy to work with al-Qaeda and partly by Shiite radicals happy to work with Iran will be even worse. It will empower radicals across the Arab region, and freeze the infant reform process there.
And that's why the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons and daughters. If the Arabs miss yet another decade of reform, because Iraq spins out of control while the world speeds ahead, they will find themselves outside the world system and dealing with plenty of their own Fallujahs. Talk to Arab youth today, and you will find so many of them utterly despondent at the complete drift in their societies. They are stuck in a sandstorm, where opportunities for young people to realise their potential are fading.
What is going on in Iraq today is not only a war between radical Islam and America, it is, more importantly, a war within Islam - between those who want an Islam with a human and progressive face that can meld with the world and those who want an Islam that is exclusivist and hostile to the world.
So, yes, we need all the Arab and Muslim support we can get to see Iraq through to some decent outcome. But the Arab-Muslim world needs a decent outcome in Iraq just as much - if not more.
Thomas L. Friedman is foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times.
SOURCE> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/12/1081621892080.html
COMMENT >
Away from the issue of whether the war was or wasn't just.
The present situation is a mess, and looks like deteriorating further.
I seem to recall the the most recent outbreaks of violence were in response to a ham-fisted attempt to close down a newspaper. This sort of action only makes the US stated aim of creating a democracy look absurd, and lend an air of credibility to the newspaper that it may not otherwise have had.
Welcome comments on the "what now".
Sensible suggestions please, none of the "nuke 'em all" trolling.