[Mb-civic] Getting Out Of Iraq

Fri Dec 17 11:58:11 PST 2004

Getting Out Of Iraq

By Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus
 Posted on December 15, 2004, Printed on December 17, 2004
 http://www.alternet.org/story/20754/

As many members of Congress and President George W. Bush¹s administration
argue that it¹s unacceptable to leave Iraq as a failed state, it becomes
clearer every day that U.S. operations and policies are fueling violence and
instability. It¹s time for the government to directly confront the question
of how to fulfill U.S. obligations under international law, restore basic
security, and responsibly withdraw U.S. forces.

Central to this point, Washington must not simply abandon the Iraqi people
to the chaos it has created. But the U.S. needs to accept the fact that
continued military occupation by the U.S. will only cause more casualties,
foster division in the country, and keep reconstruction from advancing.

In the six months since the transition to Iraqi sovereignty officially got
underway on June 28, 2004, the human cost of the U.S. occupation of that
country has risen dramatically. U.S. military deaths have topped 1,200. A
study published in The Lancet has estimated that 100,000 Iraqis have died as
a result of war and conditions under occupation. Norwegian researchers, the
United Nations, and the Iraqi government recently reported that malnutrition
among the youngest children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the U.S.-led
invasion of that country. And soaring rates of disease and a crippled health
system are threatening to kill more than have died in the aftermath of the
war.

This dynamic is unlikely to change in the near term. The Bush
administration¹s stated two-pronged plan of staging elections and putting
Iraqis in charge of their own security is clearly the right objective. But
on the ground this is failing for a variety of reasons. Iraqi elections held
under U.S. military occupation and under election rules written by the U.S
will lack legitimacy both inside and outside Iraq. Furthermore, the lack of
UN election experts on the ground, coupled with continued fighting, and the
fact that any polling location guarded by U.S. troops will be a military
target, means free and fair elections can¹t take place as scheduled in
January.

Iraqis need to be in charge of their own security. But the Iraqi police and
National Guard have largely failed to provide security for the Iraqi people
and the situation appears to be only worsening. Iraq¹s security forces are
fighting in a war that puts anyone who is physically near or associated with
the U.S. occupation at risk. At the same time, soldiers and police officers
lack adequate training. One measure of the problem can be seen in their
death toll. Over 1,500 Iraqi security force recruits and 750 Iraqi police
officers have been killed. Iraqi security forces can¹t succeed as long as
the U.S. is leading a war on the ground in Iraq.

As Larry Diamond, who worked as a senior adviser to the Coalition
Provisional Authority, has noted, ³There are really no good options,² at
this point. But there are better options than the policies being currently
pursued. The following five steps would lessen the violence and insecurity
in Iraq:

1) Decrease U.S. troops and end offensive operations: As a first step to
withdrawal, the U.S. should declare an immediate cease-fire and reduce the
number of troops deployed in Iraq. Instead, the Bush administration has done
the opposite, increasing the number of troops stationed there by 12,000.
Increased offensive operations will only escalate the violence and make Iraq
less secure and less safe. The U.S. should pull troops out of major cities
so that greater manpower can be directed to guarding the borders to stem the
flow of foreign fighters and money being used to fund the resistance. If
Iraqi security forces need assistance maintaining order, they have the
option of inviting in regional forces, as proposed by Saudi Arabia. They
could also reinstate the former Iraqi army, which was well-trained, after
purging upper-level Saddam supporters and providing additional
counterinsurgency training to deal with the current war. Once implemented,
these measures would allow for total withdrawal of U.S. forces.

2) Declare that the U.S. has no intention to maintain a permanent or
long-term military presence or bases in Iraq: Congress needs to make clear
that it is committed to the principle of responsible withdrawal of all U.S.
troops from Iraq. By making this statement through a congressional
resolution, the U.S. would openly acknowledge that it has no interest in
controlling Middle Eastern oil or in suppressing Muslims, hence depriving
insurgents of their central organizing message. Without such a resolution,
Iraqis have little reason to believe that our present actions are nothing
greater than a plan to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq and
make the occupation a permanent feature of Iraqi life.

3) Do more to restore services: Moving control of reconstruction from the
Defense Department to the State Department has been a positive step as it
removes an agency designed to fight war from the much different task of
nation building. But a much stronger statement to the Iraqi people would be
to go even further and give Iraqis direct authority over reconstruction
funding. The U.S. government and its contractors have failed to restore
public services and public safety, strengthen institutions, or provide jobs.
Meanwhile, billions of appropriated dollars remain unspent. By giving Iraqis
control over reconstruction funds more Iraqis will get jobs and projects
will be better targeted to the needs of Iraqis. And lowering the
unemployment rate will weaken the potential for recruitment into the
insurgency.

4) Postpone national elections and hold elections for provincial
governments: Given that war is raging in most of Iraq¹s Sunni regions,
prospects for free and fair elections in January are dim. Given the reality
on the ground, the U.S. should call for a delay of national elections while
helping Iraqis hold elections for local governments. Local governments
should be given the power so far denied to Iraqis. They need budget
oversight and dedicated funding derived from the country's oil exports.
Additionally, they need the authority to work with Iraqi ministries to
assess local needs, decide which reconstruction efforts should get priority,
and deliver services. They would also have an oversight role for
expenditures. Once provincial elections are completed, illustrating that the
U.S. is willing to cede power, and a guarantee that Sunnis will be included
in the political process is in place, national elections will become more
viable.

5) Impose conditions on U.S. spending for the Iraq War: To date the U.S. has
spent $151 billion on the Iraq War. It¹s important to support the troops,
but a recent exchange between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the
troops illustrated the safety of the troops has not been Washington¹s
primary concern. Congress should exercise its prerogative in shaping U.S.
policy in Iraq by tying a forthcoming supplemental spending bill now rumored
to be between $70-100 billion to the previous four points. At the same time,
lawmakers should put the brakes on the rampant war profiteering that has
caused widespread waste, fraud, and abuse. To do this, the U.S. must stop
awarding no-bid contracts and open-ended, ³cost-plus,² multi-billion dollar
contracts such as those awarded to Halliburton and Bechtel and increase
oversight over the military and its contractors. Finally, the U.S. should
cancel previously awarded contracts to companies whose workforces don¹t have
a majority of Iraqis.

The current U.S. approach in Iraq is too costly in human and financial terms
to Americans at home, our troops abroad, and to the very people this war was
supposed to liberate. More importantly, it isn¹t improving Iraq¹s stability
or security. These five steps represent an ambitious new direction for the
United States and for the Iraqi people.