All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Sunday, April 25, 2004

How to Get Out of Iraq

New York Review of Books (Liberal)
By Peter W. Galbraith
...Civil war and the breakup of Iraq are more likely outcomes than a successful transition to a pluralistic Western-style democracy...

...The best hope for holding Iraq together—and thereby avoiding civil war—is to let each of its major constituent communities have, to the extent possible, the system each wants...

...this means accepting that Kurdistan will continue to govern its own affairs and retain responsibility for its own security...

...If Kurdistan feels secure, it is in fact more likely to see advantages to cooperation with other parts of Iraq. Iraq's vast resources and the benefits that would accrue to Kurdistan from revenue sharing provide significant incentives for Kurdistan to remain part of Iraq, provided doing so does not open the way to new repression...

...In the south, Iraq's Shiites want an Islamic state. They are sufficiently confident of public support that they are pushing for early elections...

...Federalism—or even confederation —would make Kurdistan and the south governable because there are responsible parties there who can take over government functions...

...a three-state solution for Iraq, modeled on the constitution of post-Tito Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav model would give each of Iraq's constituent peoples their own republic. These republics would be self-governing, financially self-sustaining, and with their own territorial military and police forces. The central government would have a weak presidency rotating among the republics, with responsibilities limited to foreign affairs, monetary policy, and some coordination of defense policy. While resources would be owned by the republics, some sharing of oil revenues would be essential, since an impoverished Sunni region is in no one's interest...

...If the United States wanted to stay militarily in Iraq, Kurdistan is the place; Kurdish leaders have said they would like to see permanent US bases in Kurdistan...

...As for the Sunni Triangle...the United States may face the choice of turning power over to weak leaders and living with the resulting chaos...the three-state approach could limit US military engagement to a finite area...

...Because of what happened to Yugoslavia in the 1990s, many react with horror to the idea of applying its model to Iraq. Yet Yugoslavia's breakup was not inevitable. In the 1980s, Slovenia asked for greater control over its own affairs and Milosevic refused. Had Milosevic accepted a looser federation, there is every reason to think that Yugoslavia—and not just Slovenia— would be joining the European Union this May...

The supposed purpose of this article is to explain how to get out of the difficulties we have encountered in Iraq, and he does get to it, eventually. In fact, Mr. Galbraith does an adequate job describing the problems. But one of the problems I have here, is that unfortunately, like many other articles of this type, the author doesn't begin to address the issue of solutions until paragraph 63, about 3/4 of the way into the article. Still and all, let me address his proposed solution.

While I agree with his view on the Kurdish problem, his discussion of the Shia is based on a significant false premise. Mr. Galbraith states, "Iraq's Shiites want an Islamic state. They are sufficiently confident of public support that they are pushing for early elections". This is empirically untrue.

There have been dozens of elections for local councils in the conservative rural areas of southern Shia Iraq. These local elections have received little coverage by the media despite their importance. In these elections religious parties and candidates have won only 15% of the seats. Of the remaining 85% of elected officials, few have been tribal or clan leaders. The fact is that almost all of the remaining 85% have been secular Shia technocrats (doctors, teachers, lawyers, engineers, etc.). In a few cases women have been elected. When given a chance at a free and fair election, conservative Shia with lower educational levels have not been swayed by campaigns from the Mosque. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume that in any free and fair national election, Shia religious based parties would not win the dominant plurality they would need to control Iraqi politics. This is very good news indeed for the future of Iraq.

Mr. Galbraith makes many interesting and useful suggestions about proposals for Iraqi federalism. But his argument is undermined by his fundamental lack of understanding of the likely results of free and fair elections in the Shia regions of Iraq. His pessimism is based on his fear of the Islamic theocratic elements in the Shia community. His assumption that theocratic Shia parties would gain a governing plurality in Iraq is in fact, very unlikely to come true. If the US and the UN ensure a free and fair democratic process, the outcome is more likely to a good one, than not.

It is unseemly that Liberals should fear Democracy. Let us leave that notion to the fascists.

UPDATE: Possibly I am being too negative about this article. Galbraith makes some very good points, and I don't reject all of his solution. Only the part that is based on the premise that Shia voters are theological lemmings that are unsuited to democracy. The only realistic chance the Shia Islamist parties have for gaining political power is out of the barrel of a gun. That is why the Al-Mahdi militia must be stopped.

Thanks to my Uncle Fred for the heads up on this arcitle.

ORIGINAL ITEM: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17103?email
Posted by: Zayphar / 4/25/2004 03:25:00 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home