THE LONG, HOT SUMMER of grim news out of Baghdad continues to stoke a fierce debate among Democrats: whether to reward George Bush’s increasingly maligned and haphazard pursuit of Iraq’s reconstruction with a veil of bipartisanship, or succumb to the demands of hard-core party activists and call for hightailing it out of Baghdad. Indeed, an August 22 Newsweek poll reveals that 61 percent of Democrats favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. What vision do antiwar Democratic presidential candidates have for postwar Iraq? A successful democratic experiment from which to launch a Middle East version of manifest destiny and possibly trigger the reformation of Islam?
What about a Vietnam-like quagmire that nails the coffin of the dread Bush doctrine of preemption? Or better yet, political manna from heaven: nation-building as fiasco, with Iraq coming to resemble the Soviet army’s Afghanistan. “Come Home America” is a golden oldie that apparently still entrances many antiwar Democrats: Afghanistan was right, but Iraq is wrong. Why be part of an inevitable disaster in the desert? The Democrats should resist this siren song.
It is true that by any reasonable measure, winning the peace in Iraq will cost more in lives and dollars than winning the war. From a purely partisan point of view, it is tempting for Democrats to pile on the Bush administration’s premature declaration of military victory and its naiveté about the prospects for its desert acquisition. This stance would seem to legitimize their criticism that President Bush is misleading the American people over the true costs of occupation, just as he misled them over the reasons for war.
With Howard Dean’s antiwar appeal resonating with the Democratic base, other Democratic presidential contenders have too often muddied their professed desire to win the peace with their criticism of White House prewar policies. John Kerry’s presidential announcement last week was critical of Bush’s foot-dragging about internationalizing the burden of Iraq’s reconstruction, but offered little in the way of a commitment to stay the course beyond getting the U.N. or NATO into the fray. Kerry along with Dean and others appears uncertain what road to take beyond their call for global help, given the sway antiwar voters hold in the early Democratic primaries.
This leaves Democrats without a clearly defined postwar Iraq policy. Understandably, moderate and independent voters feel the contenders are playing politics instead of vowing to right Bush’s errors in Iraqi reconstruction. The Democrats should take pains to dispel this impression and commit themselves to fixing the mess that a paralyzed White House seems unable–or worse, too hesitant–to address. The administration’s dilemma provides them just the opening they need to refurbish their party’s internationalist credentials and regain voter trust on the crucial issue of national security.
As hard as it may be to achieve success, the failure of reconstruction would constitute the destruction of American foreign policy in the Middle East. It would galvanize Islamic radicalism, reward terror, further endanger our allies, and, at home, add credence to the charge that the Democrats had courted failure. Can the Democrats square the circle? Can their presidential contenders satisfy the party’s base, yet demonstrate responsible foreign policy leadership in the aftermath of the war? They can do so by putting forward an effective vision for winning the peace in Iraq that appeals to the best internationalist tradition of the party, yet yields no quarter to George Bush’s unappealing national security strategy. That vision would include the following elements:
*First, Democrats must make the case that despite their misgivings about the war they are determined to support the Iraqi people in their quest for a stable and peaceful country–and determined as well to support our hard-pressed troops, who don’t want the homeland to go wobbly on them. Resolute determination to avoid leaving behind a failed state is essential. They should be beating up on George Bush not over the war’s intelligence failures, but over what is surely the greatest weakness of his policy to date: his reluctance to face the reality of Iraq and level with the American people about the true cost of winning the peace if we insist on keeping Iraq to ourselves and the threat this poses to the successful prosecution of the broader war on terror.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the United States would shoulder most of the cost of overthrowing Saddam. But if General Tommy Franks is correct that we will occupy Iraq for another two to four years, and the operation costs us $4 billion a month, we will spend at least $150 billion by mid-2007. The choice before the voters should be made clear: As long as the White House stubbornly refuses to fortify U.S. forces or concede more governing authority to the United Nations, nation-building “lite” will fail and neither NATO nor the U.N. will bail us out. More or different boots on the ground may be necessary, but forcing the White House to concede some real authority to the U.N. and NATO appeals to voters who are growing increasingly frustrated with the undefined mission.
No one truly understands why the White House is so resistant to sharing authority in Iraq. No adequate explanation has been offered. But convincing the U.N. and NATO to help out has more advantages than disadvantages. It would legitimate the U.S. presence as well as the new Iraqi Governing Council. It would accelerate the Iraqification of the occupation. It would convince other countries to dispatch desperately needed support troops, particularly troops from other Arab and Muslim states. It would turn our struggle against the jihadists into an international showdown as part of the larger global war on terror. It might also help reduce U.S. casualties and reduce the cost of reconstruction to American taxpayers. Even if internationalization occurs, it will not serve as a panacea given the complexity of Iraq’s domestic travails, and Democrats should avoid serving up such pabulum as an end in itself.
*Second, the mess in central Mesopotamia sounds a clarion call for foreign jihadists. What began as the overthrow of Saddam is fast becoming another war against al Qaeda-like terrorists who carry many passports. Current intelligence suggests they are infiltrating Iraq with the tacit encouragement of Syria and Iran, and funded by Saudi charities. Inexplicably, the Bush White House is blind to Saudi and Syrian chicanery, intended to bleed us out of Baghdad. Syria and Saudi Arabia enjoy undeserved diplomatic immunity in the Bush White House despite their reluctance to cooperate. Democrats should embrace a more robust policy that imposes sanctions on Saudi Arabia for failing to shut down its terror banks. They should also support legislation now before Congress that would impose a variety of sanctions if Syria refuses to seal its border with Iraq and shut down its terrorist underground railroad. It is time to outflank the White House when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Syria. The public is prepared to go along.
*Third, and most important, Democrats should step into the vacuum and redefine America’s longer-term mission in Iraq as part of the broader war on terror: We are planting the seeds of democratic change in the Middle East, not waging an American struggle against everybody, as the postwar period seems to suggest. The Republican strategy is “make it up as you go.” By sole-sourcing contracts to favored U.S. companies, the White House seems more eager to protect its pampered corporate donors than the people of Iraq. Even if the Iraqis are temporarily unable to manage their own affairs, they do not want Americans–who cannot even provide them plumbing and power–to dictate their economic future.
Experience in Bosnia and Kosovo proves that regime change by itself does not establish law and order. If peace, much less democracy, is to be extended to Iraq, America cannot remain Iraq’s sole landlord much longer. Building a durable, terror-free multiethnic civil society requires America to quickly step into the shadows, though not entirely out of the picture. In an extraordinarily hostile Middle East, we cannot remain imperial rulers and impose democracy from the top down without paying a terrible price in lives and esteem. Empire and democracy do not go hand in hand. Instead, accelerating the timetable for Iraqi elections and putting a sturdier international foundation under our presence will promote a foreign policy success–one for which Democrats will be able to claim the credit if they chart the course.
Whether Iraq was a just or an unjust war is no longer important. America now has too much at stake to let that debate govern the 2004 agenda. For that matter, the internationalization of Iraq’s reconstruction will not guarantee its success, either, and even if NATO and the U.N. step up to the plate, the United States will have to invest more than the White House has been willing to so far. This is not an “either/or” proposition. There is no substitute for American military and economic support even if we cede some political authority to induce the internationalization of the reconstruction effort.
The sooner the Democrats compel the White House to offer greater rewards to friendly or outstretched helping hands, the easier it will be eventually for us to exit Iraq gracefully. And once that has happened, the voters will surely credit the Democratic party for winning the peace.
Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco, is CEO and managing director of Northstar Equity Group, Inc.
