The New Deal in Iraq

It has been a year since American troops poured across the Iraqi border, hurtling the world into a new era of international conflict. Where once there was multilateral action based on decades-old alliances, there is now the world’s only superpower barely holding together a “coalition of the willing.” Where once Western democracies would only launch strategic wars when attacked, there is now the leader of the free world defending preemptive war. And where once there was world-wide sympathy for the victims of Sept. 11, there is now the growing anti-American sentiment on the Arab street and beyond.

It was this drastic redefinition of international norms, as well as thousands of American and Iraqi deaths over the last year, that spurred protesters over the weekend to fill city streets throughout the world. And, although we firmly disagree with the rhetoric of the far left of the protest movement—clearly, the world is better off with Saddam Hussein safely behind bars—we are glad those who opposed the war continue to fight the good fight. It is essential in this election year that dissenters continue pressing the Bush administration, as well as the American public, to honestly evaluate the many problems with President Bush’s preventative war and its troublesome aftermath.

We were against the kind of unilateral war Bush wanted to wage, and our suspicion that Bush would prove disastrous as a nation builder has largely been confirmed. In the year that has passed, we have learned a great deal about America’s faulty intelligence regarding supposed weapons of mass destruction, corruption and cronyism in Iraq’s rebuilding contracts and the extent of the Pentagon’s miscalculations in its reconstruction plans. The world has good reason to be mad.

But the international community must now focus on the future of Iraq because, although we opposed the war, America now has a real opportunity—or rather, responsibility—to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. And President Bush and his civilian administrator, J. Paul Bremer, are squandering that opportunity in the face of growing hostility from Iraqi civilians to Western administration of the country. The March 8 signing of an interim constitution makes Iraq on paper one of the most liberal states in the Middle East, granting a number of economic and social rights most Arabs can only dream of. But a legitimate, self-determined Iraqi government is still far off. Indeed, in a recent poll, only 11.3 percent of Iraqis had confidence in the Iraqi governing council, a ruling body comprised of hand-picked local leaders, dissidents and former expatriates.

Yet, after prematurely declaring “mission accomplished,” Bush seems determined to proclaim democracy established as soon as possible—before Iraq is adequately prepared for it. Mired in the paranoia of an election year, Bush has set a firm date for the transfer of power to local authorities—June 30, well in time to disassociate his presidency from the volatile situation on the ground in Iraq. The president will be able to blame the mess—the suicide bombings, random violence, rampant unemployment and poor social services that plague the country—on the Iraqi administrators nominally in charge, rather than take responsibility for unimpressive reconstruction policy.

But as politically convenient a June power transfer might be for the president, we hope that domestic political calculations will not keep him from doing what’s right in Iraq. We fear that June 30 will be too soon for an effective handover of authority, given the chaos on the Iraqi street and the unpopularity of the Iraqi governing council—some form of which remains likely to rule the country in the months following the power transfer. It will be difficult and unpopular, but if Iraq is not ready to govern itself by June 30, with functioning, legitimate democratic institutions, a nascent civil society and an effective police force (it’s 0 for 3 right now), then America needs to continue controlling the reconstruction effort until the country is ready to strike out on its own.

The mess in Iraq is not going to clean itself. Even in an election year, the president must ensure that the new democratic Iraq gets off on the right foot. Anything less, and the world will soon have another failed state mired in internal strife—a breeding ground for the terrorists America is supposed to be fighting.