|
UNITED NATIONS - 22 November 2005 / www.MaximsNews.com/ The
near hysterical reaction of the Bush
administration to Representative John
Murtha’s call for a swift American
pullout from Iraq, lumping the hawkish
Pennsylvania Democrat with “Michael
Moore and the extreme liberal wing of
the Democratic Party,” underscores the
war planners’ acute awareness that
Murtha has breached a crucial
dike.
They
must brace themselves for a storm surge
of opposition to their Iraq project in
coming months that could leave them
politically stranded.
Murtha’s
move renders obsolete the cautious
half-steps that centrist Democrats have
advanced to differentiate themselves
from Bush on Iraq, but which the
administration has consistently been
able to co-opt.
The
standing ovation that Murtha’s House
colleagues gave him in the closed-door
Democratic caucus suggests the depth of
their disenchantment, though most are
not themselves ready yet to embrace his
proposal publicly.
But
by early next year total
“redeployment” (the Reagan euphemism
for withdrawal) by the end of 2006 will
almost surely emerge as the liberal
alternative to the conservatives’ war.
This
can serve a useful purpose, effectively
forcing a debate on the objectives that
American troops are in Iraq to
achieve.
Are
they there to certify that Iraq does not
have nuclear weapons, the reason for
which the Congress authorized military
action (and which United Nations
inspectors were about to certify when
the American invasion preempted
them)?
To
depose Saddam Hussein? Both are already
accomplished.
To
entrench a stable, democratic government
that holds Iraq together?
To
secure long-term military bases?
Or
to root out the Islamic jihadists (whom
ironically the Hussein regime had
ruthlessly crushed)?
Still,
the Murtha proposal is sparse and one
dimensional – as was the President’s
original campaign for war: It is
strictly a military strategy. Political
and diplomatic dimensions of resolving
the Iraq conflict, as Murtha
acknowledges, await elaboration.
So
what might these be?
Pledging
there will be no long-term U.S. military
bases, which President Bush has
pointedly refused to do, is the obvious
first step to an Iraqi political
settlement.
The
U.S. military presence both inflames
Iraqi nationalists and attracts foreign
jihadists, and Iraqis consistently tell
pollsters they want U.S. troops to
leave. Of course, total withdrawal
obviates this resistance.
The
other key element is ceding the lead to
an international body like the United
Nations.
If
Washington just wanted a safe exit, it
could seek U.N. cover for its
withdrawal, as the Soviets did from
Afghanistan in 1989, and then leave the
local Iraqi parties to fight it
out.
Or—what
the U.S. had rejected in the case of
Afghanistan 16 years ago—it could push
for a comprehensive Iraqi internal
settlement, brokered and guaranteed by
the international community at large.
Three
elements of a strategy, premised on U.S.
military withdrawal in 2006, should be:
>>
Create a Contact Group. The
Secretary-General of the United Nations
should convene the five permanent
members of the Security Council and the
six countries that border Iraq ( Jordan,
Syria, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi
Arabia) in a contact group that hammers
out for the Security Council a
coordinated strategy for dealing with
the internal parties.
Most
of all, the group would fashion
effective measures to prevent foreign
interference in Iraq as the Americans
and their allies withdraw their forces.
>>
Suspend provocative constitutional
provisions. The refusal of the
Shiite clerical parties to budge on two
divisive provisions in the new Iraqi
constitution -- for de facto regional
secession and de-Baathification -- has
been the central deal-breaker in an
internal political settlement.
If
the parliament elected in December
refuses to rescind them, the Security
Council should exercise its
extraordinary powers for the maintenance
of international peace and security
under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter to
suspend them—just as international
authority has preempted intransigent
local parties in places like Bosnia and
Kosovo.
>>
Arab League responsibility. The
Arab League should now take a lead role
in brokering the intra-Iraqi political
settlement – and in providing an
interim security presence to build
confidence among the Iraqi
parties.
That
League presence could also help in
driving out the foreign jihadists, whom
all Iraqi factions will want to expel as
soon as the Americans are headed out the
door.
As
the Amman bombings remind us, all Arab
governments have a powerful stake in
eradicating the jihadists.
The
United States will remain, of course, as
significant a player in post-withdrawal
Iraq as it and Iraqis want it to
be.
Its
continued financial commitment to Iraqi
reconstruction will be essential to
sustaining the country’s political
stability and economic recovery after
its troops go home.
The
President needs to make clear whether he
wants to salvage an early war goal of
projecting America into the Middle East
as the military arbiter of the
region.
A
debate on U.S. goals is precisely the
opportunity that John Murtha’s
proposal has opened.
JeffreyLaurenti@MaximsNews.com
MaximsNews
Columns by Jeffrey Laurenti
Congressman
John Murtha on Iraq War
A
Security Council Numbers Game: All Bets
Off
Bolton:
A New UN Phenomenon
Jeffrey Laurenti is a senior fellow in
international affairs at The Century
Foundation. He is an expert in
international security, international
law and multilateral institutions.
He
is the author of numerous monographs on
international peace and security,
terrorism, U.N. reform, and
international narcotics policy. He has
authored articles for The Christian
Science Monitor, The Washington Post,
Chicago Tribune, New York Newsday, and
the Los Angeles Times, and international
policy journals.
As
a senior advisor to the United Nations
Foundation, Laurenti has served as
deputy director of the United Nations
and Global Security initiative the
foundation established, with backing
from The Century Foundation, to support
the debate on international security of
the High-Level Panel on Threats,
Challenges, and Change commissioned by
the United Nations Secretary-General.
Laurenti
was executive director of policy studies
at the United Nations Association of the
United States until 2003, currently
serves on the Association’s Board of
Directors, and also is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations.
He
was candidate for the US House of
Representatives in 1986, senior issues
advisor to the Mondale/Ferraro campaign
and from 1978 to 1984, was Executive
Director of the New Jersey Senate.
Previously, he was a program officer for
The Century Foundation, then the
Twentieth Century Fund.
Jeffrey
Laurenti is a Contributor to MaximsNews.com.
|
