Discovering an Iraqi exit strategy

The United States can find its way to an Iraqi exit strategy that draws its inspiration from neither the gloomy pessimism of the endless quagmire that some foresee, nor the grand self-delusion of George Bush’s “Plan for Victory.” But formulating that strategy requires that we understand both Iraq and the Arab world.

The predominant historical memory of the Arab world is that of conquest by others. What we now call Iraq has been the central battleground in that tale of conquest. Long before the founding of Islam, Persian, Macedonian and Roman armies swept through and conquered Mesopotamia. After a period of self-rule following the rise of Islam, Mongols arrived in the 13th century, sacking Baghdad and slaughtering its inhabitants. The memory of that long-ago invasion was still strong enough that the arrival of fewer than 500 troops from Mongolia as part of what Bush calls “the coalition of the willing” caused quite a stir in Baghdad.

Turkish conquest brought Iraq into the Ottoman Empire for several centuries. Arabs enthusiastically fought with the British in World War I, hoping to gain their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Regrettably, Iraq went from one colonial master to another, as Britain sought to establish a colonial government after defeat of the Ottoman Turks. Both Arab and Kurdish tribes resisted, feeling betrayed by Britain. Still intent on defending its world-wide empire, Britain used the air power it had acquired to fight World War I to bomb any villages thought to contain opponents of Britain’s colonial rule.

In 1920, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over what we now call Iraq. This mandate meant independence in name only as the British sought to control who ruled Iraq. The very decision to create Iraq out of Kurdish, Shiite Arab, and Sunni Arab parts was designed to prevent any cohesive nationalism from growing, as would have been the case if the British had carved out three republics, each united by ethnicity, language, and religion. The mandate came to an end in 1932, and Iraq now found itself governed by a king, groomed for that position by the British. Although World War I was allegedly fought to make the world safe for democracy, the British had no desire to foster democratic government outside of Europe.

When American forces arrived in 2003, the general Iraqi reaction was to thank the Americans for deposing Saddam Hussein, but to wonder when the Americans might be leaving. The evidence on the ground suggests that this won’t happen any time soon.

Soon after the invasion we began construction of four super-bases, epitomized by Balad Air Base north of Baghdad, which currently houses 20,000 troops. Initially, the U.S. military described these bases as “enduring bases”, a term that is no longer in vogue. To anyone in the Arab world, these bases are intended as permanent replacements for the decommissioned bases we once had in Saudi Arabia. However, as the Iraqi resistance has persisted, the bases have been relabeled “contingency operating bases.” And they have continued to grow.

Beyond the apparently permanent military presence, the American government has followed the British example of 75 years ago and tried to hand-pick Iraq’s leadership. The choice for prime minister of the majority Shiite bloc in the new Iraqi parliament, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is not George Bush’s choice. The March 29 New York Times reports that the American ambassador to Iraq “has told Shiite officials that President Bush does not want the Iraqi prime minister to remain the country’s leader in the next government.”

George Bush, in his 2000 campaign, cited Jesus Christ as the political thinker he most wished to follow. Christ’s golden rule, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, has not been followed by Bush in his occupation of Iraq. Since I doubt George Bush would accept four permanent Iraqi bases on American soil, and since I doubt George Bush would have tolerated an Iraqi leader suggesting who Americans should elect as president, there is no justification for Bush applying a double standard in an obvious attempt to make Iraq little more than a quasi-colony. While American voters may not have fully realized that this is Bush’s ultimate goal, the Iraqi citizens who are closest to the ever-growing bases and the ever-increasing political manipulation from Washington see this all too clearly.

Almost every party that ran candidates for the recent Iraqi elections had as an explicit part of its campaign platform a pledge to seek an end to the American occupation. Every poll shows an overwhelming majority of Iraqi voters desiring such an end. The most disturbing poll result was that 47 percent of Iraqis felt insurgent attacks on American forces were justified.

Let us give Iraq a real democracy, not the show democracy in which elected candidates abandon their campaign promises as soon as they are elected. Let us encourage the Iraqi government to have a plebescite limited to a single question: “Do you favor the complete withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq six months from the date of this election?”

Such a plebescite will give us an honorable exit strategy. It will unite Arab Shiite, Arab Sunni, and Kurdish Sunni. It will bring the democracy to Iraq that George Bush says we are fighting for. We can recognize that we have achieved victory and wave a fond farewell to a people who can handle their problems without clumsy outside assistance from an American administration that is still foolishly dreaming of an empire in the sand.

Arthur Greif is an attorney practicing in Bangor.