U.S. choosing a rather odd way not to run Iraq

The Deseret News ^ | 4/22/2003 | Georgie Anne Geyer

[Utah Girl]

The words popularly used to characterize the war in Iraq were "cakewalk" and "victory." From the beginning, war supporters here liked to say it would be a cakewalk, which it wasn't, but also a victory, which it surely was. Our military men and women deserve great credit for their courage, imagination and decency in a wildly ambivalent theater of war.

But there is a new word to apply to the next phase of the war, and it is an elusive one. The word is "legitimacy," and the success of occupation will depend upon its political application within Iraq.

Consider the American administration's claim, repeated over and over, that America does "not want to run Iraq" and that "Iraqis must run Iraq."

If this is true — and I think it is about half-true — why did American Special Forces troops personally usher into southern Iraq Ahmed Chalabi, the London salon revolutionary of the Iraqi National Congress, and 700 of his uniformed men trained by the American military? Why did they see them all into Baghdad this week, where these men by default became the first Iraqi Freedom Forces and where another INC Chalabi man, Mohammed Zobeidi, was noisily proclaiming himself mayor of Baghdad?

Why, in the northern city of Mosul, did only one Iraqi private army, made up of the INC, share a base with American Special Forces soldiers? And why did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld send a letter to President Bush last week, asking that the INC be made the leadership of a provisional government of Iraq?

As of this writing, Chalabi has moved into one of the playground palaces of the deposed dictator's brutish son Uday in Baghdad. There is no other Iraqi — leader, general or sheikh — who has moved as fast as he has, and with as much high-level help from Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon civilian who wrote the INC's program, and Gen. Jay Garner, now baptized the American "MacArthur" for Iraq.

Meanwhile, as outlined in last week's Time magazine, Chalabi and Wolfowitz & Co. have a group already working in Washington, the Iraq Reconstruction and Development Council, of exiled Iraqi technocrats who will deploy as liaisons between temporary American ministers and the Iraqis. After three to six months, American bosses will hand over their ministries in the Iraqi Interim Authority to these Chalabi supporters, who will then essentially control Iraqi ministries until whenever there might be elections.

Now, it is true that an admirable council was called together by Garner and other American officials in the south near the imposing ruins of Ur (for historical effect, because it represents the ancient age when all of Iraq was united under various inclusive empires). But many important groups, such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, still based in Iran but made up of Iraqi Shiites, chose to boycott at least that meeting.

In many ways, given the turmoil not only on the streets of Iraq but also in the minds of Iraqis, a kind of half con-man like Chalabi (he is wanted for $200 million bank fraud in Jordan, among other things) would surely oversee a better government than Saddam Hussein's — but then, so would Al Capone.

Meanwhile, the dollar has been introduced as local currency, USAID has just given out a $62 million contract to an American company to reconstitute Iraqi schools (maybe we should send our kids there for good schooling?), and favored companies like Halliburton (Vice President Dick Cheney) and Bechtel (former Secretary of State George Shultz) have now been handed, sans bidding, billion-dollar contracts.

Hey, nobody ever said dealing with the Iraqis themselves was going to be a cakewalk. This is the country nobody has ever been able to rule; it is fractious and violent, riven with ancient hatreds and the will to avenge them, and eternally fixated on defeating every foreign invader. The problem now is one of legitimacy for the future.

A government gains legitimacy by: (1) uniting a candidate, his history and program to the deepest wellsprings of a people's culture (with the destruction of the Iraqi National Museum, of course, this becomes even more difficult); (2) putting in place responsible regimes, like, say, Taiwan's or Tunisia's, that provide for the people's welfare and progress and stay ahead of fanaticism; and (3) using the ameliorative effects of bringing in the United Nations, the NGOs, the European players and all the good international organizations that can dissipate anger at the past — or at the American invasion.

Yet none of those possibilities has been incorporated in the American plans. It seems a rather odd way not to want to rule a country.

[Utah Girl]

Perhaps what Ms Geyer doesn't understand is that Hussein had all possible opposition killed while he was in power. There may not be anyone in Iraq right now able to run the country. Geyer has become very negative about President Bush and the war. She wasn't a supporter of it, and has had nothing good to say lately.

[Marianne]

BTTT

[Toddsterpatriot]

eternally fixated on defeating every foreign invader.

Yeah, well we've already proven they can't do that.

[maica]

Georgie Anne Geyer has not been an unbiased reporter since Bush became president. I think she actively dislikes the whole administration. I used to look forward to her observations of world events. Now I do not read her.

[Toddsterpatriot]

WMDs and someone evil enough to use them. That's why we invaded. We wouldn't invade Switzerland if they had WMDs. They wouldn't use them on their neighbors or on us.

Relax, we'll find your WMDs. As far as the $26 billion. Best money we could ever spend. What would you spend it on? Farm subsidies?

[Asclepius]

Perhaps We did not understand the hell that is about to break loose because we have not found WMD. You know--WMD, the reason we spent 160 American young lives and 26 BILLION dollars?

Who cares about the WMDs? Will Saddam's regime resurrect itself if we fail to find a few WMDs?

[Utah Girl]

Actually, it will be a lot more than 26 billion dollars by the time we are finished in Iraq. And yes, the price was high, but the Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom and the opportunity to better their lives. I have no doubt WMDs will be found, but it will take some time. Like Donald Rumsfeld said, Iraqis themselves are going to have to come forward and reveal what they know.

[Asclepius]

No, and Al Capone is deader than Hell!

Precisely. Only he died of natural causes. So relax.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're making as much sense as a democrat. Hey wait a minute.......

[stylin19a]

I'm still trying to figure out who called this a cakewalk ?

[dennisw]

Georgie Anne Geyer only has complaints. No positive ideas.

[Utah Girl]

Relax, they will be found.

[cookcounty]

"Perhaps We did not understand the hell that is about to break loose because we have not found WMD. You know--WMD, the reason we spent 160 American young lives and 26 BILLION dollars?"

It was the convergence of WMD and the fact that Saddam Hussein, the absolute dictator of Iraq, has shown himself to be a uniquely brutal ruler, starting wars against his neighbors and showing a willingness to use WMD.

If having WMD was reason enough to go to war, we would have invaded France. ............hmmmmm.

[MissAmericanPie]

She isn't fit to carry President Bush's water. She understands fully what the deal is, they all do.

[marron]

You know, they criticize us because we don't have a post-war plan, and they criticize us because we do.

The war in Afghanistan was executed masterfully, the run-up to the war in Iraq was likewise masterful, even considering the diplomatic problems, and the war itself could hardly have been carried off better than it was. We have by far the most effective foreign policy team in Washington (and in the field) that we have ever had.

With these guys planning the post-war transition, backed up by Bechtel and Brown and Root, and a host of Iraqi expatriates, I don't think anyone could do better. This is not going to be easy, but I am very confident.

I also used to look for Georgie Geyer's columns in years past, but I haven't bothered to read her in a long time.

[Utah Girl]

VP Dick Cheney gave a speech a few weeks before the war started. He said that the war could take a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. The media seized upon the few days remarks, and turned it into a cakewalk. Typical tactics.

The other new talking points are that the military was unprepared for what happened in Iraq. "The war plan didn't go as it was designed, and and and Basrah took two weeks to fall, and the people were supposed to welcome the coalition with open arms. And they had to change the war plan!!!" This was delivered last night by some female British reporter, and was quite annoying to listen to her breathless statements. But she was quite proud of herself for not blabbling secrets while being an embedded reporter. The reason she didn't blab? "Because we were really dependent on the soldiers for our safety." By this time, I was rolling my eyes.