With one exception, the unwinding of tyranny in Iraq is proceeding well. Bluster and deception from Baghdad haven't fooled US President George W. Bush. Doubt and criticism haven't made him flinch. Even before the president's state-of-the union address last week, the resolve was palpable and effective. The speech made it more so.
No one wants war. But the US, the UK, and inevitably others will wage war to depose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and interdict murky bonds between terrorists and horrible weapons. The intent should be clear. It also should be clear that, when hostilities begin, the second-least enviable position for anyone to occupy will be anywhere close to Saddam. The last hope for avoiding war is that someone now in such a position responds accordingly.
Communication of intent
What's not going well in the liberation of Iraq is communication of intent for the months and years after Saddam's ouster. Some statement of purpose beyond "regime change" and "democratization" would be helpful.
In response to questions about post-Saddam Iraq, US Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld recently told reporters, "There are an awful lot of people in and out of government spending an awful lot of time working on it." Bush has created an office in the Pentagon to handle reconstruction. Vague military plans have emerged for keeping peace after the fighting ends. And the Pentagon has alluded to measures for securing oil facilities against sabotage.
That's about all top-level US officials have said for the record. Compared with the war talk, it isn't much. An Iraq not unified by Saddam's oppression, however, might be messier than war. Full acknowledgment of the challenge by the Bush team would be comforting.
"The stakes are enormous," says a new study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "For much of the Middle East, Iraq will be a test case for judging US intentions in the region and the Islamic world." War and reconstruction, the study points out, will affect Turkey, relations between the US and its allies in the region, world oil flows, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
CSIS recommends the US and United Nations take 10 steps "to maximize potential for success in the post-conflict phase in Iraq." The steps cover subjects such as internal and regional security, weapons of mass destruction, transitional administration including naming the administrator, finance, sanctions, and justice. Most interesting is the recommended timing. CSIS says the steps should be taken before the conflict.
An earlier study, by a group sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, described the hazard of inattention like this: "The United States may lose the peace even if it wins the war."
The CFR-Baker Institute study makes recommendations similar to those of CSIS, saying planning should begin "as soon as possible." It argues against establishment of a provisional government prior to hostilities and regrets discussion of a US military government. "After conflict," it says, "Iraqis will be a liberated, not a defeated people."
The study offers four principles for handling Iraqi oil: control by Iraqis of the oil industry; investment of oil revenues in industry rehabilitation; a level playing field for international companies participating in Iraqi oil projects; and fair distribution of oil proceeds among Iraqi citizens.
Both studies—and others like them—treat these and other issues in more detail than can be presented here. They show there to be no shortage of ideas for addressing the challenges presented by a newly liberated Iraq.
Support for war
So the Bush administration has plenty of raw material with which to plan the US role in Iraq once hostilities cease. Development and description of such a plan would help Bush garner support for the war. It would answer suspicions that the US wants to rule Iraq, assure regional allies that the US will finish what it starts, and refute charges that the conflict is only about oil.
Bush leaves no doubt that he wants Saddam out of power in Iraq. His resolve with the military objective is serving him well. He needs to bring similar clarity to his vision for a free Iraq—which means free not only of Saddam but of US troops as well.