Opinionated? Be Heard! Write an e-mail to the editors of The Hill and get published.
TheHillPR@unc.edu
We want you to write and edit for The Hill.
Complete the application and then submit it via e-mail and we'll consider you as a writer for our next issue.
|
Previous
| Table of Contents
Out of Iraq
Will the United States get out by June
30?
Georgine Van Rynbach
Staff Writer
If all goes as planned, on June 30, Paul Bremmer, who leads the interim
Coalition Provisonal Authority, will step onto a jet, turn and bid farewell
to a tornado of foreign conflict, salute the United States flag, and
depart Iraq, never to return. If he stays longer, there could be terror
magnified and manifested in suicide bombings, more death, and a tarnished
reputation for President Bush. The question of which finish will finally
materialize in our involvement with Iraq lingers in the wake of every
one of the administration’s speeches like a cloud of uncertainty.
I am convinced that whether in shambles or without a hitch, there will
be some semblance of a handover to a sovereign Iraqi governing body,
if for no reason other than to satisfy a Texas cowboy’s pride.
A successful midsummer completion of the second Iraqi military escapade
will set the President up nicely for accolades on foreign policy and
give Bush time to focus on his reelection campaign. His success would
sell votes, and his banners would read, “For a safe and free world.”
The President clearly has a lot at stake on the personal level in the
success of this turnover.
The major point of division that has arisen so far is
that of the election of representatives to the General Council. Without
tailoring a constitution for Iraq suited to the people’s needs,
the United States has only replicated its own doctrines about election
from our constitution. These include the diluting effect of a caucus
system. Such a system disperses public opinion so that only a portion
of the majority is actually voiced. This is intended to prevent a tyranny
of the majority and, thus, render the government more stable and secure.
It just so happens that the collective voice of tens of thousands of
Iraqi’s has echoed the appeals of Sistani. If you have not heard,
Sistani is the Iraqi equivalent of the hidden celebrity politician.
. What he is not hiding, and what the Iraqi people have rallied behind,
is his demand for a quick, free and direct election of representatives
to the General Council.
Sistani and his supporters believe that direct elections will remove
what they consider the disproportionate authority of Bremmer in drawing
up a new government. American leaders would prefer a caucus system.
According to the Nov. 16 announcement by the United States, the Coalition
Provisional Authority, Bremmer and the Transitional Iraqi Assembly will
organize the General Council, which will run the soon-to-be democratic
nation. This means two out of the three deciding votes will be American.
The Iraqis were happy to lose Saddam, but as the daily casualties attest,
any lingering foreign troops or influences are unwanted. The Muslim
population inhabiting the country is in no rush to get too friendly
with Americans. They want to institute their own form of government,
and without delay.
We see our caucus at work right now. Democratic candidates cross the
nation, asking townspeople for their votes, but really asking for electoral
votes. Electoral votes are harder to come by than those of individual
citizens, and they serve as a brake system to shield the government
from extreme viewpoints. There are certainly some extreme viewpoints
lingering in the Iraqi population at present.
In theory, if direct elections are held in Iraq, a revolutionary faction
will most likely assume governmental control. Several large and radically
different ethnic groups characterize Iraq, which are far from comparable
to regional differences in America. The divisions between cultures would
almost certainly lead to antagonism between parties. Financial and societal
differences between Shiites and Sunnis would quickly escalate beyond
political platforms to violent actions. Violent, because that is how
for so long people have reacted to difference there. A democratic government
under such conditions could quickly become manipulative, and if it had
a majority of the votes and the zeal of followers, a civil war would
likely ensue. These are the concerns in the White House about the prospect
of direct elections in Iraq.
Indeed, a civil war in Iraq following our occupation would be very
bad for Bush. Instead of liberty and peace, violence would reign, stirring
up the Middle East beyond our imaginations. If, however, violence is
avoided, fear could replace it. A situation could arise where one party
would take advantage of its election and “amend” the constitution
in its favor. If this were the case, we could also see, and should almost
expect to see, another Hussein-like figure “democratically elected.”
One way to steer America towards a badly needed compromise would be
to ask why Iraq is behaving this way? If only political scientists would
engage in a cursory study of sociology and anthropology, identical government
systems would not be prescribed for every nation. Now there is a growing
radical Muslim movement in Iraq. Instead of just an intruder, these
Muslims see American troops as an absolute evil. They are fighting a
jihad, not a war for independence. Americans, and their constitutional
democracies, caucuses and relatively liberal values are the impending
world cultural bulldozer. We must be careful not to align democracy
with American foreign interests to keep it pure. Furthermore, we must
not make democracy an unforgiving system of government. For us to take
the Founding Fathers’ ideas and apply them to 21st century Iraq
would disregard their pattern of cultural and hierarchical values. A
compassionate, and in some ways compromising, democratic culture in
Iraq will be what eventually goes forward.
The compounding pressures to finalize a plan for government will most
likely bring about some interesting compromises, and there is no telling
what this administration will come up with next to justify itself. One
likely addition to the equation will be the inclusion of foreign peacekeeping
troops working under the transitional Iraqi government, rather than
under the U.S. forces. There have already been requests before the United
Nations for reinforcements, advice, and an international housekeeper
to vacuum the U.S.’s desert storm. There is no question, however,
whether or not the damage has been done. It will be cleaned up, and
the dust remaining will be swept under the carpet. In other words, the
transition will go forward, literally at any cost.
No doubt, the UN advising committee will return with a well-rounded
and well-thought out approach to stabilization. The plan will likely
have a two-year timeframe during which Americans would slowly recede
power to Iraqis as they take baby steps toward democratic independence.
Two years is unthinkable, financially and politically, to Americans,
and it always has been.
In May, as elections are scheduled to take place, we will have learned
much more as to how the Iraqi psyche works. We will have also completed
a new precedent in foreign relations: the champion nation cedes power
to a semi-stable government without a constitution set to steer itself
towards its own liberal happy ending. America should compromise on direct
elections for the sake of time and agreement and stick around in Iraq
a little longer to oversee the plan to its completion. Anything too
hasty or fishy would get us into big trouble with the tumultuous masses
in Iraq. By the deadline of June 30 we should expect a compromised constitutional
democracy, a victorious American administration, and a very, very large
bill, for as we know all too well, time is money.
Georgine Van Rynbach can be contacted at:
vanrynba@email.unc.edu
Previous
| Table of Contents
|