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.Illustration By Dustin Ingalls

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

E-mail
 .:: Webmaster :: Editor-in-chief

Copyright © 2002 - 2003 The Hill: Chapel Hill Political Review