|
back to Georgie Anne Geyer 
IRAQ SITUATION PROVIDES ANALYSTS WITH A COMPLEX
PUZZLE WASHINGTON -- There
is one question on everyone's lips here these days: "All right, what
should we do next?"
The issue, of course, is Iraq, and the questions about
the next stage of American policy there are coming from all corners.
Little else is discussed at meetings and receptions, although a second
question is also emerging: "And how long do we have to do anything?"
So first, let me try to splice together the answer
coming from both sympathizers of the Iraq war and its most passionate
critics -- although not yet from the White House or the Pentagon. This
solution to the (new word of the administration) "insurgency" would be
first to internationalize the conflict, and second to do some public
"housecleaning" of the neoconservative advocates of the war as a symbol of
willingness to change.
But bringing in French, German, Indian, Pakistani or
other contingents of troops would mean seriously giving up some of the
power held by the administration's little "in-group." It would require
showing courtesy to other nations, which this administration finds so
onerous. It would mean putting the American occupation under some United
Nations official or mandate. Internationalization could be done only
symbolically, but still it would diffuse the focused hatred of the United
States in Iraq.
These are the points made by our most cogent and
experienced analysts (men such as military analyst Lawrence Korb,
prominent diplomat Robert Oakley and military historian William Lind). At
the same time, many stress that there has to be an at least symbolic
housecleaning. Somebody has to be seen by the American public to pay for
the disgraceful mistakes of the war and especially the occupation. The
favorite name that comes up is that of the Pentagon's fanatic neo-con,
Douglas Feith.
Such a gesture would also have to be paralleled by
some appropriate, if not humbling, acknowledgment by President Bush that
he, too, made mistakes -- and that he is a big enough man to admit it and
move to undo them.
Then, many say, a "committee of wise men" should be
formed who would directly advise the president, share with him the
differing and experienced knowledge that he has not been receiving, and
offer him some desperately needed new perspectives. These could be people
like Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, scholars Zbigniew Brzezinski or Ivo
Daalder, former Secretary of State James Baker III, and Sens. Chuck Hagel
and Richard Lugar. In short, men and women who are not anti-Bush but who
have shown the capacity to think openly -- and who have records of being
right on policy questions.
Would such advice be accepted by President Bush, much
less by the Pentagon civilians and the neo-cons who hover all around him?
One would suppose not. But on the other hand ...
Consider George W. Bush's position. His support goes
down by the day, and the macho refrain that "We will stay the course in
Iraq, no matter what" is becoming a bad joke to many Americans watching
the war play out. Instead of being in control, which he loves, he is every
day more beholden to circumstances and events that he clearly cannot
control.
(There is also real evidence that some of his most
confident war "planners" are jumping ship. One well-informed policy wonk
from outside went to the Pentagon last week and found all the third-tier
war lovers under the secretary walking around like zombies, unable to
understand what they have wrought. Many of them are leaving their jobs,
even as American troops and reservists in Iraq are seeing their service
time repeatedly extended.)
Enter Karl Rove. This cool-cat election planner never
cared about Iraq, but he desperately cares about re-election. Sometime
this winter, he's going to have to tell the president: "It's Iraq or the
election."
At this point, "We can't leave" becomes not a
solution, a policy or an answer, but a mantra already out of step with
reality -- and a threat to the Bush presidency.
Finally, move to the question of time. Senior
administration officials have been saying, in small but revealing
outbursts both in Iraq and here, that the U.S. has a "window" of only
three to six months to put down the resistance. Students of revolution and
rebellion point out that 1) mistakes made in the beginning of an invasion
or an occupation cannot usually be undone; therefore, the lack of planning
in the beginning for the reconstruction of Iraq may have doomed the entire
project, and 2) there comes a time when, even if an uncommitted majority
of the Iraqi people do not see America winning, they will coalesce with,
or be forced to come to terms with, the insurgents. (The
three-to-six-month prediction, of course, also applies to the staying
power of the American people.)
Meanwhile, inside Iraq, as the internationally known
terrorism specialist Brian Jenkins tells me, "the U.S. must offer active
alternatives to the insurgency and above all provide security."
These are the questions du jour -- and some suggested
answers from our very best thinkers and most concerned Americans.
COPYRIGHT 2003 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE | 
