MAY 19, 2003
AFFAIRS OF STATE
By Stan Crock
Bush Is Flunking Reconstruction 101 | His team proved it knew how to defeat Iraq militarily. Too bad it appears to have not much clue about succeeding at nation-building
|
If the Bush Administration's performance in postwar Iraq were a pop quiz in Reconstruction 101, the White House would be flunking right now. It has failed to absorb some of the basic tenets of nation-building, and, along with the Iraqi people, it's paying a steep price. Can the Bushies still salvage this postwar scenario and pass the final exam? Perhaps. But so far, the paucity of clear thinking from the Administration is disturbing.
First, the good news -- though not all of it thanks to Team Bush's efforts. The worst fears for Iraq -- mass starvation, bloody reprisals, oil fields ablaze, a refugee crisis, and a push for independence by Kurds or Shiites -- haven't materialized. Joseph Collins, a top Pentagon official overseeing reconstruction, notes that cities such as Mosul, Irbil, and Basra have better water or electricity services than before the war, and are in far better shape than Baghdad -- though reporters tend to be in Baghdad and see the worst of it.
Still, it's far from clear that Washington can overcome the greatest stumbling block: a fundamental ambivalence inside the White House toward nation-building. Without the fortitude and discipline required to reconstruct Iraq, the U.S. could be facing a very cold peace in the Middle East.
Let's take a look at the quiz so far and the Administration's answers:
Question 1: Should an invading/liberating country deploy a large force of military police at the start of a conflict so that immediately after major combat is over, the police can fill the security vacuum and maintain order in ways that regular soldiers cannot?
The Administration's answer: No.
The correct answer: A painfully obvious yes.
This is a no-brainer. But it's clear from the near-anarchy in Baghdad that the U.S. wasn't ready with a sufficient MP force. Previous examples of nation-building -- from Germany and Japan after World War II to Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan -- all showed that a police force is needed to provide security in the wake of military action.
Calls are now coming for bringing in an international police corps, but a great deal of time, property, and goodwill have been lost because of the failure to have cops on the beat right away. Unless police, judges, and a civil administration are put in place quickly, the military occupation "creates a window of opportunity you're never able to seize," says James Dobbins, a former special envoy in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia, and one of several Rand officials who recently completed a study of past U.S. reconstruction efforts.
Question 2: Should the civilian occupation leader focus on playing a low-key coordinator role or display the clout that a Douglas MacArthur or Lucius Clay showed after World War II?
The Administration answer: Low-key coordinator role.
The correct answer: Duh. Again, painfully obvious -- someone with muscle and clear authority is the right choice. In the predictably chaotic atmosphere following combat, a leader who can take charge, rather than just mediate among various agencies, is critical. The appointment of L. Paul Bremer, who is to have authority over "anybody who does anything," as one Administration official puts it, is intended to correct that flaw in the game plan.
The shift suggests that the Administration can learn. But it also may indicate that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration simply won't listen to people familiar with this kind of process. They insist on trying to reinvent the wheel every time -- and that creates costly mistakes.
Question 3: Should an occupying force announce an exit strategy early on?
The Administration's answer: Yes.
The correct answer: No.
You don't want people intent on undermining your efforts to wait in the weeds on the assumption you'll leave soon and give them the chance to pounce. That's the danger of saying the U.S. will stay as long as necessary, but not one day longer, as Rumsfeld puts it.
He and the rest of the Administration evidently think this is a clever formulation of policy, since it's echoed so frequently. It may assuage domestic political concerns, since voters don't want troops in Iraq forever. And it may be a sop to Islamic sensibilities about having U.S. troops in the Middle East for an extended period.
Still, Rummy, think this through: The second part of the statement -- not a day longer -- reflects an unseemly desire to cut and run. And that's sending the wrong message to a key audience: potential malefactors inside and outside Iraq. They may take from this that America hasn't changed a whit since Lebanon or Somalia, that a little terror or some combat casualties will send the U.S. packing.
"Exit strategies and departure timetables are inconsistent with success," says Dobbins. "We have done it quickly, and we have done it well. But we have never done it quickly and well." He adds that no successful U.S. postwar occupation has ever taken less than five years.
What's needed is a firm declaration that the U.S. is going to be there for the long haul to give everyone time to adjust to a new reality. Worried about the resilience of the Baath Party, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told The Washington Post that the U.S. will be in Iraq for a long time. But there are few indications whether others in the Administration, particularly political guru Karl Rove, agree.
|
Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
