|
 |
 |
|
We Asked; You Said
We asked: Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime has been toppled, how would you define the scope of U.S. obligations to Iraq? How long should the U.S. stay? What should our goals be? Here are the responses we received. *********************************************************** I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq because it lacked U.N. sanction and the preemptive strike argument was in violation of international law and set a terrible precedent. (Since apparently there were no WMDs, even the preemptive argument turns out to have been false.) I believe the long term consequences of that invasion will prove to be very destabilizing throughout the world. That said, the end of the Saddam Hussein regime is certainly a good. But the future of Iraq is very unclear, and without sustained engagement by the U.S. and the rest of the world, could be quite awful. I therefore believe that the U.S. should remain engaged with Iraq for the indefinite future. The example of Afghanistan is not encouraging about the American capacity to sustain such a commitment. I do not mean an indefinite American occupation, although at present we should probably have more troops there than fewer. But as soon as possible, U.S. administration should become U.N. administration, and peacekeeping troops should come from diverse countries under U.N. control. Yet the U.S. should remain primarily responsible financially for the reconstruction of Iraq, since it is we who caused the damage. Above all, Iraqi oil should be placed in international trust for the Iraqi people and not be controlled by U.S. firms. But all the oil money will hardly begin to cover the costs of reconstruction, for which the U.S. should remain primarily responsible. I'm afraid I consider my scenario very unlikely. Either the U.S. will pull out too soon, leaving chaos behind, or the US will stay as an occupying power and Iraq will turn into our West Bank. The arrogance of American leadership makes either of these scenarios more likely than the one I propose. Robert N. Bellah Iraq is currently broken, humiliated and barely functional. Not only is there no government, and no structures from which to organize public services, but power, water, and food supplies are still erratic, communications systems are still not working, schools are closed, garbage is not being collected, and movement in the streets and around the country is severely restricted. Law and order has yet to be restored, and hospitals are struggling to treat the horrific casualties of war with minimal supplies and equipment. These are the most urgent problems that need to be addressed by the U.S. and the coalition forces. It is vital that the U.S. takes full control of restoring order in Iraq and ensuring that the most basic needs of the Iraqi people are met. That is its immediate responsibility as occupying power, working with the U.N. as necessary. If the U.S. withdraws too hastily, it will abandon Iraq to civil war; if it rushes to install a new Iraqi leadership at this stage, when conditions are still chaotic and unable to support true democracy, the result will be a fragile puppet government, beholden to outside forces and despised as such by the Iraqi people and many of their Middle Eastern neighbors. The Iraqi people may be persuaded to give the U.S. a chance (what other choice do they have, after all?), but it is very clear to them what needs to come first: food, water, and safety before new leaders; and the most basic structures of civil society as a prerequisite for democracy. Abbas S. Mehdi, Ph.D. Perhaps the best way to be able to restructure Iraq as a reasonably non-repressive society is to admit that the stitching together in 1920's by the British of three erstwhile Ottoman provinces (Mosul, Baghdad and Basra) into one body politic was bound to lead to it becoming - even before Saddam - the most repressive regime in the Arab region. With a coherent Kurdish region in the north, and a majority Shiite population in the south, the Sunni elites of central Iraq found themselves thrown into an almost impossible task of ruling two large minorities reluctant to be ruled by a third minority. The history of Iraq has been that of constant repression and massacres of its minorities - which include also Christian Assyrians and Turcoman tribes - by the Sunni-ruled Baghdad central government. The most obvious route towards a less repressive political culture in Iraq would be to accept the rights of the Kurds in the north to self-determination. Just as the Palestinians have a right not to live under Israeli rule, so the Kurds in northern Iraq have a right not to live under Arab rule - if they so wish. The argument which has until now prevented implementing this right to self-determination has been solely out of real politik: the fact that Turkey, with its repressive policies towards its own Kurdish minority, would not tolerate a Kurdish state carved out of northern Iraq. But just as Israeli claims cannot trump Palestinian rights to self-determination, so Turkish claims should not allowed to trump the rights of the Kurds of Northern Iraq to a polity of their own. The Kurds are obviously a nation - though, like many emergent nations, still in a process of national formation. The experience of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia - even of Czechoslovakia - has shown that where deep national rifts exist, the attempt to force different nationalities into a Procrustean bed causes friction, outbursts of violence and certainly is a hindrance towards democratic development. While the atrocities of the 1990's wars in the former Yugoslavia are a terrible blot on European history, there is no doubt today that Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia have a better chance of democratic development as independent states than if formulas were still being attempted to work out an ethnic internal "balance" which had - in the past - led to the emergence of such autocratic nationalists like Milosevic and Tudjman. And the future of a decent democratic development in Kosovo depends ultimately on the province not being anymore a part of a Serbia in which Albanians would be a minority - feared by the majority Serbs, and themselves wishing to get loose from the Serbian yoke. This is not a universal formula for ethnic states: but in areas of violent ethnic clashes, minorities have a right to create their own sovereign communities - and what is almost universally considered to be the right to the Palestinians should apply also to the Kurds in Iraq. If eventually the Kurds in Turkey would like to join, on what grounds - except real politik and the politics of repression - should one stop them from doing so? Shlomo Avineri Yes, and with a citizens dividend from Iraq's oil rent, as proposed by many including Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Receiving an extra income that'll boost the average Iraqi's income 50% gives the Iraqi people a wide and varied voice - when they spend their oil rent dividends - in how they would choose to rebuild. Alaska's oil heritage fund could serve as a start-up model. Jeff Smith The USA, as the country that has led the campaigns that have shattered the infrastructure of Iraq over the last 10 years, is morally obligated to pay for much of its reconstruction. However, civic and economic reconstruction is now bound up with building a viable political system. It would be unwise and unjust for any single country, let alone one controlled by right-wing ideologues, to redesign another country's political institutions. The USA should therefore cede the leadership of the political reconstruction to agencies nominated by the United Nations and restrict its activities to technical and financial assistance. In this last respect every effort should also be made to extract financial reparations from Saddam Hussein's clique and the foreign agencies who abetted them in the economic looting of Iraq. Bryn Jones What is basic to the situation in Iraq, morally speaking, is that in setting out to establish a monopoly on governing power in Iraq, the U.S. government and military have assumed responsibility for the well-being of the Iraqi people. If U.S. authority in Iraq were legitimate, then one could go on to ask what would make it not only legitimate but just. That is, one could seek to define the precise contours of U.S. obligations in Iraq by invoking a theory of political justice that would allow us to discriminate just exercises of legitimate political authority from unjust ones. But since the U.S. does not exercise legitimate authority in Iraq, its primary obligation is surely to facilitate the establishment of a legitimate authority. It could best do that, in my opinion, by yielding authority to the U.N. immediately before the situation deteriorates any further. A second morally salient aspect of the situation in Iraq is that the U.S. has committed unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation, and in doing so has caused it great and far reaching damage. It has a moral obligation to compensate the Iraqi people for the damage it has caused and to prevent any further harm from occurring. The reductions in economic activity entailed by the present lack of public safety, organizing structures, and physical damage must be included in any estimation of the harm done. The intuition that the removal of Saddam was a great good to the Iraqi people which must be credited against the damage done -- indeed, which may outweigh all the damage done, so that no compensation is owed -- may be widespread; but it is at best a morally half-baked notion. The morality inherent in our own common law tradition demands compensation for tangible injuries. It tolerates uninvited acts in defense of others who are in imminent danger. But I cannot imagine a scenario in which A inflicts injuries on both B and C, C was not in imminent peril, C lacked certain liberties but no longer does because through the injury to B she is no longer living under any government at all, and A's infliction of injuries on C need not be fully compensated because without C's invitation A caused the change in C's liberties. Randall Curren Obligations: rebuild what we have destroyed and what we have allowed to be destroyed (infrastructure, hospitals, schools, museums, housing, etc.), but not by enriching the U.S. companies that so far have gotten the bulk of the funds (most of which isn't our money anyway). How long to stay: Out immediately. The longer we stay, the worse it will get. Our record in rebuilding and "reforming" societies and cultures that we don't like in our image is terrible (we're still doing it to Native Americans after more than 200 years). Turn the money (i.e., access to the Iraqi oil funds) and authority to use it over to people who know what they are doing (not Christian missionaries). Let the IAEA inspect wherever they want to assess problems associated with the looting (?) of atomic installations; let WHO assess the health situation. Goals: Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Establishing goals for other people's lives? Our goals for ourselves should be to start acting like responsible world citizens, obeying international laws, treating other people with respect. Peter Kunstadter, Ph.D. The U.S. has stepped into a situation for which it appears we have planned poorly. I would hope that our presence in Iraq will be as brief as possible, although I fear it will be lengthy. The Bush Administration, in my opinion, has lead us into a war using questionable logic and perhaps outright deception for its justification. Now, we seem clueless as to how get the country up and running. I predict that Americans will suffer greatly for this occupation--witness the number of casualties since the war was declared completed. Bottom line: We should remove ourselves from Iraq immediately and allow an international effort to begin to rebuild the country. Chris Andrews Pienso que ya ha sido producida una invasión ilegal, por no haber sido autorizada por las Naciones Unidas. Lo que pueden y deben hacer USA e Inglaterra es reparar cuanto antes los grandes daños de la guerra, eso es evidente. Lo que no es tan fácil es opinar sobre lo que políticamente deberían hacer para asegurarse que el próximo régimen sea mínimamente democrático. En realidad, Iraq es un conjunto de tres naciones, desde los puntos de vista cultural e histórico. Para peor, esas "naciones" son compartidas con Irán y Turquía, lo que complica aún más la situación. En ese entorno, es muy difícil que el nuevo gobierno no sea despótico, porque si no lo fuera desaparece Iraq y el mapa de los países vecinos tendría que cambiar. La política de USA en este caso ha sido desastrosa, no sólo para los iraquíes sino para el prestigio de Estados Unidos en el mundo. Creo que toda "solución" desde el punto de vista político, pasa por un gobierno arbitrario, ya tenga el signo de aliado de USA o nó. Finalmente, desearía que los Estados Unidos abandonen cuanto antes el terreno y que se sustituya su administración por una de la ONU (UNO). Carlos Alberto Navarro Given the controversy over the absence of a U.N. resolution to go to war - a controversy that is heightened now by the fact that no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found - the legality of what the U.S. has done is bound to be even more questionable. That being so, the U.S. must (1) pay reparations to every surviving civilian whose family has been injured/ killed in the war; (2) restore essential infrastructure services (e.g., it is a disgrace that water, electricity and sanitation are still not fully available); and (3) hold free and fair elections within a year, so that whoever is returned with a popular mandate, should govern. These responsibilities cannot be shirked given that the before the First Gulf War in 1990 Iraq had universal health care coverage and a universal education system, and was the only country in the Arab Middle East with 90% clean water. War and sanctions, and now war again have taken their toll. Saddam was a brute who needed removing. But it is the common folk of Iraq who are paying the price. Perhaps then (and only then) could the War even begin to be justified in the eyes of the rest of the World. Dr. Satvinder Singh Juss I think that U.S. will stay in Iraq for a very long time. At least till the time they will be sure that their position here is stable. Other countries will stay without serious action. The economical and military power of USA is now without any possibility to be stronger. But I think that the internal development of USA will bring new changes. Jan Skaloud Since the U.S. has stepped in and taken matters into its own hands, I think the U.S. has to look upon this as if Iraq has been adopted by the U.S., just like a child who has been removed from its parent(s) and placed in state protective custody. The U.S.'s obligations are to prepare Iraq, as quickly as possible, for self-sufficiency. Hopefully the U.S. can prove itself to be a better parent/mentor than Saddam Hussein was. The U.S., by removing Saddam's regime, has by default accepted full responsibility for the Iraqi people. The U.S. needs to stay as long as it takes for the Iraqi people to become self-sufficient. Or until the Iraqi people force the U.S. presence out. Whichever comes first. [Our goals should be to] repair the infrastructure damage that the U.S. military has caused, i.e., power, water, sanitation, food, housing, medical, law enforcement/security and basic government. Mark David McCoskey Well, Mr. Bush, this is another fine mess you've gotten us into! What we should do and what we can do may be two entirely different things. We should stay as long as it takes to help rebuild Iraq. This should include providing humanitarian aid in the form of food and medical treatment; policing the country to deal with lawless elements; repairing the infrastructure, including electricity, water supply, oil fields, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools; and helping the Iraqis to establish a new government. The latter does not mean imposing a western-style government on Iraq; it means acting as a mediator between the various elements of Iraqi society to help them come together for meaningful action rather than slitting one another's throats. If the Iraqi people make clear that they want a theocracy, then the U.S. has no right to try to prevent this. Some of the Bush administration's pronouncements that the U.S. will not allow Iraq to have a theocratic government really frighten me (of course, the idea of a theocratic government really frightens me, too). How can we promote democracy and freedom by totalitarian means? Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury to do all of the above. If the Iraqi people do not want us there, how can we justify staying, even if we are truly working only for the good of the Iraqi people? The best way to minimize this possibility is to make an even greater effort (I will not say we have made none so far) to understand and respect the customs, religion and mores of the Iraqis. This effort, and its success or failure, will determine how well we succeed in doing what we should be doing to rebuild Iraq. The attitude necessary to make such an effort has to start at the top, however, and I am afraid that Bush is simply not capable of such moral and intellectual efforts. The U.S. tends to be high-handed, self-righteous, and parochial in dealing with other nations, which is a large part of the reason we are in this mess right now. Before we can hope to "reform" the rest of the world, we have to reform ourselves. Jim Flechtner I think we might get some insight into this question by thinking about it in a somewhat different way. Suppose a family that had a tyrannical father lived across town from our family. No one liked the tyrannical father in his neighborhood although our grandfather once helped him until the tyrannical father crossed our grandfather by trying to get hold of a piece of property the tyrannical father wanted. (Our grandfather's servants may have given permission to go after the property. We don't know.) But our grandfather after talking to auntie Margaret went to the local sheriff and got permission to put together kind of a town posse against the tyrant so that he would get out of the property the tyrant said belonged to his family. The tyrant said that the owner of the once disputed property, a very rich guy, urged him to fight another neighbor and had lent him some money to fight the neighbor. The rich owner of the disputed territory wanted the money back. But the tyrant said that they were given money to fight the other unruly neighbor. Father also helped the tyrannical father against the neighbor on the other side because his family wanted to sell its brand of God all over the neighborhood. In our family album there are stories that we really helped the tyrant take over the Bath people who were not very nice people. That's not so long ago, but some of our family, a very few remember this. But now is what is important. The tyrannized family had some buried treasure which the family guarded. It needed some of the treasure to eat but the posse now had some control over selling the treasure. The tyrant had some extra money but would not help his family. He was afraid of somebody from the posse coming to takeover his entire property. Our father does not like messiness, and as everybody knows he does not like bad guys. So he took some of our servants who always tell our father what he wants to hear. Together they made up a story which many of us believed because, well, Daddy knows more, and he knows best. He and his chief servants said that the tyrant was a danger to us. Except for a few, the sheriff and the posse from before thought Dad's claim was laughable. But to humor him and our family they went looking for bad weapons. They couldn't find any which proved that he had some. A few in our family laughed and said that Daddy could go after the land because there weren't any bad weapons. So, understandably we had to find out ourselves and get rid of the tyrannical father. This scared other fathers because they thought that fathers could do what they wanted to their own families without interference. Father took a lot of our young cousins to find the weapons and help the tyrannized family. Our cousins found that the tyrannized family, like all families don't like, indeed hate each other. And we didn't have any social therapists with them. In fact only a couple of our cousins spoke the different languages of the tyrannized family. Some of our own family, shockingly, called our Dad a liar even as advisor Wolfie, that's what people called him, said all we wanted was the treasure in the backyard. Thank God, at least the tyrannical father, like a runaway pappy disappeared. But our father is still with us, even though some of the more fractious members of our family said that he really wasn't our pappy. He was illegitimate. Meanwhile, the freed family is doing as well as can be expected. Which is not so good. Pappy is sending in some of his friends to dig out the treasure. Some of our young cousins want to come home but there aren't so many jobs for them here and pappy thinks that we shouldn't have to supply jobs to people because it ruins their faith in God and hurts their character. Some of our family say that we should stay as long as there is treasure. Others in our family tell us to grow up; that piece of property is ours and we can do with it whatever we want; others say we need to have new town rules which protects Pappy's choices whatever they might be for the future. Others in our family say that we should forget the whole thing and leave the property although it is pretty badly damaged since the dysfunctional family doesn't want us there. Some of Dad's advisors said that going after the property helped our cousins learn how to fight better and we got to test out our newfangled technology, so it was a plus. Other members say we now run the entire street. Some members of our family figure we better get our own house in order and change our ways. Some say it is too late to change our ways. Can communitarians help our distressed family? Marcus Raskin I would think that the most valuable actions we can now take, regardless of one's views on whether the recent war was a good idea, would be to make sure that the Iraqi people begin to experience representative secular government. Bearing in mind that the most costly conflicts (in human life lost) in the Middle East in the last 100 years have been initiated by dictatorships and autocracies, perhaps representative government will bring peace and prosperity to the region, as it has apparently for Western Europe and North America. I would support a long term joint EU/U.S. commitment to this goal. Charles Freifeld U.S. obligations to Iraq are to make life there as good as it is possible to do as Aristotle showed in his Politics. We are deeply obligated since we took on the job of changing their government at the cost of many lives, theirs and ours. Hence we are obligated to stay “as long as it takes” to use the words of our fearless leader. Our goals are to develop a stable democratic government run by the Iraqi people that will be an example to the world that there is indeed goodness in America and we are not power-hungry, oil-controlling hegemonists. Leo Rain, M.D. We have two obligations: emergency food and medical care for the Iraqi people and restoration of their main industry, oil exporting. The bad conditions in both these respects are the result of our invasion and our failure to maintain order once we got rid of the Iraqi government. Once these immediate needs are met, we should allow the Iraqi people to elect a government to manage their own reconstruction with their own oil revenues, subject to United Nations control to prevent any rearmament above the police level. We have no right to impose our form of economy on Iraq, as the Bush administration seems to plan to do. Allen Barton |
|
The Communitarian Network |