Subject: post war options


I am sparing the horror stories this morning. The pain can be found in a report described by the Guardian this way

Robert Fisk visits a hospital in Hillah, where the victims of cluster
bomb attacks are being treated. "There was no way these children and
often uneducated parents could manufacture their stories of tragedy
and pain," he comments. "Nor could the Iraqis have faked the scene in
Nadr village, where the remains of the tiny bomblets littered the
ground beside the scorch marks."

 * Independent: Robert Fisk
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=393458

For the moment, my focus is on the future.  Either the US is being sucked into a trap in Baghdad or Saddam Hussein is already out of the picture and the conventional war could end soon.  In the latter case, whether there is an ongoing guerilla war like Vietnam in the 1950s or a West Bank style insurgency or a resentful peace depends largely on  whether the victors show themselves to be more adept at handling internal Iraqi politics than they were the pre-war international diplomacy. 

The Administration will resist handing off to the UN on the grounds that only the US can provide the stability and the guidance to democracy that is needed.  My own belief is that the more visible and dominant American power is, the more unstable the situation, the faster the growth of nationalist resistance, and the greater the discredit to US motives for invasion.  It begins to appear that on this matter Europe may rediscover its unity in opposition to the US.  The following articles and editorials explore this theme.

(excerpt)
James Meek near Numaniya, Iraq
Thursday April 3, 2003
The Guardian

Near Capt Card's roadblock, on the far side of a tank and a double coil of barbed wire, Iraqis - many of whom had brought their families to the area from Baghdad for safety - spoke their mind about the invasion. Or, at least, the part of their mind they were prepared to open with the shadow of Saddam Hussein still falling across them. The Ba'ath party offices, they said, were still open for business in Numaniya.

Over two weeks and 200 miles of invasion, the response of Iraqis (albeit mainly male and rural) is startlingly uniform. They will tolerate the invasion if it is aimed purely at getting rid of President Saddam, though they prefer not to criticise him directly. They will not trust the Americans not to betray them as they did in 1991, until President Saddam is gone. They are angry at the deaths of civilians at US-British hands. And they do not want the US and Britain to stay.

"We don't mind the troops being here, but we don't want the troops getting in the way of us being Muslims," said one Iraqi, Adel. "We don't want our women to be exposed to strange men.

"We believe that Iraq will be occupied. Even the simple people in this village say we are going to get rid of Saddam only to find ourselves occupied. We don't want them to stay in our country."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,928530,00.html

***************************************************

UN rule or UN role?

New divisions are hard to reconcile

Leader
Thursday April 3, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair acknowledged yesterday that there are disagreements between Britain and the US over postwar Iraq. Before the war started, admissions of this kind were a no-go area. But there will be more such talk when Colin Powell sits down with his EU and Nato opposite numbers in Brussels today to discuss the issue. Washington and London disagree not just about Iraq's future. There are divisions too over the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, and over US sword-rattling against Syria and Iran. But the question is whether these interesting differences are sufficient to lead the government to draw a line; or whether, as Mr Blair characteristically says, they can be reconciled.

If experience is a guide, the government will end up supinely supporting whatever line the Bush administration finally takes. In the meantime, however, the government is staking out a more independent position on postwar Iraq (as in some respects are the Conservatives). In practice, this means moving closer to EU allies. Almost all European nations want the UN at the centre of the rebuilding of Iraq soon after the Saddam regime falls. Now, for once, Britain and France are on the same track, as Dominique de Villepin has said. Much of the pace in this refreshing but not yet conclusive change of tone is being made by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, who on Tuesday proposed a UN-sponsored conference to settle the shape of a post-Saddam administration. While Mr Blair sticks to the mantra that any post-conflict arrangements must be "UN endorsed", Mr Straw wants to give the UN "the leading role" in organising a new Iraqi settlement. In an interview yesterday Mr Straw went out of his way to say that Iraq must be governed by Iraqis. "It will not be foreign nationals running the Iraqi government. That is not the purpose of this action," he proclaimed. Quite right. Britain should now sponsor a new UN resolution saying just that.

But tell that to Donald Rumsfeld and his rightwing allies, who seem to have the upper hand over the Washington doves, including Mr Powell. Under their plan for Iraq - the only one currently in any position to be implemented - there would be no substantial UN role at all. The US military would rule Iraq for an indefinite period, not just for a few days or weeks. General Jay Garner would run Iraq through 23 ministries, each headed by US hawks hand-picked by Mr Rumsfeld (who has rejected eight state department nominees as too "bureaucratic"). When Mr Powell speaks today, he will speak as a beaten man. He will speak from Mr Rumsfeld's script, offering a UN role. What his listeners want, though, is UN rule. Mr Blair may think the difference is reconcilable. Many others, not least the Iraqis, will not.

**********************************************

Two of several editorials from other papers reprinted by the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,928281,00.html

Financial Times
Editorial, April 2

"Deep as divisions are over Iraq, both across the Atlantic and within Europe, there is nothing to be gained from a sullen standoff. It is the US secretary of state's job to engage with supporters and critics of Washington's policy... [This week's trip] is Colin Powell's first visit to Europe since he spoke at the World Economic Forum at Davos in January. Since then, a gulf has opened up with France and Germany...

"It is important that Mr Powell is able to take back a clear message that Europe would participate in reconstruction under UN auspices. A unilateral US occupation, by contrast, would not only lack legitimacy but would also feed resentment in the Islamic world and foster future terrorism. First, though, Mr Powell must provide assurance that the US is seriously interested in resuming diplomacy, and not just feeling lonely."


El Pais
Editorial, Spain, March 29

"The question is not whether we should be more American or less American - or even whether we should be pro-Bush. It is whether or not we should be European. At the moment, American politics is dominated by a messianic clan that wishes to govern by itself, and through extremism. The European centre-right has little in common with the extreme-right positions of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld, and that is why it can - and must - contribute to the establishment of a peaceful, multipolar and diverse world. Europe may not be the only force working towards this goal, but it is the principal one, and as such it has a great responsibility. If world peace is to be achieved, the battle for peace in Iraq must be fought at the same time as the European battle for a new international legitimacy."