|
The
Washington Post
The Smart Way Out of a Foolish
War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 30, 2008; B03
Both Democratic
presidential candidates agree
that the United States should
end its combat mission in
Iraq within 12 to 16
months of their possible
inauguration. The Republican
candidate has spoken of
continuing the war, even for a
hundred years, until "victory."
The core issue of this campaign
is thus a basic disagreement
over the merits of the war and
the benefits and costs of
continuing it.
The case for U.S.
disengagement from combat is
compelling in its own right. But
it must be matched by a
comprehensive political and
diplomatic effort to mitigate
the destabilizing regional
consequences of a war that the
outgoing Bush administration
started deliberately, justified
demagogically and waged badly.
(I write, of course, as a
Democrat; while I prefer Sen.
Barack Obama, I speak
here for myself.)
The contrast
between the Democratic argument
for ending the war and the
Republican argument for
continuing is sharp and
dramatic. The case for
terminating the war is based on
its prohibitive and tangible
costs, while the case for
"staying the course" draws
heavily on shadowy fears of the
unknown and relies on worst-case
scenarios.
President Bush's and
Sen.
John McCain's forecasts
of regional catastrophe are
quite reminiscent of the
predictions of "falling
dominoes" that were used to
justify continued U.S.
involvement in
Vietnam. Neither has
provided any real evidence that
ending the war would mean
disaster, but their
fear-mongering makes prolonging
it easier.
Nonetheless, if
the American people had been
asked more than five years ago
whether Bush's obsession with
the removal of
Saddam Hussein was
worth 4,000 American lives,
almost
30,000 wounded Americans
and several trillion dollars --
not to mention the less
precisely measurable damage to
the United States' world-wide
credibility, legitimacy and
moral standing -- the answer
almost certainly would have been
an unequivocal "no."
Nor do the costs
of this fiasco end there. The
war has inflamed anti-American
passions in the
Middle East and
South Asia while
fragmenting Iraqi society and
increasing the influence of
Iran. Iranian
President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
recent visit to
Baghdad offers ample
testimony that even the
U.S.-installed government in
Iraq is becoming susceptible to
Iranian blandishments.
In brief,
the war has become a national
tragedy, an economic
catastrophe, a regional disaster
and a global boomerang for the
United States . Ending it is
thus in the highest national
interest.
Terminating U.S.
combat operations will take more
than a military decision. It
will require arrangements with
Iraqi leaders for a continued,
residual U.S. capacity to
provide emergency assistance in
the event of an external threat
(e.g., from Iran); it will also
mean finding ways to provide
continued U.S. support for the
Iraqi armed forces as they cope
with the remnants of
al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The decision to
militarily disengage will also
have to be accompanied by
political and regional
initiatives designed to guard
against potential risks. We
should fully discuss our
decisions with Iraqi leaders,
including those not residing in
Baghdad's Green Zone,
and we should hold talks on
regional stability with all of
Iraq 's neighbors, including
Iran .
Contrary to
Republican claims that our
departure will mean calamity, a
sensibly conducted disengagement
will actually make Iraq more
stable over the long term.
The impasse in Shiite-Sunni
relations is in large part the
sour byproduct of the
destructive U.S. occupation,
which breeds Iraqi dependency
even as it shatters Iraqi
society. In this context,
so highly reminiscent of the
British colonial era, the longer
we stay in Iraq , the less
incentive various contending
groups will have to compromise
and the more reason simply to
sit back. A serious dialogue
with the Iraqi leaders about the
forthcoming U.S. disengagement
would shake them out of their
stupor.
Ending the U.S.
war effort entails some risks,
of course, but they are
inescapable at this late date.
Parts of Iraq are already
self-governing, including
Kurdistan, part of
the Shiite south and some tribal
areas in the Sunni center.
U.S. military
disengagement will accelerate
Iraqi competition to more
effectively control their
territory, which may produce a
phase of intensified inter-Iraqi
conflicts. But that hazard is
the unavoidable consequence of
the prolonged U.S. occupation.
The longer it lasts, the more
difficult it will be for a
viable Iraqi state ever to
reemerge.
It is also
important to recognize that most
of the
anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has
not been inspired by
al-Qaeda.
Locally based jihadist groups
have gained strength only
insofar as they have been able
to identify themselves with the
fight against a hated foreign
occupier. As the occupation
winds down and Iraqis take
responsibility for internal
security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will
be left more isolated and less
able to sustain itself. The end
of the occupation will thus be a
boon for the war on al-Qaeda,
bringing to an end a misguided
adventure that not only
precipitated the appearance of
al-Qaeda in Iraq but also
diverted the United States from
Afghanistan, where
the original al-Qaeda threat
grew and still persists.
Bringing the U.S.
military effort to a close would
also smooth the way for a broad
U.S. initiative addressed to all
of Iraq 's neighbors.
Some will remain reluctant to
engage in any discussion as long
as Washington appears determined
to maintain its occupation of
Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at
some stage next year, after the
decision to disengage has been
announced, a regional conference
should be convened to promote
regional stability, border
control and other security
arrangements, as well as
regional economic development --
all of which would help mitigate
the unavoidable risks connected
with U.S. disengagement.
Since Iraq 's
neighbors are vulnerable to
intensified ethnic and religious
conflicts spilling over from
Iraq , all of them -- albeit for
different reasons -- are likely
to be interested. More distant
Arab states such as
Egypt,
Morocco or
Algeria might also
take part, and some of them
might be willing to provide
peacekeeping forces to Iraq once
it is free of foreign
occupation. In addition, we
should consider a regional
rehabilitation program designed
to help Iraq recover and to
relieve the burdens that Jordan
and
Syria, in particular,
have shouldered by hosting more
than 2 million Iraqi refugees.
The overall goal
of a comprehensive U.S. strategy
to undo the errors of recent
years should be cooling down the
Middle East , instead of heating
it up.
The "unipolar moment" that the
Bush administration's zealots
touted after the collapse of the
Soviet Union has been
squandered to generate a policy
based on the unilateral use of
force, military threats and
occupation masquerading as
democratization -- all of which
has pointlessly heated up
tensions, fueled anti-colonial
resentments and bred religious
fanaticism. The long-range
stability of the Middle East has
been placed in increasing
jeopardy.
Terminating the
war in Iraq is the necessary
first step to calming the Middle
East , but other measures will
be needed. It is in the U.S.
interest to engage Iran in
serious negotiations -- on both
regional security and the
nuclear challenge it poses. But
such negotiations are unlikely
as long as Washington 's price
of participation is
unreciprocated concessions from
Tehran. Threats to
use force on Iran are also
counterproductive because they
tend to fuse Iranian nationalism
with religious fanaticism.
Real progress in
the badly stalled
Israeli-Palestinian peace
process would also help soothe
the region's religious and
nationalist passions. But for
such progress to take place, the
United States must vigorously
help the two sides start making
the mutual concessions without
which a historic compromise
cannot be achieved. Peace
between
Israel and
Palestine would be a
giant step toward greater
regional stability, and it would
finally let both Israelis and
Palestinians benefit from the
Middle East 's growing wealth.
We started this
war rashly, but we must end our
involvement responsibly. And end
it we must. The alternative is a
fear-driven policy paralysis
that perpetuates the war -- to
America 's historic detriment.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was national
security adviser to President
Jimmy Carter. His most recent
book is "Second Chance: Three
Presidents and the Crisis |
