SPEAKING
FREELY A regrettable necessity By Joseph Wang
Speaking Freely is an
Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to
have their say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
There
have been a number of articles in Asia Times Online
which have criticized the assault on Fallujah. In the
interest of balance, I would like to explain why the
assault on Fallujah is a regrettable necessity to
improve what is a bad situation.
First of all,
let me point out that the Bush administration's
justification for the invasion of Iraq was extremely
weak, and the poor planning for the aftermath of the
invasion was horrifically incompetent. Had there been
some foresight, we would not be in such a bad situation.
Furthermore, it is the case that much American planning
is currently based on fantasy and unreality, and there
are some basic facts which are being ignored, such as
the fact that democracies are hard to produce and the
fact that the American public has limited patience for
overseas wars and that the nation will in a few years
eventually tire of Iraq.
However, despite all of
this, the assault on Fallujah is an essential beginning
for getting Iraq out of the current dismal state, and to
make sure that Iraq is governable when (not if) the
United States begins to pull troops out.
The
primary goal in Iraq is to form a stable, rational
government which can ensure basic security for the
people of Iraq, and prevent it from degenerating into
anarchy. Without a stable, rational government, you have
the breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism. It is
of little importance whether this government is
pro-American or anti-American, democratic or
authoritarian, Islamic or secular. What is important is
that the Iraqi government exercise control within its
borders and prevent the nation from dissolving into
anarchy.
If it were the case that the insurgents
within Fallujah were indeed capable of creating such a
stable national Iraqi government, then the proper US
policy would be to turn power over to them and leave.
This does not appear to be the case.
First of
all, it is not clear who to turn power to. The
insurgents within Fallujah appear to consist of a number
of disparate and conflicting groups without any sort of
central leadership or control. Second, the insurgents do
not seem to have very much support outside the Sunni
Arab population, and have shown no real effort to get
this support. Finally, the insurgents appear to have no
coherent ideology or plan other than to get the
Americans out. They have also shown no particular vision
for how they intend to govern Iraq and they do not
appear to have the institutional capability to form a
government when the US leaves.
The almost
certain aftermath of trying to turn power over to the
insurgents is that they will start fighting among
themselves, and will be unable to exercise control
outside of central Iraq. Iraq will then dissolve into
the same sort of anarchy that we have seen in Lebanon
and Afghanistan, and then we will see a combination of
viciously cruel ideologies and safe areas for terrorist
plotters.
The alternative is to attempt to
create a stable national government out of the Iraqi
interim government. The Iraqi interim government appears
to have enough support from Kurds and Shi'ite Arabs to
be the core of an Iraqi national government. But for the
Iraqi interim government to be credible it must have
control over the areas within Iraq's borders, and this
means the ability to control Fallujah.
Opponents
of the Fallujah assault argue that it will inflame
opinion against the US among Sunni Muslims and in the
Middle East. However, this point of view neglects the
fact that opinion against the US in the region is
already at a nadir, and it is very unlikely that not
assaulting Fallujah would improve opinion toward the
Iraqi interim government or the US. We have been through
several months of attempts at negotiation and there is
no evidence that the insurgents within Fallujah are
interested in a political settlement, or even the
organizational coherence to state their demands.
It has also been argued that an attack on
Fallujah will not end the resistance. This is correct.
However, one essential element of a guerrilla insurgency
is a base area. The insurgents in Fallujah will scatter
and they will fight on. But without a base area in which
they can resupply and regroup, their military strength
will be much weakened. No military insurgency has ever
taken power without a base area, and removing any base
areas for the insurgency will ensure that while they
will continue to create chaos and casualties, they will
not be powerful enough to topple the Iraqi interim
government, and this gives the Iraqi government some
breathing space to strengthen its control over Iraq
before the Americans get tired and leave.
Let me
state in closing that I am not a starry eyed democrat,
and I do not share in the fantasies of those who are. I
am however a believer in stability, and what Iraq needs
at the minimum is a stable government. This government
need not be democratic, it need not be pro-American, it
doesn't even need to be popular or nice. If the Iraqi
insurgency showed any interest or ability to actually be
this government, then power should be turned over to
them. This is not the case, and before the American
public grows tired of this mess (as it will eventually),
it is wise that American military forces assist the
Iraqi interim government, which does have the interest
to govern all of Iraq, to assert control within its
borders.
(Copyright Joseph Wang)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
