MERIA Journal V.9, N.3 (September 2005) M. Rubin:The future of Iraq: Democracy, Civil War, or Chaos?

["MERIA Journal" <meria@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Published by the GLORIA Center,
Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Volume 9,  No. 3, Article 7- September  2005
     Total Circulation 22,000







THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: DEMOCRACY, CIVIL WAR, OR CHAOS?
 *By Michael Rubin
Pessimism regarding Iraq's future is unwarranted. Iraq faces many challenges, but success is still within reach. After 35 years of dictatorship, Iraqis have embraced a political process emphasizing compromise and coalition. They have successfully held elections and drawn up a constitution. Political brinkmanship is not necessarily a precursor to civil war. That said, Iraqi democracy faces many challenges. First and foremost is the insurgency. Premature reconciliation and concessions offered in the face of violence, however, will backfire. Neighboring states also may undermine Iraq's security, necessitating a long-term U.S. military presence.
More than eight million Iraqis braved bombs and bullets to vote on January 30, 2005, in Iraq's first free elections in a half-century. President George W. Bush praised the Iraqi people from the White House, declaring, "In great numbers, and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of terrorists."[1] But in subsequent weeks, talks bogged down, first over the formation of the government and more recently over the constitution.
While internal tensions will not dissipate anytime soon, Iraqis have shown a resiliency which suggests that while the path to democracy might be arduous and marred by violence, that they are nevertheless dedicated to making the political process work. As Iraqis move toward their constitutional referendum and national elections for a full-term government, the greatest threat they face will be from outside powers seeking to destabilize  Iraq by proxy. The key for success will be to abide by, without exception, a timeline for specific political milestones. Washington and the United Nations should not bend to pressure, be it from factions within  Iraq or from interests outside, to alter the agreed framework. Milestones matter.
IS  IRAQ READY FOR DEMOCRACY?
U.S. officials and public commentators have consistently underestimated Iraqis.  Two months before Iraqis went to the polls, Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Peter Galbraith, a former American ambassador to Croatia and a lobbyist for the Kurdistan Regional Government, penned a commentary in the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Why Jan. 30 Won't Work" in which they argued that Iraq was not ready for elections.[2]  In his weblog, Juan Cole, the president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association, argued that "The 1997 elections in  Iran," in which the Guardian Council disqualified 234 out of 238 candidates, "were much more democratic." [3]
Like Cole, his fellow bloggers, and commentators, many of the fiercest critics of Bush Administration policy have never visited  Iraq. They treat Iraq as a template upon which to impose a political agenda often shaped more by partisan disdain for the Bush Administration policy rather than by the situation in  Iraq. Rashid Khalidi, an Arab studies professor at  Columbia  University, for example, authored a critique of  U.S. policy in Iraq relying upon secondary sources.[4] Council on Foreign Relations scholar David Phillips pilloried the failure of the post-war reconstruction in Losing Iraq.[5] In its review of his work, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Phillips did not visit  Iraq in the course of his research, and lifted descriptions of Iraqi cities directly from secondary newspaper accounts.[6] Others seek credibility by visiting Coalition forward operating bases or the high-security International Zone, but do not venture outside the security bubble to meet ordinary I!
 ra!
qis.[7]
Despite the pessimism emanating from  Washington and the academy, the January 2005 Iraqi election campaign demonstrated just how far Iraqis had come. Political advertisements on ash-Sharqiya, Iraq's most popular television channel, were slick and, but for language, would not be out of place in an American political campaign. Amid pictures of flags, ballots, and Iraqi children, Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi promised "a bright future and a strong and competent  Iraq."
U.S. allies Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen hold presidential elections, but restrict opposition campaigns to the point where incumbency is guaranteed.[8] In Iraq, Allawi found the benefits of incumbency limited. The U.S. military and private security contractors helped transport Allawi to campaign rallies across the country, and the interim prime minister used the bully pulpit of his office to grant interviews to al-Iraqiya television and the al-Arabiya satellite channel. But, he could impose no restrictions on his competitors, many of whom adopted a grassroots campaign. Shi'a politicians broadcast their messages by radio so as to reach ordinary Iraqis who