Bush Iraq Policy Sound By Andrew L. Jaffee, May 25, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

President Bush is not a great public speaker, but last night he sufficiently defended his Iraq policy. Democrats are already screaming that the speech was “not honest enough” and “lacked specificity,” but they offer no proof of presidential dishonesty, nor do they offer any alternatives. What would you do to change Iraq policy? I’m not being arrogant or confrontational. I’m inviting dialog. Email me. Post a comment on our forum. I’d like to hear specifics on how people would do things differently in Iraq.

Let’s look at Bush’s speech, and I’ll interweave commentary on media and Democratic criticism of U.S. Iraq policy. Last night, the president outlined 5 steps “to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom:”

We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

Can anybody tell me what steps the president left out? He did provide specifics.

The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy, to assure good relations with a sovereign nation. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.

The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. In addition to a president, two vice presidents, and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments, from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held. America fully supports Mr. Brahimi's efforts, and I have instructed the Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.

In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala'din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.

What else should we do? Iraq belongs to Iraqis. When would be the “right time” for them to start managing their own affairs? That time is now. The longer we do the heavy lifting, the more Iraqis will be inclined to sit on the sidelines. If they don’t like terrorists, then they should eliminate the terrorists. Training and equipment is just one facet of preparing the Iraqi security forces. Most importantly, they must have the will to police their own streets. I’m not saying we shouldn’t continue to help the Iraqis; I’m saying they need to get their asses in gear. I can find no arguments against transferring sovereignty to Iraqis.

The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.

America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April.

Again, I can find no arguments against helping Iraqis stabilize their country. I did find advice about U.S. troop strength in Iraq:

And regarding his statement that he would send more troops to Iraq if US commanders asked for them, the [Washington] Post editorial scoldingly noted that Bush "is the commander in chief; he can and should make that urgent and necessary decision himself".

Gee, that’s specific. It’s actually meaningless. Don’t you think Bush would send more troops if he could? He did just reassign troops from South Korea to Iraq. The fact is that we don’t have that many troops to add to Iraq. The public is already nervous enough about the situation there. Do you think Americans would swallow a new military conscription system? Not a chance. 20,000 soldiers who were supposed to leave Iraq in April have had their tours of duty extended. Do you think military families are happy about that? Not a chance. We’re in Iraq. We have to finish what we started. We can’t cut and run -- at least not now.

John Kerry has nothing sensible to say about troop strength in Iraq. Kerry did propose a “bill of rights” for military personnel -- basically some added services for them and their families – but he “gave no specifics on how he would pay for such items.” Monsieur Kerry also proposed adding 40,000 troops to the army “on a temporary basis.” Just where does Kerry propose to find these 40,000 people? Reinstate the draft? Kerry offered no specifics. The good senator has also criticized the president for sending troops to Iraq “without proper body armor,” but Kerry voted against an $87 billion package to fund the war and help finance the country’s reconstruction -- after he voted for war in Iraq. Support the war but don’t fund it? That doesn’t even make sense. I wonder if he has any more brilliant suggestions.

The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life. Our coalition has already helped Iraqis to rebuild schools and refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electrical grid, and modernize the communications system. And now a growing private economy is taking shape. A new currency has been introduced. Iraq's Governing Council approved a new law that opens the country to foreign investment for the first time in decades. Iraq has liberalized its trade policy, and today an Iraqi observer attends meetings of the World Trade Organization. Iraqi oil production has reached more than two million barrels per day, bringing revenues of nearly $6 billion so far this year, which is being used to help the people of Iraq. And thanks in part to our efforts -- to the efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker, many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime.

Sounds pretty good to me after just one year in Iraq. I can find no valid criticisms of this point. The U.S. barred Axis of Weasel countries (like Russia, Canada, France, and Germany) from bidding on $18.6 billion in contracts for rebuilding Iraq. These countries all opposed the U.S.-led coalition's liberation of Iraq. The Axis didn't oppose the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons. Some of its member nations were making billions by selling weapons to Saddam and/or participating in the U.N.'s infamous "oil-for-food" program (which also helped prop up Saddam). I don't want my tax dollars going to any companies in Russia, Canada, France, and Germany. Barring them from capitalizing on rebuilding Iraq is just good business sense: reward your friends and punish your enemies.

The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition. At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations -- to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction. Today, the United States and Great Britain presented a new resolution in the Security Council to help move Iraq toward self-government. I've directed Secretary Powell to work with fellow members of the Council to endorse the timetable the Iraqis have adopted, to express international support for Iraq's interim government, to reaffirm the world's security commitment to the Iraqi people, and to encourage other U.N. members to join in the effort. Despite past disagreements, most nations have indicated strong support for the success of a free Iraq. And I'm confident they will share in the responsibility of assuring that success.

Isn’t everyone screaming about getting UN approval? Don’t forget that the UN Security Council voted unanimously on 08/11/2002 to hold “Iraq in ‘material breach’ of its obligations under previous resolutions.” The same resolution “recall[ed] [a] repeated warning of ‘serious consequences’ for continued violations” by Iraq.

Today the Washington Post and New York Times both had very unspecific advice about international support in Iraq.

Both dailies agreed that the right path to a stable Iraq is to bring in more international players to oversee the transition and share in providing security.

They also made suggestions that go beyond the draft resolution the US and Britain have circulated at the UN Security Council, which the Times described as "disappointingly sketchy" on internationalising the military operation in Iraq.

"Bush could convene a summit meeting to create a multinational group to oversee the transition," said the Times, adding that the UN Security Council could appoint "an international high representative" who could supervise the interim Iraqi government until the first round of elections.

The Times also mentioned NATO involvement. Wait a minute, every time we’ve asked NATO, France, Russia, etc., for support, they’ve refused. The UN pulled its entire staff out of Iraq last year. The Axis of Weasel countries were making billions by selling weapons to Iraq and stealing UN "oil-for-food" program money. The fact is that they’re unwilling to risk their soldiers’ lives. They only want to profit from Iraq. With friends like these, who needs enemies? HELLO! They have refused to help. Don’t forget the 17,000 foreign troops who are helping in Iraq.

The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January. A United Nations team, headed by Carina Perelli, is now in Iraq, helping form an independent election commission that will oversee an orderly, accurate national election. In that election, the Iraqi people will choose a transitional national assembly, the first freely-elected, truly representative national governing body in Iraq's history. This assembly will serve as Iraq's legislature, and it will choose a transitional government with executive powers. The transitional national assembly will also draft a new constitution, which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for the fall of 2005. Under this new constitution, Iraq will elect a permanent government by the end of next year.

Again, anyone willing to oppose free and fair elections in Iraq? I didn’t think so. Where’s the beef? I hear no specifics, just platitudes and hot air, but I’m still willing to listen. Any takers?