As Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed in Baghdad, Iraqis danced in the streets in support of America. For once they were burning effigies of their leader rather than of our president. This is unprecedented. The Arab street, so often portrayed monolithically as a mob of men excitedly burning American and Israeli flags, is far more ideologically diverse than the media allows. Seeing a little boy use his shoe to bash the face of a statue of Saddam Hussein was touching and indicative of the dictator's true popularity. The United States has an incredible opportunity to better the lives of the Iraqi people and change perceptions in the Arab world; it is imperative that we tread carefully but resolutely toward forming an Iraqi government of which they can be proud and that can provide hope for the region.
America will not be judged, a decade from now, on how well it worked with the U.N., nor on the size of the coalition that destroyed Hussein's regime, nor on how many tons of chemical weapons we find, but rather on how well the Iraqi experiment in self-government is working. In any new government the Iraqi people will be better off; it is inconceivable that any new government could kill over 20,000 Iraqis per year, as Saddam Hussein averaged while in power. But the way in which Iraqis are made better off is tremendously important. Will the extraction of oil benefit only a few well-connected businessmen, as occurred in Russia's oil privatization, or will it more closely resemble the Alaska program wherein revenues are distributed evenly to the people, with some money saved for infrastructure improvements? Clearly the latter system, in which every Iraqi would have a stake in the continuation of the government, is preferable. Legal commerce must be encouraged as quickly as possible to foster the development of a middle class and to provide jobs that are independent of the state.
But the war is not yet over and Baghdad remains chaotic with widespread looting. Before there can be commerce there must be order. This places President Bush in a difficult predicament. A plan for the future of Iraq is needed, both to end the current looting and bloodletting as well as to lay the groundwork for a future government, but it would be unseemly for the President to give such a speech before the war is finished.
If the coalition forces continue to progress at their current pace, Bush's predicament should end shortly, allowing him to make a speech on the future of Iraq. The Arab street will be watching. Rather than getting bogged down in detailed description of the future government, it would be helpful for Bush to focus instead on principles that will characterize it. Territorial integrity, elimination of weapons of mass destruction, prosecution of Baath party officials, a democracy of some sort that embraces federalism to lessen ethnic and religious tensions and an equitable distribution of national resources are all principles upon which it should be easier to find agreement within Iraq and abroad. We have the potential to make Iraq a beacon of freedom and democracy amidst the sea of adjacent dictatorships and illegitimate monarchies. It is imperative that President Bush makes American goals known as soon as possible to assuage the wariness that some Iraqis feel about past (European) colonialism in the region.
Other issues, like whether the new government will be forced to honor the debts Saddam Hussein incurred in oppressing his own people, will require some diplomatic maneuvering. It would seem patently unfair to make the Iraqi people pay for the gas that was used to murder them or the guns used to ensure their subservience, but the Russians and French have billions of dollars riding on this issue, so it will be a contentious one.
I believe it would be a tremendous mistake to force the new government to pay these debts because it would encourage others to lend money to tyrants around the world, secure in the knowledge that their loans had little risk of default, regardless of changes in leadership. Furthermore, it would saddle the Iraqi people with a debt that would impede their development. Nonetheless, the issue may need to be tabled until order is established and more pressing issues settled.
Could it be that the United States is not, in fact, the Great Satan, nor the main reason for the suffering of Arabs? The jury on the Arab street remains undecided. Clearly the Iraqis are moving towards a more positive view of the United States, but it will take time and a concerted effort to better the lives of the Iraqi people before unwarranted fears of American colonialism are proven to be baseless. Interestingly, the two places in the Muslim world where the people are most supportive of America are Iran and Iraq, where we have opposed their governments consistently, while the places where we are least popular on the Arab street (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) are ostensibly our allies. The lesson from this is that when we sacrifice our commitment to democratic accountability in exchange for short-term security, we are likely to be hated by the people oppressed by the undemocratic governments with which we ally ourselves. Conversely, when we dedicate our resources to challenging those sorts of regimes, their people understand that it is not the United States that is halting their development, but rather their own government.
As soon as all of Iraq is liberated, President Bush must make a speech outlining an American commitment to Iraqi self-rule, and a desire to stay the course in spite of any pressure from neighboring states or creditor nations. We believe that Arabs are capable of self-government, and we must do everything in our power to make sure it succeeds. The freedom of the Iraqi people and the perception of America on the Arab street depend on it.
