NEVER HAS so much for so many depended on the stupidity of so few. With apologies to Winston Churchill, there is no other way to describe the British government's latest blunder. Last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq within the next few months. Just when a ray of hope had appeared with President Bush's troop "surge," Blair gave in to his Labour backbenchers. Iraq desperately needs law and order both to save lives and allow for economic development. But fearing for his party's electoral prospects, Blair capitulated.
Blair intends to step down as Prime Minister in July and Gordon Brown, Blair's likely successor, possesses nowhere near his charisma. Furthermore, the Conservative Party has been reenergized under its recently elected leader David Cameron. Blair is worried that handing an unpopular government to a less-than-deft politician could destroy the New Labour program he worked so hard to achieve. He is also worried that Cameron's conservatives could steal the majority in the House of Commons in the next election. But if Blair wants to prevent an Iraqi quagmire, he must put policy before politics.
Max Weber once remarked that a state must have a "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force" to enforce its laws in a given territory. Thanks to the policies of L. Paul Bremer, any initial chance of legitimacy for the Iraqi government was squandered. Bremer was appointed head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in May 2003 at then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's request. Within days of arrival he issued several fateful proclamations: Bremer engaged in a vicious de-Baathification program, halted the formation of the interim government, and disbanded the Iraqi army and police without severance pay. In other words, Bremer single-handedly destroyed the nascent Iraqi state.
In Saddam's Iraq, it was impossible to be a high-ranking civil servant without being a member of the Baath Party. Therefore, Bremer's de-Baathification program destroyed the Iraqi bureaucracy -- the backbone of the state. By stopping the creation of the interim government, Bremer ensured that the Americans and British would be seen as occupiers rather than facilitators of Iraqi democracy. Most dangerously, without an army or police force laws were unenforceable. As an atmosphere of lawlessness descended on Baghdad, the looting that started in the summer of 2003 began to radiate outward. Worse yet, it left thousands of young men penniless, unemployed and angry.
Although the foolishness of these policies is apparent, they were perfectly in line with Bremer's neoconservative masters in Washington. In Hegelian fashion, Neocons believe that ideas are, in Irving Kristol's words, "all-important" and can move the world toward some end. This inevitable end is the freedom and democracy of a pluralistic society. In Iraq, they saw a country that need only be freed from its authoritarian cage to become a workable democracy. Furthermore, they believed its history of dictatorial government would result in what political scientists term "democratic leaning." In other words, the evils of authoritarianism would induce Iraqis to support democracy. Under the spell of this ideology, there was no need to maintain the Iraqi interim government, police, or army since Iraqis would lovingly embrace democratic rule. In fact, comprehensive de-Baathification seemed imperative to remove the only influence holding the Iraqis back.
Sadly, these policies destroyed democracy instead of promoting it. As the CPA provided less stability and law and order collapsed, Iraqis did not embrace democracy but rather turned to the one source of physical force they still saw as legitimate: sectarian militias. Iraqi Shi'a, who make up the majority, have turned to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his dangerous Mahdi Army. Iraqi Sunnis have split between various Baathist and insurgent groups. Throw in some financial and military backing from Iran (a Shi'a country), and Iraq has been slowly sliding into chaos since late 2003. The only hope for turning Iraq into a functional country is to impose law and order by a massive show of force.
After extensive discussion among top Washington advisers, President Bush finally announced a surge in troop levels. It will be achieved by holding current soldiers a bit longer and deploying incoming soldiers a bit earlier. This overlap period is our last hope to achieve some modicum of stability in Iraq. If troops can put some teeth and, therefore, legitimacy behind the current government and its laws, then they will pave the path for an Iraqi state.
But the path will be destroyed if governments do not supply adequate numbers of troops. Blair reducing British troop levels now is the worst possible move. Despite sagging popularity ratings, Blair had stood steadfastly behind his foreign policy because he is acutely aware of the stakes involved; it is surprising that he would backtrack at the crucial moment. Domestic politics may be on Blair's mind, but with the fate of Iraq in the balance this is no time for him to worry about political maneuvering.
Josh Levy's column appears Monday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jlevy@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
