Many people (mostly Republicans) say (mostly to Democrats) that it's
wrong to "politicize" the war in Iraq. But politicizing the war is
exactly what should now occur. To be exact, those who oppose the war
should politicize it as much as the Bush Administration has already
done. Politics is not just the activity of politicians; it is a
democratic people's chief means of making basic decisions about its
future. Such decisions-whether the country's foreign policy will be
imperial or democratic, whether the constitutional system will remain
intact, whether the United States stands for or against torture-are
now before the electorate. In any case, it seems clear from the
President's speech at the Army War College on May 25 that no basic
change in US Iraq policy is likely before November 4. On the other
hand, the entire direction of American politics is at stake on that
day. To point this out is not to be indifferent to the welfare of the
people of Iraq. For the shape of their future will also depend
chiefly on the outcome of the election.
The beginning of realism in regard to Iraq is to acknowledge that the
next step in the President's policy-his promise of "full sovereignty"
to Iraq-is a cosmetic operation. The story of the war has been one of
official claims or predictions dissolving upon contact with fact.
Let's see how quickly I can run through the overfamiliar list:
Weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's Iraq? Not there. Iraqi ties
with Al Qaeda before the war? Missing. Democracy in Iraq? Drowned in
blood at Abu Ghraib. Transformation of the whole Middle East? For the
worse.
The promise of "full sovereignty" is the next in this list (coming
along just in time to refresh the litany). But in one way it's
different. You had to wait some months for the previous mirages to
dissipate, but this one is dead before arrival. It is a phrase
advanced in the teeth of multiple admissions by the Administration
itself, which has let it be known that the new "sovereign" will not:
possess authority over either American forces or its own; be able to
pass legislation; control its own news media; make decisions about
the economy of the country. Neither will it enjoy the authority of
the "interim constitution" recently promised by Bush but now simply
forgotten. Arguably, the new group will possess less authority even
than the powerless existing "governing council." "Withdrawal of
power" might be a better description than "transfer of power" for
what is about to happen-except that the governing council lacked real
power in the first place. As for the election promised in January,
this will be as uncertain, once the US election in November is out of
way, as the interim constitution turned out to be.
What is at stake on June 30 has little to do with any reality in
Iraq. In all important respects, American policy will remain the
same. The Coalition Provisional Authority will be renamed an
"embassy." (The President said, "Our embassy in Baghdad will have the
same purpose as any other American embassy." This is true if the
comparison is to, say, the American Embassy in Chile in 1971.) Some
138,000-or more-troops will remain in the country, using, in the
President's ominous words, "measured force or overwhelming force."
The electricity, water and oil will stop and start as usual. The
"insurgency" will continue. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will jockey
for power. The prison at Abu Ghraib will be torn down, but a new
"modern maximum security prison"-America's latest gift to Iraqi
democracy-will replace it (as if a building, not the people in it,
had been torturing Iraqi prisoners.)
The changes that will occur are all in the realm of appearances. But
they are not, for that reason, insignificant, for as the White House
well knows, it is appearances that may determine the November
election. The trick for the Administration is to create, for a period
of four months, an illusion that American policy is working. In this
effort, there are at least four distinct fronts. One is the United
Nations. Theoretically, its man Lakhdar Brahimi is choosing the
country's next government. In actuality, he has become a key figure,
however unintentionally, in George W. Bush's election effort. Now the
United States and Britain have placed before the Security Council a
draft resolution inviting the UN to give its blessing to the new
order in Iraq. The UN is in danger of creating an aura of legitimacy
and control where none in fact exist. The draft permits the Security
Council to "review"-not "renew"-the presence of the American and
other foreign troops after a year. That is, the United States,
wielder of a veto in the council, can keep its troops in Iraq as long
as it wants.
The second front is the political leaders in Iraq, who are under
intense pressure by the Administration to play their parts. What
happens to defectors was recently illustrated by the treatment of the
Pentagon's former favorite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi, who made the mistake
of turning against the occupation, stating, "sovereignty is not to be
given, it is to be seized." With a brutality that is the hallmark of
this Administration's approach to any opposition, an Iraqi force
accompanied by Americans looted his premises--office?], breaking up
furniture and smashing family photographs.
The third front is the American media. Its members should awaken to
the fact that every time they use phrases like "handing over
sovereignty" or "transition to democracy" they are misleading the
public just as thoroughly as so many did when they accepted at face
value the Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction.
A final front is the Administration's Democratic opposition, which is
hobbled by Senator John Kerry's own "stay the course" position.
Perhaps he is simply following the old political rule that when your
opponent is destroying himself by his own efforts, you should stay
out of the way. However, by failing to challenge the President on the
war, he risks himself becoming a kind of unwilling accessory to the
White House propaganda maneuvers.
The UN should not abandon the people of Iraq; neither, of course,
should the leadership of Iraq; American reporters should not become
partisans of the Democratic Party; and John Kerry should not adopt
any view on the war simply to bait his rival. But all of them should
be aware that to whatever extent they give credence to the charade on
June 30, what they are doing above all else is to assist in the
re-election of the President.
Jonathan Schell's A Hole in the World, a compilation of his "Letter
From Ground Zero" columns, has just been published by Nation Books.
Copyright © 2004 The Nation
###
