Building Iraq's Future

Even the staunchest critics of the Bush administration must acknowledge that the war against Iraq has been a relatively smooth affair. In a relatively short period of time, the American and British armed forces have swept through most of Iraq with considerably few civilian casualties. To be sure, the military campaign is certainly not over yet, and indeed, some of its most dangerous episodes may very well lie ahead. But the effective dismantling of Saddam Hussein's power structure will surely take place in a matter of weeks, if not days. Thus, the citizens of Iraq are witnessing a truly historic moment, which will shape their country for generations to come.

As the military aspect of Bush's plan for Iraq draws to a successful end, the hawks in the White House can pat themselves on the back, but when the last Iraqi general surrenders, the United States will face a much more complex and no less perilous stage: building Iraq's future.

Setting the stage for a successful reconstruction of post-war Iraq will undoubtedly be one of the most formidable challenges George W. Bush will meet as President. Before him lies a truly unique opportunity to make a profound impact on this country and the whole of the Middle East region. Will his administration rise to the challenge and provide political and economic means for the rebirth of Iraq, or will it neglect this country to a dusty corner of its foreign policy once Saddam is crushed? This question is of tremendous importance and will define the presidency of George W. Bush, and indeed, US foreign policy.

If, in fact, Bush is able to transform Iraq into a viable democratic state the president will have scored a major political victory. If Iraq becomes the next Germany or Japan, where American occupation provided a launch pad for vibrant economies and beacons of liberty and freedom, Bush and his advisors will be more than vindicated. The rebirth of Iraq would become a jewel of American foreign policy and Bush's war would be remembered as a courageous action to change the political paradigms of foreign affairs. Some experts of the Middle East such as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times have supported military action against Hussein's regime insofar as it is part of this audacious project to change the region's political face. But the big question is, can this scenario become a reality, or is it just an idealistic fantasy?

As much as Friedman admires the plan's boldness, he wonders if the Bush team is capable of committing time and energy to rebuilding Iraq. In fact, skepticism regarding the Bush team's nation building credentials is one of the reasons most of the world opposed this war. Personally, it is for me. To be quite honest, this reputation is not undeserved. Who can forget how George W. Bush decried nation building and its usefulness during the 2000 presidential campaign debates? And even fresher in our memories is the notorious example of Afghanistan. Back then, US armed forces quickly dismantled the Taliban regime through a relentless bombing campaign, much like they have done in Iraq. Bush got rid of the Taliban, but Afghanistan is still a mess. A weak government with scarce resources, under the constant threat of violence can do little without the help of the US to maintain stability and provide relief. Will this be the case in Iraq?

Abandoning Iraq would not only be a humanitarian catastrophe, but also a big mistake. If Iraq is not assisted in becoming a successful nation it can slowly but surely develop into another failed state. It can then easily fall prey to more radical elements of Iraqi society and become the next Afghanistan. And we all know what the potential risks of having another Taliban-type country can be. It would definitely make you wonder if the more things change the more they stay the same.

Another victim if such abandonment takes place would be American credibility abroad. Forget Bush -- his credibility abroad is null. More importantly, the whole American nation and the ideals for which it stands would be questioned throughout the world. The much advertised regime change would have served the whole purpose of eliminating Saddam and not the liberation that was promised. If the international opposition to this war seemed excessive, it would pale by comparison to future disagreements in the international community if America loses more of its credibility.

America's interests are tied to reconstructing a free and successful Iraq. This task will surely be more difficult than the ongoing military campaign, but it is of much higher value. It is always easier to destroy than it is to build. It is always easier to bomb than it is to reach out and cooperate. Let us hope the Bush administration will be committed to the rebirth of the Iraqi nation, not for his political sake, but for the sake of America. If he is not up to the task, let us have, like Senator John Kerry proposed last week, a regime change in this country.