The Reconstruction Dilemma

Patrick Doherty

July 19, 2005

This morning, Reuters reported that the Iraqi delegation to the donor conference on reconstruction for Iraq, held in Jordan, declared that, "Unless we move fast and effectively in the next few months we will have very serious problems on our hands,'' Planning Minister Barham Salih told Reuters. "Failure is not an option because it will have dire consequences for the Iraqi people and for the region and for world security." For progressives, this should be ringing the alarm bells.

Without an improvement of basc services and facilities in Iraq, the country would likely witness a series of massive sectarian protests of the Green Zone government. Such protests, whether in Baghdad or not, would present an incredible target to insurgents. Such a scenario could indeed lead to an escalation spiral that looks and feels like civil war , but in this case, it would be a three-way guerrilla war, with the United States smack in the middle. U.S casualties would spike, atrocities would happen; the region—and its oil—would be in peril.

And then, not only would the children of America's lower-income familes be dying in Iraq, a shortage-driven spike in oil prices would disproportionately threaten the livelihoods of lower-income families here at home.

Other news services are picking up on the fairly explicit criticism of the U.S. occupation authorities and their inept planning for the post-invasion period. This is true, painfully true, but it does not help us get out of the current situation. The real problem we're facing is that reconstruction can't happen without an increase in security—and security won't improve without a better political process.

And that's where progressives have a chance to lead. The Bush administration has failed utterly at bringing peace and stability to Iraq because it's been operating not from the hard-earned experience of the international community in nation-building, but from a twisted neoconservative set of talking points. The gap between the failed policies of Bush and the best practices of the international community (including American experts in DoD, State and USAID) creates the only opportunity to fix the current mess.

But right now, the progressives are split. The anti-war community is planning a major march in September. Since marches have to have simple slogans it is no surprise that Out Now appears to be the leading contender. This is wildly counterproductive.

Progressives have too long favored the thrill of the protest over the responsibility of governance. It's so much easier to call Iraq a war and then be "anti-war." Iraq is the perfect case.  A progressive-led initiative to change U.S. policy in Iraq is the right thing to do but it will not fit on a protester's sign or fit into a nice neat slogan. Unfortunately, this know-nothing policy will only hurt the Iraqis and our fellow citizens in the long run.

Right now, America and the world needs progressives to offer viable alternatives that deliver a new peace process for Iraq, a new security strategy, and the money and expertise required for reconstruction.

Not just empty slogans.