I'm not sure I want to be an occupier anymore.
I don't own a house, even a car. What business do I have owning a country, even a pitiful desert one with water and electricity that doesn't work, and where people run around shooting guns in the air and blowing up things?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those lefty peaceniks with a whiny voice who wears a fanny-pack and gets faint during those first very tense 20-minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" as buckets of guts are spilt and limbs fly like Frisbees.
Under three presidents, I've mentally signed on to engage in mayhem in Iraq No. 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the sequel, not to mention when we came within a cat's yawn of pouncing on Haiti in the first years of the Clinton regime.
But this time around, I think the United States needs a few colleagues. Being an occupier of Iraq is a dead-end job for a single nation, though for sure some favored contractors close to our vice president have made out fairly well.
I was encouraged when the U.S. finally said it would seek a new UN resolution for a more inclusive international force in Iraq. At the same time, having taken the greatest risk, the U.S. should have the greatest responsibility and authority.
Having fought two necessary wars in two years, the U.S., however, has an obligation to itself to avoid being labeled the international bully. Whether in the short-term or the long-term, this image neither fits its historic profile nor bodes well for the future.
In other words, speak softly, carry that famous big stick, but do so with magnanimity and a sense of inclusiveness.
The current 30 nations who have signed on represent coalition light, sort of like the second second string of the Slippery Rock football team, with only the United States and England adding the real bulk on the front line.
Six months ago the United States was vilifying Ukraine over the supposed selling of sophisticated radar to Iraq. Ukraine was tucked into the international attic with the likes of Nigeria, one step above Belarus. It was called one of the most corrupt countries.
Now, low and behold, Uncle Sam and Ukraine are best buds. A Faust-like bargain was struck with Ukraine sending peacekeepers to Iraq, therefore helping create the eggshell illusion of an international force.
President Kuchma can play realpoltik with the pros. But it still was not a real coalition because it didn't waddle like a duck, much less quack. The U.S. was seen as the sole occupier, and therefore a magnate for terrorists everywhere.
In fact, there is the possibility — if it has not happened already — that Iraq will become ground-zero for the hodge-podge of loosely connected terrorists that have a like mind affiliation with Bin Laden's organization.
In these modern times, the U.S. is not the best occupier. We can send a man to the moon, can restore conquered nations with a Marshall Plan, and can split the atom. But we can't seem to turn on the water and electricity in Baghdad.
I am not sure having German and French involvement will automatically cure these problems. The French recently lost track of over 10,000 old people who died in a heat wave, and the Germans can't find a plug for their hemorrhaging economy.
Add to this the fact that virtually no European understands the post-9-11 psychic of the American people. While they sympathize, they think the United States suffered a tragedy, sort of like the accidental sinking of a ferry with thousands aboard.
They don't realize that America is in the grip of a national trauma. That airplanes being flown into the World Trade Center was an act of war, much more chilling than the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that launched us into World War II.
Some Europeans with whom I have talked and have heard in nightly news commentary seem to be saying, "America, get over it." In other words, take two aspirin and sleep off that terrible hangover
It's not going to happen.
They don't realize that America is, in a word, pissed. And this has to do with trauma as much as it does tragedy. It has to do with an avowal that if such a terrible occurrence again happens, it will not be a surprise.
This is why President George Bush, whom many Europeans haughtily consider rather dim, maintains a high approval rating among Americans. It is why the United States was, in numbers, solidly behind going to war to prevent future traumas.
Weapons of mass destruction? Find them. Don't find them. In America, who cares?
Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction, and 9-11 changed for the foreseeable future America's attitude toward foreign engagements. Libya quickly took notice, as did Syria, and North Korea. The shackles of Vietnam were undone.
But, the point has been made: Quickly, physically and graphically.
The view here is that it is time for the United States to be inclusive rather than exclusive in Iraq. The mission should be one of peacekeeping, rather than occupation. There should be definite time lines set, not frothy outlines.
And for God's sakes, send in whoever and whatever to get the water turned back on and the electricity up.
America, along with its partner Britain, should be magnanimous in victory. In the future, there will be other Iraq's, and a civilized confronting of them will be necessary.
Going it nearly alone, the chances of the U.S. prevailing over time are marginal. The fear is that the headlines of today will be the headlines of five years from now. And they will read: "Light at the End of the Tunnel Near."
By agreeing to seek a new UN resolution, the United States has taken an important step. All nations should realize it as such.
|
