Former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s ominous pre-war warning, "You break it, you've bought it", set the tone for the public debate on Iraq for years to come. How ever bad Iraq got, the US would have to deal with it, because the American-led invasion had released numerous unforeseen, though hardly unforeseeable, consequences.
If last week's New York Times interview with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is any indication of where the American public debate stands today, and the new guiding principle really is, as she says, "the American people are done with Iraq", then the era of the "Pottery Barn rules" has given way to something much worse.
Now, just to be clear, I am not trying to take sides in the American presidential race. The issue here is not which candidate said what, but how the campaign is revealing the underlying public mood -- the view people have of the Iraq saga and their country’s international responsibility more generally. For anyone concerned with international affairs and conflict resolution, there is a deeply worrying trend developing here.
What stands out most in the Clinton interview is the willingness to have America wash its hands of the whole Iraq debacle, even if things get substantially worse. Sentences like, "They are not done killing themselves" and "This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves." are only the general flavour. It gets even more specific and more disturbing.
The interviewer asks about the limitations of this stand-off-and-pull-out approach, suggesting, "it would put American troops pretty much in the position of being bystanders if there was to be an escalation of the civil conflict of sectarian attacks… sitting in their bases while civilians were being killed just outside the gates". Clinton responds, "That’s exactly right, and that may be inevitable."
Her justification is that this approach "certainly may be the only way to concentrate the attention of the [Iraqi] parties", continuing, "It may only be that kind of position that will get the Sunnis and the Shiites to finally say, ‘They really might mean it. You know what? We might be left to our own devices. We’ll have nobody there to turn to. So maybe we ought to accelerate what we need to do on our own behalf.’"
Arguing that Baghdad needs a wake-up call today is one thing, but this kind of language is horrifying, because, in Iraq, it is more than likely that for many of the key actors behind the violence, "what we need to do on our own behalf", will mean massive "sectarian cleansing" and the deaths of tens, or hundreds, of thousands of innocent civilians. It is not something anyone can just walk away from. Indeed, the US and the rest of the world have pledged never to walk away from such situations.
At the UN World Summit in September 2005, the world's heads of state and government unanimously accepted the concept of "Responsibility to Protect", or R2P. The Security Council has also accepted the general principle, specifically referring to it in resolutions. Developed in the preceding years by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, the R2P doctrine is based on a straightforward idea. It says that while the state itself has the primary responsibility to protect its own people from mass violence, atrocity crimes and other such man-made catastrophes, when a state fails to meet that responsibility, either through incapacity or ill-will, then the responsibility to protect shifts to the international community -- to be exercised by a variety of measures including, if absolutely necessary, military force.
Thus, even if the US had not invaded Iraq, it could not sit back in an extreme situation and do nothing in the face of mass violence and atrocity crimes. It would be obligated to stop the killing. The fact that the current mayhem in Iraq can, in large part, be placed at Washington's doorstep, only increases American responsibility in this matter.
The public may feel they are "done with Iraq", but the US cannot simply walk away from the mess it has made and pretend things will somehow sort them themselves out. A different way to address the spiraling sectarianism would be to try to forge a national compact among Iraqis, with Washington pressuring all sides across the political spectrum to reach the kind of broad compromise that the Constitution failed to deliver.
Given the dreadful situation in Iraq today, there is no guarantee this path would work, of course, but it might. Clinton is right to say "there are no good options" in Iraq, but there are less awful choices than sitting back and watching an even more deadly bloodbath unfold.
========================
postscript: As with all my blog entries, I have written this in my personal capacity and not in my role as Media Director of the International Crisis Group. For more information on the national compact idea, however, the Crisis Group website has more detail here: Iraq: What should be done?
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
Former journalist Andrew Stroehlein is Media Director of the International Crisis Group, the conflict resolution organisation, where he promotes responsible coverage of current and potential conflicts and helps draw attention to forgotten wars around the world.
20 Mar 2007 10:13:25 GMT
The debates in USA are going on various levels,but everywhere you could smell the blood ,the stupidity and the egoism over the seen! Only the people who are participating in antiwar actions,demonstrations are obviously,full of humanity and deserve to lead their country. Dr.Osama Hammoudeh/Jordan.
21 Mar 2007 12:01:02 GMT
the future of iraq belongs to iraqis - anything else perpetuates the crime against their sovereignty and dignity and humanity that the united states has committed and is committing. nearly 3/4 million dead. the united states has no moral authority to do anything but foot the bill - if we've broken iraq - and we have - then we must pay to restore it as best as can be done and we have no right to dictate how that restoration is manifest. only the iraqi people have that right.
22 Mar 2007 09:28:57 GMT
I am surprised to see so few comments to this article. It certainly reflects the attitude of most Americans to live and let die. I appreciate the view of the blogger that no matter what the cause we Americans and other supposedly civilized nations have the responsibility to protect innocent people from genocide.
30 Mar 2007 17:20:11 GMT
The American (and British) can withdraw their troops whilst accepting responsibility for the terrible reality of Iraq, but it won't happen overnight.
The people of our countries need to arrest and try those responsbile for instigating this illegal war, pay reparations to Iraq and perform a staged hand-over security duties to UN peacekeepers. This is a shameful period in our histories and I am not surprised that many would like to forget it. I believe that ensuring justice is done is far preferable to suppressing injustice.31 Mar 2007 08:43:44 GMT
Well, I think there are other extra forces at work - partially due to the fact that most Americans want a stabalized Iraq but don't want any credit to to go to Bush & Cheney so how is that achieved? THEN you layer in the fact that while Amercians can get ticked off, we're also relatively easy to forget so we'd prefer that Iraq be left to grow their own counry like S. Korea, Japan, Germany, etc (of course, all the meddlling will done quiet & behind the scenes :-) we' want to be seen as liberators and not as conquerors ...
12 May 2007 17:45:08 GMT
The Solution to Solving the Iraq Debacle
Everyone knows that the Iraq War is proving to be disastrous to the United States and the Global Community financially, morally, and culturally. Whether or not one agrees with the War, its motivation for its beginning, or its ultimate outcome, the simple uncontested fact is that it is now time to draw it to an end. That simple fact is something that every man, woman, and child can agree on, whatever their political predilection. That being said, since every individual on Earth wants the War to end in a manner that involves as few casualties and economic costs than necessary, then it must become a Global Community effort to end it. The United States and Britain can no longer sustain this War by themselves, as too many troops and too much money will be lost in a seemingly endless barrage of damming up newly-springing holes in the walls protecting against inevitable chaos. Therefore the only conceivable solution is to divide the country of Iraq into about 50-100 quadrants. Since Iraq is approximately 437,072 sq km, this means that each and every quadrant will be roughly 4350-8741 sq km. This small amount of space would be totally manageable and easy to govern by each participating country, each of whom would contribute relatively small amounts of money and troops to keep the peace in each of their quadrants. The costs of not contributing in this way would be far too costly to each and every nation on Earth, since the situation in Iraq threatens the National Security of every country on Earth. Whether this plan is accomplished under the aegis of the already organized and well funded United Nations, or an ad hoc voluntary group of NGOs from each and every country, this plan will work because it is so manageable, affordable, and ultimately will help to bring Iraq under control. Each quadrant will concurrently and simultaneously govern in different fashions, respecting human rights above all, and the most successful quadrants will then be slowly emulated by the rest of the quadrants if their form of governing works. Slowly, as stability increases, the quadrants will then be allowed to merge with one another, over time, until finally the country will be totally reunited under one Iraqi banner, but under a form of government which has been proven, over time, to work. The most important goals of these quadrants is security, preventing death and destruction, rebuilding cities and infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and the like. Each quadrant will literally compete to see which form of government is the best, and all of the other quadrants will be able to move in the direction of the most successful quadrants. One National Constitution can be the countryâ paramount law, with each and every quadrant functioning as an individual quadrant-state with its own rules and challenges, provided that it falls within the purview of that Constitution. This is the only solution to getting U.S. and British troops out, and securing the nation of Iraq in the most cost-effective, painless, and secure way. The first step must be undertaken immediately at the next Convention of the United Nations. Robert David Merchant New York, New York May 11, 200731 May 2007 21:53:05 GMT
With all due respect Mr. Merchant, the dividing of countries by other nations without consulting with the native inhabitants is one of the things that has contributed to many of the major conflicts witnessed since WWI.
The old colonials were very good at putting the minority in charge when they left, after decades of abuse at the hands of the majority population who were the colonials' favorites (Rwanda comes to mind). The divisions created at the end of WWI to break up the Ottoman Empire are part of the reason you have the divisions in Iraq and elsewhere. So your idea of splitting Iraq into quadrants, etc, etc is nonsense and will only prolong the inevitable - our ultimate withdrawal. We made many mistakes starting with not employing the Iraqi population to rebuild their own country. Had they been employed and paid a decent and just wage, instead of being treated like an uneducated third world populace, you may have had less theft and sabotage. People protect what they have a stake in. But it's far too late for that now. Iraq must be treated like the sovereign government that they are. We should request things from them not dictate to them. We should sit down with them and ASK what they would like us to do,if anything, not announce that we have a new plan and then implement it. It is not our call, it is not our country. We are an occupation army whether we want to admit it or not and what we are fighting are people who want the occupiers OUT! Last year the Iraqi government asked us to leave. We didn't. We keep saying if they ask us to go we will. They have, we haven't. If we intend to stay, we should pull our people to the perimeter and guard the borders. Let the Iraqi police and their government handle the cities the way they want, it's their country, they are in charge, or should be, and one way or another, the problem will be solved, it will have to be. Hilton doesn't build 5 star hotels in third world countries, Iraq had several. They had a highly educated population. They are certainly not used to this and will fix it if given the chance to do it without outside interference and pressure to sign contracts to give their oil away.01 Jun 2007 09:13:44 GMT
With all due respect Mr. Merchant, the dividing of countries by other nations without consulting with the native inhabitants is one of the things that has contributed to many of the major conflicts witnessed since WWI.
The old colonials were very good at putting the minority in charge when they left, after decades of abuse at the hands of the majority population who were the colonials' favorites (Rwanda comes to mind). The divisions created at the end of WWI to break up the Ottoman Empire are part of the reason you have the divisions in Iraq and elsewhere. So your idea of splitting Iraq into quadrants, etc, etc is nonsense and will only prolong the inevitable - our ultimate withdrawal. We made many mistakes starting with not employing the Iraqi population to rebuild their own country. Had they been employed and paid a decent and just wage, instead of being treated like an uneducated third world populace, you may have had less theft and sabotage. People protect what they have a stake in. But it's far too late for that now. Iraq must be treated like the sovereign government that they are. We should request things from them not dictate to them. We should sit down with them and ASK what they would like us to do,if anything, not announce that we have a new plan and then implement it. It is not our call, it is not our country. We are an occupation army whether we want to admit it or not and what we are fighting are people who want the occupiers OUT! Last year the Iraqi government asked us to leave. We didn't. We keep saying if they ask us to go we will. They have, we haven't. If we intend to stay, we should pull our people to the perimeter and guard the borders. Let the Iraqi police and their government handle the cities the way they want, it's their country, they are in charge, or should be, and one way or another, the problem will be solved, it will have to be. Hilton doesn't build 5 star hotels in third world countries, Iraq had several. They had a highly educated population. They are certainly not used to this and will fix it if given the chance to do it without outside interference and pressure to sign contracts to give their oil away.