By FREDRICK BARTON, BATHSHEBA CROCKER and CRAIG COHEN
New York Times
19 January 2005
Washington — WITH Iraqi elections scheduled to take place in two weeks, many Americans already have one eye on the exit. The Bush administration insists that American troops will stay until a free, stable and peaceful Iraq is established, as Condoleezza Rice did yesterday at her Senate confirmation hearings. But it seems likely that momentum for a speedy withdrawal will increase after the January elections no matter the degree of stability in Iraq.
When is the proper time, then, to withdraw the bulk of our 150,000 troops from Iraq? The answer does not lie in the corridors of Washington, but on the streets of Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul and Falluja. The answer lies with the people of Iraq.
As it now stands, there are three situations under which American forces could withdraw: we achieve our goals and depart in triumph; we are asked to leave by the Iraqi government; or we leave Iraq in chaos but spin it as a win. There are obstacles or drawbacks to all three. Achieving our goals may be impossible now with the current levels of insurgency and distrust. Iraqi leaders may be slow to show us the door if we are guaranteeing their security. Lowering our standard of success is unlikely to increase American credibility either at home or abroad.
Why not let the Iraqis themselves decide? Ask Iraqi voters in a referendum six weeks after the national elections if they think foreign soldiers should withdraw immediately. Let the Iraqis debate what the absence of American forces will mean for their families and nation. Tell them we'll hold the referendum every nine months until they vote us out or we determine it's time to leave.
Referendums have proved to be an effective first step to broadening political participation in countries making the transition to democracy, like Chile in 1988, Malawi in 1993 and Albania in 1998. The two questions uppermost in the minds of most Iraqis right now are these: how can we be safe? And when are the foreigners going to leave? A referendum gives Iraqis the power to decide these questions themselves in a more straightforward way than sorting through a ballot of 7,000 candidates or waiting for a new constitution to be written and ratified.
The plan has several advantages. First, it affirms an American commitment to self-determination. Such a policy could do as much for spreading democracy in the Middle East as all the support we give to citizens' groups and political parties.
Second, it steals the thunder from the insurgents. Their support arises from their claim that they are the best chance the country has of kicking out the foreigners. A referendum in Iraq would show that democratic participation, not violence, is Iraq's best chance at full political independence.
Third, a referendum could help avert civil war. If the American presence has been divisive, a vote that asks us to leave could prove the opposite. One of the most consistent unifying ideologies in Iraq since its inception has been independence from Western control. We ought to harness this ideology to the benefit of the Iraqi people rather than fight it.
Fourth, if the majority of Iraqis vote for us to stay, then the United States suddenly has a mandate in Iraq - one we can use to win hearts and minds, limited by Iraqi sovereignty and the date of the next referendum.
And fifth, a referendum gives us an exit strategy, one that affirms the very reasons we went into Iraq in the first place. There's more honor in being voted out than in climbing into helicopters from the roof of the embassy.
Two criticisms are sure to follow. First, the plan could be perceived as a smokescreen that allows the United States to cut and run. Second, our departure could create a power vacuum, emboldening the insurgents and leading to an anti-American regime or a civil war.
Rather than signaling wavering support, however, a referendum would show our commitment to empowering the Iraqis. We're not saying we're leaving; we're saying that it's up to the Iraqi people to decide what's best for themselves. And the results of a referendum may not be as obvious as some people think - careful consideration of life after a withdrawal may encourage Kurds and Shiites, for example, to back a continued American presence.
And rather than strengthening the insurgents, a referendum could weaken them considerably, separating those committed to violence or Sunni rule at all costs from those who only want the foreigners gone.
Of course, there's nothing to stop the Sunnis from trying to retake power by force once we've left. This could happen, however, whenever American forces decide to depart. There's no guarantee that the Iraqi government will be better able to prevent chaos and civil war if the United States stays longer. But a government that's viewed as legitimate and independent will stand a better chance of defeating the insurgency than battalions of American-trained Iraqi policemen and soldiers.
Will Iraq's mess be cleaned up overnight if the Iraqis vote for us to withdraw? No, but our withdrawal after a referendum telling us to go would signal a willingness to engage with Iraq as an ally rather than an occupier, a perception that January's elections are unlikely to correct.
Frederick Barton and Bathsheba Crocker are co-directors of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Craig Cohen is a researcher there.
----------------------------------------------------
Citation: Frederick Barton, Bathsheba Crocker and Craig Cohen, "Should We Stay or Should We Go?," New York Times, 19 January 2005.
Original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/opinion/19barton.html?ex=1126843200&en=f8bb616bdc831955&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=
--------------------------------------------------