Iraq: What Next?

I support the demand of the peace movement, "Bring the Troops Home Now!" I also support thedemand, "Democracy and Self-Determination for the Iraqi People." It's very easy to take suchpositions.

The hard part is, what next? Is that it? Is that the extent to which we should go? Should we have nothingto say about how to go from the current U.S. occupation to an Iraq run by and for Iraqis?

Some on the political Left say yes. They oppose any call for the United Nations or anyone else-like, say,the Arab League--to replace the U.S. They argue-very accurately-that the United Nations is complicit in theIraq tragedy via its imposition of economic sanctions for 12 years prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion, both ofwhich have devastated Iraqi society. And they argue-with legitimacy-that the U.N. going into Iraq this summerwhile the U.S. was occupying the country was a mistake, giving support to that occupation.

But there are several problems with this position.

Iraq is a country that has been ruled by a dictatorial regime for close to three decades. There is verylittle of a "civil society" to speak of other than mosques and religious groups, with the exceptionof the semi-autonomous Kurdish region and their two political parties.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a society in which the Shiite majority was repressed by a predominantly Sunniregime. Some in Sunni areas received privileges not available to others. There are grievances and resentmentsthat have the potential to severely strain efforts to form a democratic Iraq.

In addition, there is at least one rift within the Shiite population between more moderate and more radicalShiites that led to the attempted assassination last week of a leading moderate cleric.

And who knows how well organized the members of the former Hussein regime still are and will be in thefuture.

It is reasonable to expect that an Iraq left to itself to sort out its form(s) of governance if/when theUnited States leaves would be an Iraq that would experience significant internal struggles, including armedstruggles and possibly civil war. A civil war, if it developed, could easily spread beyond Iraq's borders intoneighboring countries.

And then there's Turkey, whose military could well move into northern Iraq once the U.S. is gone.

These are some of the reasons why others on the Left have called for the U.S. to leave and, then, for theU.N. to take over as part of a transitional step towards Iraqi self-government. Or, alternatively, for theU.S. to announce its plans to leave within a fixed time period and during that time period, the U.N. wouldassume increasing control, along with representatives of Iraqi society.

Note that this is not and cannot be misunderstood as what is now being pushed by some elements of the BushAdministration: U.N. participation on the ground in Iraq while the U.S. continues its occupation. The peacemovement must be clear and firm in its opposition to this plan.

The opposition to the position of the U.N. replacing the U.S. for an interim period of time grounds itselfin a historically-accurate critique of the U.N. as a U.S.-subservient body. Denis Halliday, the former UNAssistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, said just a few days ago that "TheUN Security Council has been taken over and corrupted by the US and UK, particularly with regards to Iraq,Palestine and Israel."

So what are we to do? Stay quiet? Not take a position beyond "U.S. Out" and "Iraq forIraqis?"

One thing that makes sense to me is to be very specific about what needs to be done differently in Iraq.Dennis Kucinich just came out with a statement which calls for the UN to "take over management,accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of theIraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that therecan be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton."

This is an improvement over a general demand for the UN to just replace the US.

We could demand that any interim peacekeeping troops be predominantly Arab or Arab-speaking.

We could demand that any transitional authority-perhaps a joint UN/Arab League force, without any US or UKparticipation-have a definite time limit.

We could demand that a transitional authority prioritize the organizing of popular assemblies at locallevels to choose representatives to local Iraqi governing bodies and that those popularly-chosenrepresentatives would be responsible for choosing delegates to participate in the development of a new Iraqiconstitution.

We could demand that reparations be paid by the United States, the money to be taken out of reductions inthe Pentagon budget, for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Of course, we are still left with the conundrum of there being no, repeat no, institutional entity with theclean hands and the track record we would all like there to be. The United Nations is a reflection of thereality of an unjust and bleeding world dominated by a brutal and rapacious corporate elite. The Arab League,on the surface a more logical alternative, is a relatively toothless body where kings and oil potentates havemajor influence.

So where do I come down on this question? Reluctantly, it seems to me the best of a series of bad optionsis a UN/Arab League transitional administration with a specific timetable and specific mandates, as listedabove, as to what it should be doing.

After all, when we were trying to stop the war last fall and winter, we were marching on the Capitol inWashington, D.C. and putting pressure on the U.S. Congress, not exactly a body with a stirling track record.But it was the only institutional option available to us if we were to head off a Bush Administration attack.

And what if we and the Iraqi resistance and the rest of the world are successful in driving the U.S. out ofIraq? Even if the replacement for the U.S. leaves a great deal to be desired, there will be avenues forapplying pressure that don't exist now under U.S. occupation. People throughout the Middle East and the worldwill feel empowered if the Bush Administration and its Democratic Party supporters are not able to do whatthey are trying to do. Their drive towards a "New American Century" will have been seriously setback.

It is rare that the people win complete victories. They're usually partial. But partial victories can helpto build towards that new future, that world based upon social justice and environmental sustainability, sodesperately needed.

Forcing the demented warmongers now in power out of Iraq will not be a small thing.

Ted Glick is the National Coordinator of the IndependentProgressive Politics Network, although these ideas are solely his own.