Getting on track in Iraq

May 21, 2003

If the Iraq war went better than expected--faster and with lighter casualties than feared--then the rebuilding so far has been just the opposite. Gangs of looters still roam the streets of Baghdad; elsewhere, vulnerable oil installations have been stripped. Lawlessness and violence are undercutting efforts to restore government services and medical care. Electricity and water are spotty; garbage has been piling up.

Even some supporters of the war, such as Rep. Henry Hyde, seem to be getting restless about the pace and cost of reconstruction. Hyde last week said he would ask the General Accounting Office to conduct a review of reconstruction efforts, complaining that a "lack of transparency" had rendered congressional oversight difficult.

No doubt things could be going a lot smoother. But remember, America is only a handful of weeks into what will surely be an expensive, long-term effort, if it is to be done right. And despite what has been described as meticulous planning for postwar Iraq, it was unrealistic to expect a bump-free transition to democracy and a market economy in a country that has precious little experience with either.

But it's not too much to expect the administration to provide far more information about its plans in Iraq--how much it estimates the operation will cost, how long we're likely to stay and how big a U.S. military presence will be required. So far, none of that is clear.

The U.S. has responded to a stumbling start by changing leadership in Baghdad, replacing Lt. Gen. Jay Garner as the chief civilian administrator in Iraq with veteran diplomat L. Paul Bremer. While early public pronouncements seemed to hint at a quick U.S. exit, there are now indications that some American leaders realize they must dig in for an extended period. Over the weekend, Bremer postponed plans to allow Iraqi opposition leaders to form an interim government and wisely decided more troops were needed for security.

Rebuilding Iraq won't be done quickly or cheaply. America can't simply turn on the lights, power up the oil wells, and leave the country to interim Iraqi leaders. That wouldn't be likely to bring the liberty and democracy that the U.S. is rightly seeking to foster; more likely, it would allow Iraq to slide into chaos and potentially into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of the brutal regime in Iran.

It is becoming more obvious by the day that the U.S. cannot afford to go it alone in rebuilding Iraq. This week, the U.S. may push for a vote at the United Nations to lift sanctions and allow oil exports to resume. That is important because restoring Iraq's economy is the critical first step toward democracy. It would also be a welcome signal that the acrimony over the U.S. decision to invade is fading in the UN.

Most important, a draft of the U.S. resolution apparently envisions a high-ranking UN "special representative" with "independent powers" to work with the United States and Britain toward forming an internationally recognized government in Iraq. After resisting such notions in the past, it now seems the U.S. is bowing to common sense and ready to embrace a larger UN role in Iraq. For Iraq's sake, the UN should lift sanctions quickly, and the U.S. should immediately invite a robust UN presence there.

The UN's first job should be to help form an interim authority with Iraqi leaders. Such an authority is crucial to defuse mounting Iraqi frustration over the slow pace in restoring law and order and normal governmental functions. But it is also hugely complicated, partly because the U.S. must ensure that up to 30,000 top leaders of the disgraced Baath party do not regain control.

In the long term, any government eventually elected by the Iraqis has a far better chance of succeeding if the process has a UN imprimatur from the beginning.

There is no question that rebuilding Iraq cannot begin until security is restored. The U.S. has clearly underestimated the number of troops needed to accomplish this. Eager as Pentagon officials are to withdraw troops, that talk seems extremely premature. In recent weeks, the Pentagon has dispatched about 4,000 more military police to Baghdad. Some American troops who had been scheduled to go home are staying, to boost the army's crime-fighting capabilities. But the coalition--mainly the U.S.--can't and shouldn't bear this responsibility alone. The U.S. has announced a plan to split the country into three military zones, with Britain and Poland running peacekeeping forces in the other two. Now is the right time for the U.S. to make strong efforts to enlist the international community, particularly NATO, to send peacekeeping troops. It appears that NATO may be warming to the task, preparing to help Poland run its peacekeeping force.

The U.S. also should accept UN help in seeking weapons of mass destruction, and particularly to help assess potential damage to Iraq's nuclear industry. That's a priority, with recent fears that the possible looting of nuclear power plants could have scattered radioactive materials.

The rebuilding of Iraq will take time and patience, commodities often in short supply in American foreign policy. Bush administration officials must be worried about American resolve as the story slides off the front pages and the troubles mount. There's a presidential election approaching, and chaos in Iraq isn't much of a vote-getter. Worse, it's a potential cudgel for the Democrats.

But doing a half-baked job in Iraq would squander a singular opportunity to reshape the Middle East. The Bush administration created the opportunity. Now it must level with the American people and devote the resources--military, diplomatic and financial--to get the job done right.