December 28, 2003
Bad News From Iraq
According the Washinton Post the U.S. is scaling back drastically on several key reform efforts. Initially there was a strong desire to privatize state-owned businesses. This is now being scrapped. One concern is that by privatizing the businesses, there would be large layoffs which could spark labor unrest. So instead the plan is to leave the state-owned businesses as state owned businesses.
The problem is that this too is bad for Iraq's economy. Privatization would undoubtedly result in layoffs. State-owned businesses do not respond to market forces, hence there is a tendency for them to become bloated and inefficient. I would suspect this is especially true in a country like Iraq where a dictator could use such benefits to help garner support. So there would be large layoffs. Plus there would be changes in output, increases, decreases and sometimes a plant simply shutting down altogether. So the transition would undoubtedly be difficult.
However, keeping state-owned businesses going will also be bad for the economy as well. As noted state-owned businesses do not respond to market forces, but instead political forces. So the resources will be used inefficiently (in an economic sense).
Another issue that is going by the wayside is the disbanding of various militia groups. This move would seem to increase tremendously the outcome of Iraq's future. Will Iraq disolve into years of civil war? Will there be three new countries to emerge. And if it is the latter what will Turkey do about an independent Kurdish state? Will the group with the best equipped, trained, and lead militias seize control of the whole country and will we be back to square one with a dictator that might end up pursuing WMD programs? What about Iran and the Shiites in Iraq? Will they want to go the same route as Iran?
Another issue to fall to practicality is the drafting of a Constitution. Initially the plan was for a Constitution to be drafted and put into place before the U.S. and Coalition left. Also the plans to replace the food handouts that formed the basis of Hussein's welfare system.
While the overall attitude has been fairly happy with this amongst the governing council, there is a contingent that fears that if the Occupation Authority does not address this issue, the new government in Iraq will not want to take the risks of addressing them either.
By handing over sovereignty first, the administration has ceded veto power over the final document and is forcing Iraqis to confront a raft of contentious issues, from Kurdish demands for autonomy to Shiite demands for Islamic law, without a referee. In September, Bremer warned that electing a government without a constitution "invites confusion and eventual abuse."
I don't know, but all of this looks pretty bad to me. This quote pretty much sums it up,
"We're requiring a country that lacks a democratic tradition and the institutions of civil society, but has plenty of ethnic and religious tension, to sort out a lot of very challenging things," the senior American official said. "It's not ideal, but what choice do we have? Nobody wants us to extend our stay here."Posted by Steve at December 28, 2003 11:52 AM
While Bush deserves to be kicked in the nuts for this, I'm going to place most of the blame for this on the Democrats and their "France is always right" foreign policy. If they instead took the position that the US has a duty to see it done right, and took on the administration from THAT angle, then they'd not only be doing the right thing, but possibly making some political points.
Any bets on whether or not the "human rights" groups will get upset over this? Or whether they'll consider a US withdrawal -- and perceived failure -- infinitely preferable to a free and prosperous Iraq?
I'm unclear as to why it's bad to have 3 different countries. Isn't Iraq basically just a "man made" country from the early 1900's?
If the internal interests are truly that divergent, then I think we should encourage them to have several countries.
Posted by: Nick on December 28, 2003 04:42 PMNick,
Its "bad" in that Iraq's neighbors would not tolerate it and would work to actively destroy any such plan. Turkey would be threatened by a Kurdish nation. Saudi Arabia would be threatened by the prospect of a Iranian-influenced Shia nation along its borders.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on December 28, 2003 05:32 PMThis is yet another blog that looks very good that I don't recall ever having visited before today. Darn it... I've spent countless hours on the web, and have visited so many blogs since I started my own (over a year ago) but there still seem to be so many more popular weblogs that I haven't had the pleasure of coming across... I found this one by coming across Mr. Verdon's June entry on the great young conservative columnist and author Kyle Williams. That was a great entry, and this looks like a good blog. Keep up the good work, Mr. Verdon, and Happy Birthday to your son! I hope that you and yours had an excellent Christmas also, and have a great New Year's as well.
Posted by: Aakash on December 28, 2003 05:58 PMNick,
Based on what I have read in the last few years I agree with Robin. Turkey has a sizeable Kurdish population that it treats rather shabbily. A Kurdish state on its southern border would be of great concern. It would be percieved as having a destabilizing effect. It is quite possible that the kurds in Turkey would want to join such a Kurdish country. Kurdistan, that area of the Middle East mainly inhabited by Kurds, covers, parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Georgia and Syria. If a kurdish country forms out of Iraq, many of these other countries might very well fear that the areas of Kurdistan within their borders and those kurds in that area will want to form a "Greater Kurdistan".
Posted by: Steve on December 28, 2003 10:32 PMExactly, Steve. As for this story being "bad" news, I'm not in agreement. Certainly we would both like to see all of these things accomplished, but the core goal is a stable, non-rogue state. Of course some things must be prioritized or even abandoned - things you and I would obviously disagree with.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on December 29, 2003 07:42 AMI believe the most difficult part of the whole process may turn out to be accepting the fact that the Iraqi people just do not want what we want them to want.
As was mentioned at the tail end of the post, this is a people with zero democratic tradition. It may well be that they do not want a democratic tradition, as nifty as that would be from our perspective.
Privatize state-owned biz? I am for it, but do they have either the know-how or the desire to run those things on their own? That remains to be seen. I just wonder (if it turns out they want to retain their non-democratic ways) if our heads o' state will be able to accept it. Or if they should accept it. No easy answers on this one.
"Privatize state-owned biz? I am for it, but do they have either the know-how or the desire to run those things on their own?"
There's no law (or there shouldn't be!) that says they have to; they could sell it to foreigners and let the foreigners run the businesses on a competitive basis and hire Iraqis.
Then they Iraqis can buy them back when they're ready, or start new businesses to compete with them.
"As was mentioned at the tail end of the post, this is a people with zero democratic tradition. It may well be that they do not want a democratic tradition, as nifty as that would be from our perspective. "
What are their alternatives? A benevolent despot would be pretty nifty, but benevolent despots are rather hard to find. Generally, they have to either be governed by us, governed democratically, or governed by a despot who will probably turn out to be inept, vicious, oppresive, or all of the above.
Posted by: Ken on December 30, 2003 09:47 AMThank you, Ken, for reiterating my point. I agree wholly that it would be best if they could find a way to institute an Iraqi-led representative government. My point that I think you missed was that they very possibly do not want that. And we have pledged to return the country to their people. Sticky wicket, what?
Condensed: what we think is best and what they want may differ diametrically, and we really can't do much about it (long-term) without looking too much like a conqueror rather than a liberator.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right.
