Better option?
Photo: AP
Old order in Iraq
Would US cut and run approach enhance Iraqi democracy and stability?
Israeli commentators have recently bemoaned US deployment from Iraq, fearing the chaos there would reign supreme and be directed towards Israel.
Iraq has instated a new government with Shiite hegemony and Kurdish participation. It is establishing an army, a police force, judicial courts and new national systems.
Based on this approach, in the event of an American pullout, Iraq would turn into an al-Qaeda base and direct its violence towards Israel.
But perhaps the contrary is true? Perhaps the best solution for bringing about stability in Iraq, vis-à-vis Israel as well, is in fact a US "cut and run" approach?
Another view
Prof. Alon Ben-Meir
The longer American troops linger, the weaker elected government becomes. It seen as no more than an American tool in the service of Washington’s own narrow agenda
This government is suffering from raging terror, which the US army is trying to fight, without much success so far. The popular assumption is that the US military is preventing terror on behalf of the new Iraqi government. Yet, the sad truth is that the US army is hindering the Iraqi administration in its war against terror.
American law, Arab law
The Americans are committed to the rule of law, organized arrests and fair prisons, and they are very meticulous about this since the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal.
Therefore, they are also obliged to conduct proper judicial procedures which are often time consuming. They operate by means of fair and organized procedures, which are continuously disrupted by terror activities and perceived as a weakness.
If the Americans pull out, the Iraqi regime will immediately resume its "Mideast tactics" in the region in its fight against terror and against its opponents, and the chances of stabilizing Iraq will increase significantly.
Therefore, as long as the US remains in Iraq, the chances of achieving stability are almost naught. In the event that an assertive government would take control of the country, terror cells would finally realize that the era of chaos under the patronage of the law is over.
Remember Egypt?
This situation calls to mind 1883 in Egypt. It was a year after the British occupied Egypt and after they established a judicial system based on the Arab format, employing western law - particularly pertaining to criminal law.
The idea was to introduce reforms into the old penal system - the harsh administrative councils that served as a synthesis between the Islamic Sharia, the rulers' aggressiveness and local customs.
This resulted in skyrocketing crime, turning into a governmental problem. Egyptian masses, who were accustomed to the old tyranny, were eager to accept the prolonged, tiresome procedures and even possible acquittals.
The British were forced to nullify the new judicial courts in Egypt in 1889, and by lack of choice they reintroduced the features of the old system.
Back to our days
Yet 2006 is not 1882, but nonetheless it should be noted that there was never a democratic regime in Iraq from the moment it was established. Therefore, to many Iraqis an organized judicial system is interpreted as a weakness.
Since democratic rule has been rejected by the majority of Arab leaders since President Bush's attempts to instate it, there remains no option other than to let Iraq revert to its old system.
Democratization of Iraq has created anarchy, and in the Palestinian Authority it has led to the rise of the Hamas government – that since then no longer recognizes democracy.
So what's the solution? The dilemma in the Arab world is between democracy and stability. On second thoughts, tongue in cheek, perhaps Saddam Hussein can be reinstated? In retrospect it has become apparent, to the Americans as well, that he did a pretty good job.
