Opinion

From the Front -- In conclusion

Friday, April 22, 2005

I'm home. This will necessarily be my last column. My thanks again to all loved ones who kept us in their prayers.

I'm reveling in the luxuries of our great country--simple luxuries I had often taken for granted -- hot showers, cold drinks, soft carpet, clean water, continuous electricity, the freedom of driving and listening to the radio. Today I was stopped on my walk by the scent of cherry blossoms and the lush grass. And all women are beautiful.

The future of Iraq is of deep concern to me. Like all of us, I want to make sure our sacrifices there are not in vain. Our greatest success in Iraq has been the establishment of a democratic state, and now we are eager for our fighting men and women to come home. In the meantime, I will leave you with the following thoughts:

Democracy is a fragile newborn that must be nurtured and protected. Too often we fight a war in a Bosnia, or an Afghanistan, or a Somalia, withdraw our presence immediately and watch the wolf of corruption eat our newborn democracy.

We must, more than anything, now fight to end any corruption, "mob rule", favoritism, nepotism and bribery that often control how things get done in Iraq. The people of Iraq have voted. But an election and freedom are not inextricably linked. Dictators, for example, often allow their populace to vote in order to "re-elect" the dictator. Saddam himself used this strategy. Until corruption is put in check, the freedom and legitimacy of future elections will not be assured.

We must also end any corruption that destroys the rebuilding process. Despite the billions we have allocated for "rebuilding", the people still have no clean water and rarely have electricity or heating oil. The have a desperate shortage of gasoline. And sewage runs in open gutters for lack of a sewer system.

There is a lot of work to be done in Iraq. Continuing to allocate money is not enough. Simple accountability is required. By the time each person takes a slice of the pie and hands the rest down, nothing is left. Instead, it should be: "Here is $1,000 to pick up trash in your town. You will get the money only when the troops on the ground have noticed that the trash is all picked up."

Oil money cannot be left in the hands of a select few. Capturing this money is the surest way to end corruption and the imbalance of power. Oil profits can be distributed to all citizens--like the State of Alaska does--or kept in a closely monitored account for public improvements of the infrastructure.

Unemployment is scarily high in Iraq. Perhaps the majority of working-age males don't. And poverty and idleness are some of insurgents' best weapons. We can lure these young males as easily as the insurgency can, and in doing so will give Iraqis a vested interest and personal responsibility in their own country. This above all, to invest Iraqis with pride and responsibility in their own nation.

Militarily, our best solution is to actively pursue Lt. Gen. Mattis' theme of being "No Better Friend and No Worse Enemy." We must continue to more aggressively pursue both halves of the equation.

No worse enemy? Abu Ghraib is better than the conditions many insurgents come from. At the same time, it's difficult for many Iraqis to see how we've been their best friend so far. Yes, they've voted. But the desperate conditions people live in is no better now that we control the country than it was before. Let us control all of the oil profits and use them to actually rebuild the infrastructure--with enough accountability to make sure it happens. If people don't have clean water, they care very little about who is in power. The only way to win in guerrilla warfare is with the support of the people. And the way to secure the support of the people is with tangible improvements to their everyday way of life.

To assure permanent military success, we must not "swat at bees." One goal in waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan was to destroy the beehive. Iraq itself, of course, was never known to be the beehive. The 9/11 hijackers, for example, were all from other countries. I know how tempting it can be for those in the military to just occupy the country and count down the days until their deployment is over. But the military must keep up the intelligence war and keep on the offensive, rooting out insurgents wherever they hide.

It is in our best interest to respect the influence of the sheiks and existing social leaders in Iraq. Leaders like Al Sistani and Al Sadr have proven to have as much influence as all of our troops in the country combined. The best military units will get to know the leaders in their Area of Operation. These existing leaders can make things happen in ways Westerners can only marvel at.

Lastly, the military can be streamlined. In his book, "The Death of Common Sense," author Philip Howard recounts that recently the Department of Defense spent $2M on travel and $2.2M on paperwork for that same travel. I mention this because with some honest, critical evaluation, the military could streamline troop numbers without reducing our presence. The Privates and Lance Corporals are doing an outstanding job. And there are many middlemen pushing work down to them to make time off for themselves. The military is a powerful and effective organization. And the lowest ranks work their butts off. But I see opportunities for streamlining in the support sector of those that support the frontline troops.

We have accomplished much in the Middle East. The goal is for the Iraqis to take ownership of the vast potential their country holds. This will take time. Planting a seed does no good if we are unwilling to water, weed, and fertilize. In his book, "The Future of Freedom," Fareed Zakaria writes, "We can leave fast or we can nurture democracy, but we cannot do both." The choice, my friends, is ours.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: