The Anti-Manichaeist

I was considering XPatriatedTexan’s idea for an alternative to US occupation of Iraq. He thinks that it is worth considering having a much larger occupation force composed of Egyptians and Pakistanis. This would have the advantage of being a muslim-led occupation with the numbers needed to keep the peace for the foreseeable future.

I posted the idea at a Christian Liberal-activist board, CrossLeft, and got some skeptical response as to its feasibility that accused me of holding liberal activists with disdain. And when I allerted XPT of the response, he gave a thorough reply that I am going to repost here.

Do I hold peace activists (or any “liberal activists”) in disdain? No. I am one. The political fact is that America is never going to endorse a candidate that is avidly anti-military (which is what is seen when anyone talks “immediate withdrawal”). One has only to remember Jimmy Carter’s failed foreign policy or McGovern’s lackluster bid for the Presidency to see the proof of that. Simply screaming “Get out now!” is counter-productive as it is advocating a position that is extremely irresponsible and isn’t going to happen. It does, however, paint all activists as being part of the “radical peace-nik fringe”. While there is nothing wrong with being a peace-nik or even radical about it, it is a losing strategy. So, I see it as politically naive, but do not look at them with disdain.

Pakistan has a lot of internal problems from being seen as a lackey of the US and not standing up to us. If Musharaff were to offer Pakistani support for peace operations, it would shore up his power base among the religious disidents who would definitely prefer a Muslim power to be in Iraq than the US. As for the stalemate with India - that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. In fact, teaching both countries to operate as responsible superpowers (which is what you are when you have an atomic weapon) is in the long-term interest of the whole world. As part of the agreement for Pakistani troops in Iraq, we could work through the UN to secure an international peace-keeping force in Kashmir and move up peace talks for that region to the top of the agenda. Building Pakistani diplomacy and responsible military usage is, again, in everyone’s long-term interest.

Can they do it? Pakistan has the eight largest military in the world. However, their command and control (and remote surveillance) capabilities are limited. Using their troops on the ground with our troops providing support would do a lot to move us to a point where people are not getting killed. After all, command and control can be administered from our naval base in Bharain or from Kuwait. Meanwhile, you have troops on the ground that all speak the same language as those who live there (if a different dialect) as well as sharing many cultural norms.

The ongoing military aid (President Bush has already pledged $5 billion over five years) should be tied to signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan already ranks third in the amount of military aid it receives from the US. Formalizing the relationship and giving Pakistan “big boy” status will only improve things further.

What about Egypt? Mubarek is criticized from his religious right for maintaining peace with Israel. Sending aid to a Muslim nation in order to remove the US presence would be a boon to his popularity at home. Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid and has a military even larger than Pakistan. Egypt has long been a major player in Arabic relations with the world at large and at one point proposed a Pan-Arabic state - with Iraq, no less. Yes, they would be willing to “leap-frog” to improve their international status as well as their status as the “Defenders of Pan-Arabism”.

Numerically, it is a distinct possibility. Culturally, it is a better solution than either one that is being bandied about in this country. Can it happen alone? No. The US will have to be involved in granting assurances to all involved parties that they will be safe to participate in Iraqi operations.

Also, both countries already have embassies open and running in Iraq now. There is at least some willingness to work. The big hurdle would be the US allowing both countries to claim at home that they are chasing out the US. Personally, I’m willing to let them say that in order to bring peace and real stability to the region.

A pipedream? No more than talk of impeaching President Bush or getting an immediate withdrawal of troops. No more than staying to course will bring about different results.

It isn’t perfect and there are bound to be problems. However, NATO was a pipedream when it was created out of necessity. This idea is grounded in the reality of what happens on the ground in all four countries. It deserves to be treated realistically - for it is a more realistic path of action than either side has come up with thus far.

I think it’s an idea worthy of more attention and discussion.

dlw