Vakkotaur

One of the most recent operations in Iraq has a name that at first seems begging to be mocked. But it can also be seen as a poke at some of the sillier detractors of US involvement in Iraq. Which ones? The ones who claim it's "all about the oil" and nothing else. The name of the operation? Operation Imposing the Law. So, now, it is about OIL. Just don't confuse that with petroleum.

The vote in Iraq on whether or not to accept the Constitution might very well have a result that the Constitution in its present form is rejected. That will not mean the vote failed. The vote only fails if it doesn't happen, or the result is somehow made meaningless.

If the Constitution is accepted, then the Iraqi people will have spoken and said, "Yes, that is acceptable." The government will have gotten permission from the people.

If the vote is to reject, then the Iraqi people will have spoken and told their government, "No, that is not good enough. We demand better." That's the very core of representative democracy, that the people can demand that their representatives actually be representative.

Which will it be? We shall see. But no matter which way the vote goes, the important thing is that Iraqis will be voting and having a real influence on how their government will operate.

There is a call for protests of having troops in Iraq. These protests are scheduled for this Saturday. The idea is a simple, and not altogether unappealing one: "Foreign troops out now."

The troops would like that, certainly. Their families would as well. And make no mistake about it, staying one day longer than needed will do more harm than good. BUT, leaving early is to invite a disaster that would make the past few weeks seem like the good old days.

It was done before. We (the U.S.) did it. We screwed up bigtime when we did that. The place: Afghanistan. Had we stuck around a little while, and helped, things would probably be much different there, and years would not have been wasted. That mistake is not one to be made twice.

I do not consider the war in Iraq to be over. Many battles are, but even after the last shot is fired, the war is not over. Take a look at the U.S.A. The rebellion of the 1860s is still echoing long after the last shot. Not from the battles themselves, at least not entirely. The resentment of a reconstruction that was not done properly - or even not done at all - echoes down still from that time.

The war will be over when the coalition can leave and leave behind a free and stable country. Note I did not say "won." Military victory is a comparatively simple thing. What comes after is the truly tricky thing. Get that wrong, and history can repeat itself in unpleasant ways. Yes, Baghdad is in coalition control, or largely so, but this is not the beginning of the end, but as Churchill once said during a different conflict, it might be the end of the beginning.

What must be done? In the short term, continue the military effort where needed and finish that part of the job. Meanwhile, the places that have been secured, must be truly made safe. Civil order must be restored. Power stations must be made operational. Water works must work again, and also the sewers and sewage treatment plants. Hospitals must be supplied with all they need. Then the beginning might be able to begin.

Rebuilding must start. And it ought to be done as much as possible with Iraqi labor and Iraqi goods. This would mean jobs, not idleness, and a deserved pride in the results of the effort. The more goods used that are made in Iraqi factories, the better. Iraqi farmers must also be able to continue their work. The closer Iraq is to self-sufficiency, the better. Importing needlessly will only cause problems.

One area of touchy symbolism must also be treated carefully. The mosques and religious sites scarred by battle must be restored. These, above all else, must be restored by Iraqi hands. Payment may come from elsewhere, and indeed it would be grand gesture of goodwill if payment for this work came from the U.S. And ideally it would come by donation. What would it say if mosques were repaired with money collected by churches and other religious organizations, and not just Muslim religious organizations?

And a rebuilding of government must take place. And I will likely surprise a few folks by what I suggest: this should perhaps be largely guided by one of the coalition members that did not, and indeed could not, engage in the military action: Japan.

Why the Japanese? A few reasons. One, they made a change themselves not all that long ago. Two, they didn't engage in the military action and might therefore have an easier time of things. Three, they might not be seen as overly 'western' at least not as much as those from the U.S. and U.K. Fourth, there might be a better sensitivity to culture and avoiding unneeded impositions, which are the things out of which disasters are built.

And as this going on, the military presence reduces. Not fast, and not immediately, but over time. As the Marine Corps leaves, the Peace Corps can enter - if that is desired. And then, when all is fairly stable (nothing is perfectly stable, look at your legislature), then we leave. It will likely cost us billions. It will likely cost us years. It is also, in the long run, the least expensive of all the alternatives.