Writing in The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, lawyer and novelist Scott Turow presents an interesting idea: Why not base our decision as to whether we should withdrawal our troops from Iraq on what the Iraqi public would like to see happen? This is, of course, merely a slight variant on the Jonah Goldberg idea that the only way to end the chaos and violence in Iraq is to let the people there know that we will be leaving, and they will bear the ultimate responsibility for conditions there.
He argues:"Many foreign-policy experts believe that a large-scale American force on Iraqi soil aggravates ethnic rivalries by forcibly enhancing power differentials between those groups, thus robbing the current government of legitimacy in the eyes of many citizens. Others, including many of our generals, say that the 140,000 American troops stationed in the country are all that stand in the way of a full-scale civil war. But why attempt to resolve this as a debate among our dueling experts when we can ask the genuine authorities -- the Iraqi people? They are there. They know their country and their countrymen. And naturally, it is they who care most intensely about their future.
So here's what I propose. Our government must urge Iraqi leaders to hold an immediate plebiscite on a single question: Should American forces remain in Iraq until a stable democratic order emerges, however long that takes, or should we instead withdraw in stages over a fixed period, say, the next 12 months?"
The only problem with his idea is that the Iraqi people have already been asked this question, and answered in a loud and clear voice: They want our occupying forces out post-haste. Not only that, but a majority of Iraqis polled support the guerilla attacks on our troops. Turow goes on to acknowledge this reality--sort of:
"I have a guess about which way the vote will go. Since opinion-sampling began a year after the invasion, one poll after another has found that an increasing majority of Iraqis would like us to pack our gear and leave. But who knows how accurate polling is in a society like Iraq, where so many citizens have reasons to be guarded about their views? And even if the results reflected opinions at the time, it's possible that an informed national discussion might change minds. Yet if the remaining rationale for our presence in Iraq hinges on our commitment to democracy there, what possible excuse can we have for not letting the Iraqis make the ultimate choice about our occupation? If a solid majority throughout the country wants us out, then we can leave knowing that we are not deserting a people eager for our presence.
And if instead a majority of Iraqis prefer that we remain, we can revert to our own national debate about the kind of commitment we are willing to make, knowing we have an open invitation. I am not proposing that we give the people of Iraq veto power over how long Americans must fight and die on their behalf. We must fix goals for our inevitable departure. But even the Americans who believe we should depart tomorrow will have to reflect twice if the beleaguered citizens of Iraq, 150,000 of whom have already died according to their government, say the future presence of our troops will be helpful. And attacks on American soldiers will perhaps slacken if it becomes fact-established that we are invited guests, not an occupying army.
The results of the vote would probably not be the same in the various ethnic regions of Iraq. In prior opinion polls, the Kurds have overwhelmingly favored the American presence that has freed them from the menacing hand of Iraq's central government. But a split verdict may suit our aims. American troops must continue to be stationed somewhere in the region to prevent active coercion by Iraq's neighbors, especially Syria and Iran, and to respond in case the direst predictions prove out and parts of Iraq become a lawless terrorist breeding ground, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. The emerging Kurdish canton might be the ideal place for our soldiers to wait out events, while removing themselves from the cross-fire in the rest of the country."
So what are we to make of this? I suppose the first question is why Turow is skeptical as to the validity of the most recent public opinion polls. For example, a poll designed by the well-respected World Public Opinion (WPO) organization and conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland was administered to over 1150 Iraqis and concluded they wanted us out. What evidence does Turow have that the findings were in some way inaccurate or the subject of political coercion as he implies? Or is it merely that he would prefer that public opinion among the Iraqis supported a permanent occupation? If anything, it would be a shock if the Iraqi people held any other view toward the US military presence in their country other than wanting an immediate end of the occupation.
And if previous polls were biased and unreliable indicators of public opinion, how does he suggest we more accurately divine the will of the Iraqi people? He suggests "an informed national discussion" to raise awareness among the Iraqis. Exactly what the hell does that mean? We apparently can't even get an informed dialogue going in this country because half of the American people persist in thinking there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Does he envision some propaganda campaign underwritten by the US taxpayer to convince Iraqis that it would be in their best interest for us to stay after all? We simply have no way of knowing by Turow's logic what poll result can be considered more authoritative than the already conclusive ones we have in our possession. And it seems he is implying that the Iraqis have heretofore been unwilling or unable to engage in an informed discussion amongst themselves about how they feel about the US occupation.
But put this issue to one side. Because at the end of the day, this and other gibberish--such as his outrageous insinuation that we have some sort of moral obligation to sacrifice more American soldiers to atone for the mistakes of George W. Bush--is irrelevant. We know this because he wants a long-term occupation of US forces in the region no matter what Iraqi public opinion says. We need to have our troops there to guard against "active coercion" from Iraq's neighbors, unlike our own active coercion in the region. It is almost funny that he claims this is needed lest Iraq turn into a terrorist breeding ground like Afghanistan under the Taliban--when our own National Intelligence Estimate already has confirmed we have turned that country into. . .a terrorist breeding ground.
He doesn't really care about Iraqi public opinion, unless we can somehow use it to, in his words, "suit our aims" for the region. If the Iraqi people say they want us to go, Turow says we should pack up and leave Iraq with a clean conscience but redeploy to the "Kurdish Canton" (which sounds to me like Northern Iraq) so we can continue to exert our influence. If the Iraqis suddenly change their mind (as a result of an "informed national discussion" of course) and decide they want us to stay, well then, we have a permanent open invitation to continue our destructive occupation. George W. Bush and the Neocons get to save face either way--it's a win-win proposition for them.
Scott Turow should probably just stick to writing legal thrillers.