Iraq: Peace Process or Bust
Posted by Lorelei Kelly
With the White House still linking Iraq to 9/11 and an "Out of Iraq" group forming in Congress--our war policy at the moment is not a real discussion between the left and the right but a rhetorical battle between the leftovers and the righteous. No elected leaders yet have an enduring strategic plan for ours and Iraq's future. The one glimmer of creative possibility in this bleak landscape has been recent news about the US military initiating talks with the Iraqi resistance. Hala Jabar, reporting for the Sunday Times of London writes:
The talks appear to represent the first serious effort by Americans and Iraqi insurgents to find common ground since violence intensified in the spring.
Kudos to the military for taking this important first step. Now the question is how can we support this initiative with a comprehensive and coordinated peace process for Iraq? Patrick Doherty has some excellent suggestions based on Northern Ireland's experience.. We don't lack for solid baseline knowledge and good advice. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in the United States and around the world who are specialists in conflict resolution and who have on the ground experience engineering processes that shift the critical mass of a population toward stability instead of violence. The 1990's provide several examples.
We need to pull together our military and civilian experts on peace processes--plus individuals from academia and the non-governmental world--to jointly develop a plan to shift the critical mass in Iraq. One British organization, Conciliation Resources, even specializes in engaging armed groups. Although difficult to countenance and always controversial, non-state armed groups are often central figures in conflict resolution. In the last two decades, armed groups have participated in peace processes on every continent, resulting in a wealth of experiences of dialogue and peace negotiations. So we have a large menu of formats and ground rules to choose from. The criteria for the stakeholders should be anyone who could be a spoiler. There are limits to participation, however. As Robert Dreyfuss writes, Zarqawi jihadists are irredeemable and would never be allowed.
And these conflict resolution folks aren't namby pambies living in academe--most are on the ground practitioners. Some have been kidnapped, held hostage, threatened and otherwise endangered on their missions. They are serious peace-ninjas. They know how to recognize the auspicious signs of a workable peace and they know when to call it off. Recommendations for steps forward in Iraq are plentiful. A comprehensive peace process could draw on different individual ideas...say Richard Clarke's notion of rapid response garrisons combined with social recovery lessons learned in the Balkans.
Back to elected leaders: focussing on withdrawal instead of a real strategic plan is just wandering close to the ethical black hole without stepping off the edge. I don't know many progressives who honestly rule out some level of military presence in Iraq to protect the civilian population. In fact, if we are to remain--it will be with mostly military personnel. But our military does more than kill people and break things. It also knows how to build. Seeing the military as a talented resource for a negotiated peace is what progressives must learn to do. Conservatives, on the other hand, must accept that we need to take steps that they might deem distasteful or ideologically unfit--like negotiating with insurgents.
There is still time to steer Iraq in the direction of hope and opportunity. But Americans have to stop with the strategy of killing Iraqis and begin the hard and risky work of negotiating with them. It can be done.