This month in The Atlantic, everybody’s favorite liberal hawk Kenneth Pollack comes through with a summary of a Brookings Institute pow-wow on Iraq.  Apparently a group of experts with a “wide range of beliefs and politics” got together to figure it all out.  With this fine seven-step program, it will be possible to salvage our great adventure.

Now I’m not a credentialed expert like these guys, so I have a few questions.

Pollack starts.  “December’s elections once again demonstrated the desire of Iraqis for a prosperous, pluralist, and pacific country.”  Was this shown by an election in which nearly everybody voted for an ethnic or sectarian party?

Step one is protecting civilians and infrastructure.  He recommends a system of checkpoints, patrols, and security searches at least partially manned by Americans.  This is supposed to make the Iraqi people feel safe.  Might an Iraqi waiting to be searched by American soldiers be reminded of some other situation in the Middle East?  Does Pollack read the other articles in The Atlantic?

Step two is a move from a primarily offensive focus against the insurgency to a more defensive posture.  This is buttressed by step three, which suggests that the effort should be focused on the reasonably safe areas rather than the more hostile.  When the Iraqis say they want Americans out, do they really mean they want more Americans to come into their neighborhoods to displace the militias they voted for?  

Pollack also recommends leaving the Kurds alone, since they are doing relatively better under the protection of the Pesh Merga, the Kurdish militia.  What makes some militias okay?  Might the existence of a Kurdish militia provide some motivation to other groups to maintain their own?

Step four is to train the Iraqi forces properly, engendering effective units with high cohesion.  This sounds pretty good.  It seems it was a lack of training (read fear) which led to the Iraqi soldiers, many of whom are members of the militias, melting away when asked to kill other Iraqis.  Were they maybe taking orders from someone else?  How loudly did they profess their loyalty to the Iraqi government over their sectarian interests?

Step five is to create a unified command structure for the Americans with a leader “something like a Roman proconsul.”  Is this the right metaphor for dispelling the perception of imperialism?

Step six is to decentralize power and revenues to the local governments to compensate for the weakness and corruption of the center.  In history class I learned that America once had a weak and ineffective central government.  Alexander Hamilton got the federals to take over state debts to cement the financial and political power of the center.  Was he wrong?

Finally, in step seven, they recommend bringing in the international community.  What has previously prevented the rest of the world from showing their eagerness to work with Bush at a dangerous and possibly hopeless task?  Can we count on the administration continuing their thoughtful and pragmatic diplomacy?

It seems Iraqis just need a little help to recognize the fundamental benevolence of the American effort.  It’s all in their interest.

Are you an American?  Do you believe this?  Good.  I’m sure it’s just a matter of time for an Arab population under military occupation by the authors of Abu Ghraib.

Pete DeWan