Lakshmi Chaudhry

. Posted January 13, 2005.

AlterNet Senior Editor Lakshmi Chaudhry responds to the comments from Jonathan Schell, Kamil Mahdi, Tom Hayden and Erik Leaver, all of whom wrote responses to Chaudhry's "Rethinking Iraq" article posted on AlterNet last Thursday.

First, I want to thank all of you for taking the time to respond to my essay. I see this as a valuable opportunity to kickstart an important debate over the future of the anti-war movement – a debate that AlterNet hopes to encourage and nurture in the coming weeks and months.

That said, let me begin by clarifying my position, which has been misunderstood by some of you as advocating the continuation of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Tom especially seems to read my position as advocating "a formula for aggression with a human face." In his version, the Bush policy is to continue the occupation by other means – i.e. a proxy Iraqi regime; my position is to support occupation as a means toward other ends – i.e. a stable and democratic Iraq.

This is entirely wrong. I believe the occupation must end, the earlier the better. I, however, define occupation as much broader than – and not necessarily defined by – the presence of U.S. troops. The U.S. occupation of Iraq, in my mind, consists of absolute control over every aspect of that nation. Be it the control over reconstruction contracts, Paul Bremer's iron-clad directives to transform Iraq into a free market outpost of corporate America, brutal air strikes in the name of maintaining law and order, or the political engineering that takes the shape of illegitimate interim governments or sham elections, the United States exerts absolute power over the lives of the Iraqi people. This is wrong and must end immediately.

So when I talk about ending the occupation, what I have in mind is the transfer of power to an international coalition charged with working closely with all the major players in Iraq – be it Shia, Sunni or the Kurds – to create the conditions of real democracy and sovereignty in Iraq. These would include a genuine reconstruction effort – led by Iraqis – to both undo the damage wreaked by the U.S. assault and subsequent occupation, and revive the Iraqi economy by creating jobs and opportunity. So no Halliburton contracts or paying "contracted mercenaries," as Kamil would have it. The "credible politcal process" that Kamil wants requires stability and so the multinational forces would serve a peacekeeping role, but only in conjunction with Iraqi security forces. It's not too late to declare a general amnesty as a step toward reassembling the police and military forces dismantled by the United States.

Genuine self-representation also requires more than just a hastily-held election. As we've seen in East Timor, the UN can be entrusted with the task of creating the institutions and structures — a Constitution, effective judicial system, political governing system etc. — in consultation with Iraqi leaders, rather than handpicked U.S. proxies. Moreover, much of the groundwork for such a transfer can be laid now, while the United States is still in control. The Project of Defense Alternatives sets out a series of steps that the U.S. can take to transfer real power to Iraqi authorities — all of which would serve to reduce troop levels and American control.

I don't want to get bogged down in policy details – which is best left to experts – but clearly what I'm advocating would not look like an "occupation" in any sense of the word. Now as for Jonathan's position that any plan for democracy in Iraq cannot be U.S.-led – this seems unrealistic to me. We control the country at this time, and so we must be the ones to come up with a plan to transfer control to an Iraqi-led process that has international support and financing. We can't just leave and hope for the best.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »