Reflections on U.S. policy toward Iraq: Making space, saving face

This article was written for inclusion in the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Office Newsletter, and is used by permission of the author and the Newsletter.

WASHINGTON -- "I hope that someday your country will stop doing everything with force," a leader in the Protestant Evangelical Church of Baghdad, Iraq, pointedly told our small North American delegation in late May.

That "someday" may be far down the road. According to the New York Times, while a final decision has not yet been made, a U.S. military planning document calls for a three-pronged attack on Iraq to topple Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Iraqis told our faith-based aid group that they expect another U.S. attack. One church leader conceded, "The United States will do what they want to do. We will trust God."

Indeed, in recent months President Bush has ratcheted up the rhetoric. He has repeatedly denounced Iraq as part of an "axis of evil" and declared his intent to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

While the president's tough talk may play well in some political circles, the sobering reality of following through with his threat of regime change is beginning to sink in.

Most serious analysts don't place much hope in a U.S.-backed Iraqi coup or an Afghanistan-like action using U.S. special forces. And top brass at the Pentagon warn that a major U.S. military invasion of Iraq will likely mean significant Iraqi civilian and U.S. troop casualties -- to say nothing of uncertain outcomes and the potential for such a war to spread like a western wildfire.

The problem with President Bush's plan is that he has backed both himself and Iraqi president Saddam Hussein into a corner -- with little space left for nonviolent transformation of the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. Bush's strategy is heavy with sticks and absent any carrots.

Going to war with Iraq, again, is not the only option. The president should consider a more hopeful and visionary Iraq policy. Instead of constricting political space, his policy should expand options, offer incentives, accent positives and promote face-saving alternatives. Such a policy should include:

Direct dialogue. For more than a decade, Iraq and the United States have traded threats and insults through the media. Just as President Bush has called upon Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate, the United States must engage in face-to-face talks with Iraqi leaders. The risks of refusing to talk directly are simply too high.

In addition to meeting church leaders and U.N. officials, our delegation met with a well-placed Iraqi government minister who appealed for U.S. government officials to come to Iraq for face-to- face conversations. "Dialogue can bring about understanding even though we don't agree on everything," he said.

The Bush administration should accept this invitation. Indeed, it is irresponsible for the United States to go to war with Iraq without even attempting dialogue. Such talks could happen in Europe or elsewhere if not in Iraq.

And instead of, with broad brush strokes, painting Iraq as evil, respectful U.S.-Iraqi dialogue must address specific troubling behaviors. The problem with a broad brush approach is that it blots out positive Iraqi behaviors along with those which need to be changed.

For example, one senior U.N. official in Baghdad told our delegation that the Iraqi government has been second to none in its food distribution under the oil-for-food program. Similarly, UNICEF officials praised Iraqi government cooperation in addressing critical children's issues.

Regional weapons approach. The president should couple the demand for new arms inspectors in Iraq with a U.S. commitment to back a regional approach for eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Indeed, the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War calls for a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. But in recent years, the weapons spotlight has shone solely on Iraq.

Furthermore, the president's call for Iraq not to build or use weapons of mass destruction rings hollow in light of his own call for developing a new battery of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Promote exchanges. The Bush administration should support educational, medical, cultural and sports exchanges. People-to-people contacts will go a long way in promoting good will, unmasking stereotypes and creating a more hopeful future between Iraq and the United States.

I was impressed by the warm hospitality of the Iraqi people and the rich historical and cultural treasures in this ancient civilization. Sadly, by choosing to be enemies, we miss wonderful opportunities for mutual enrichment.

End sanctions. For nearly 12 years, broad-based U.N. sanctions have punished Iraq's people by holding hostage Iraq's economy. UNICEF officials told us that infant mortality rates in Iraq have more than doubled in the last decade and that, while some sectors have improved under the oil-for-food program, the educational sector has not yet hit bottom.

The new "smart" sanctions may offer modest improvements for ordinary Iraqis, but they won't make a significant difference in reviving Iraq's exhausted infrastructure.

Furthermore, as one Iraqi church leader told us, "Americans hoped that sanctions would cause the Iraqi people to rise up against the regime. But the opposite is true. Sanctions have attached people to their leaders."

Not too late. President Bush ended his mid-June Middle East speech with these words: "The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace and hope and life."

That is the choice the President Bush should now make with regard to Iraq. The consequences of a military invasion are simply too great. And it will only further tarnish the growing U.S. image as a trigger- happy lone ranger superpower who sees itself as exempt from international law.

There is still a face-saving way out of the tight political corner that President Bush has constructed. But the space is small. And time is running out.

J. Daryl Byler is director of the MCC U.S. Washington Office.