Iraqis tell U.S., ‘You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here’

Just days before the war in Iraq began, one of Carpetbagger’s favorite writers, Robert Wright, made a list of concerns about the ensuing invasion, describing some as “valid” and others “dubious.”

Wright, who I would call a war skeptic, dismissed a number of the left’s major fears — that the war would be long, that it would create immediate terrorist attacks, and that Hussein will use WMD with his back against the wall. Now that fighting has ended, it’s fair now to look back and see that Wright’s predictions were largely accurate.

Wright did, however, also warn that Iraqi exuberance with the U.S. will likely be short lived.

“The crowds who cheer us this spring will want us out by next spring,” Wright said. “But we won’t leave because, regardless of whether Iraqis are ready for democracy, President Bush won’t be. If there’s one thing that will scare this administration as much as Iraq being run by a ruthless dictator, it’s Iraq being run by millions of Iraqis.”

Like his other claims, Wright seems to have calculated this point accurately, with one minor correction needed. Iraqis don’t want us out by “next spring”; they want us out tomorrow.

Yes, it was just days ago when Iraqis were literally dancing in Baghdad’s streets, thanking U.S. troops for deposing Saddam Hussein’s ruthless government. Now, however, after hearing Bush’s promises of freedom and political liberties, Iraqis are ready to take the U.S. up on our offer. They want a government without our interference.

I don’t think this is an example of ungratefulness. I’m sure the people of Iraq appreciate the fact that we toppled the leaders who oppressed them for so long. Nevertheless, these same Iraqis distrust America’s motivations, believing we launched an invasion to seize control of the country’s oil supply. These concerns were reinforced when the Bush administration started awarding contracts to GOP-friendly energy corporations in America. Animosity towards the U.S. has also festered among those who resent America’s ties to Israel, blame the U.S. for U.N. sanctions, and fear long-term American imperialism and occupation.

With this in mind, it seems America is foisting democracy on a people who are inclined to vote for an anti-American agenda.

As you’ve probably seen in the news, Friday, after evening prayers, thousands of Iraqis took to Baghdad’s streets en masse to demand our departure from their country, and some to express a desire to see Iraq join many of its Middle Eastern neighbors in becoming an Islamic theocracy. It’s impossible to say if these protestors were representative of the larger Iraqi population, but I was struck by the broad diversity of those demonstrating; even Shiites and Sunnis were together for these protests.

“Thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets of Baghdad after Friday prayers to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq and demand an Islamic state to take the place of Saddam Hussein’s secular government,” the LA Times reported. “The protests underscored a significant problem the United States faces here as the country’s power vacuum increasingly unnerves a people accustomed to iron rule. In one of the first public demonstrations here in decades, marchers — Shiite and Sunni Muslims alike — waved banners and chanted slogans, including “No to Bush, no to Saddam, yes to Islam,” and “Leave our country, we want peace.”

The neo-con idea behind the war had focused on the benefits of an Arab democracy in the Middle East sympathetic to the West. We’d “liberate” Iraqis, the idea went, and in turn the U.S. would have a key strategic ally in the region. Proponents of this idea never answer the question, “What happens if they vote for someone who hates us?”

Brent Scowcroft, who served as a national security adviser to the first President Bush, recently said, “I’m a skeptic about the ability to transform Iraq into a democracy in any realistic period of time….What’s likely to happen is that the meanest, toughest ones will rise to the top for at least for a couple of generations.” He added, “What’s going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We’re surely not going to let them take over.”

The perils of offering a democracy and vetoing the people’s choice for leadership are abundant. If it occurs, we will confirm Iraqi fears of an American occupation.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld responded to this point last week, repeating the administration’s line that “the new Iraqi government, whatever it is, [will] be selected by the Iraqi people.”

That’s great, but I hope we’re prepared to deal with the consequences of an Iraqi government, chosen by the Iraqi people, that will be reluctant to work the U.S. as an ally.

I’ve been worried for a year that once we destroyed Hussein’s regime, Shiite and Sunni Muslims would target each other for violence and hatred. Now it looks my concerns were misdirected. The good news is the two faith traditions seem to have found some common ground. The bad news is that common ground is based on a mutual mistrust of the United States.