|
Leave
Iraq before U.S. becomes
too invested
By
DeWayne Vickham, USA
Today
When
the United States invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate
it from Spain's
oppressive colonial rule, Congress' declaration of
war renounced
any desire "to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction or control"
over that Caribbean island.
But
when the war ended, the United States set up a
government in Cuba
headed by an American general. Before turning over
control to the
Cuban people in 1902, the American rulers opened
Cuba up to U.S.
businesses.
And, as a condition for gaining its independence, Congress
forced Cuba to give the United States the right to establish
a military base on Cuban soil and to intervene in
its affairs —
which the U.S. did four times between 1906 and 1920.
History, it
appears, is about to repeat itself in postwar Iraq.
The
Bush administration has put retired lieutenant
general Jay Garner
in charge of Iraq's civil affairs until it decides
the time is
right to return control of that Middle East country
to its people.
During this period of American occupation, the U.S.
will have a
heavy hand in determining what kind of government
will emerge in
that country — and who will lead it.
The
front-runner for the leadership job appears to be
Ahmad Chalabi, a
57-year-old Iraqi exile who left his native country
when he was 12.
His claim to power is based more on the American
military troops who
protect him than on any widespread popular following
among the Iraqi
people.
To
ensure the outcome it wants in Iraq, the Bush
administration undoubtedly
will exact an agreement from the civilian leader it installs
in Baghdad that allows the U.S. to have a major
presence in Iraq
for a long time. This past weekend, there were
reports that the Pentagon
wants to set up at least four bases there —
outposts similar
to the one that has allowed the U.S. to maintain a
military presence
in Cuba for the past 100 years.
Such a
presence may thwart rather than protect the popular
will of the
Iraqi people.
After
Iraqis regain control of their country, would
American officials
allow U.S. troops stationed there to just stand by
and do nothing
if an Islamic republic — even a democratically
elected one — came
to power? What would these troops be told to do if
the new Iraqi
government begins repressing its opponents? In
1912, a decade after the first U.S. occupation of
Cuba ended, the
white-dominated
government massacred more than 6,000 black Cubans, many
of them veterans of its independence war. They had
organized the
American hemisphere's first black political party to
agitate for racial
equality.
U.S.
troops on the island were ordered to protect
American citizens and
business interests but did nothing to stop the
carnage. A few days
after the massacre, a Cuban newspaper published a
drawing of a white
Cuban and an American soldier playing soccer with
the heads of two
dead black leaders — a depiction of the
cooperation the paper believed
the U.S. had given the Cuban troops who carried out
the massacre.
The
Bush administration says it will maintain control of
Iraq until order
is established and a representative government can
take root.
That
probably will take years — and force the United
States to take sides
in the power struggles that inevitably will unfold.
That's a formula for
disaster.
If the
goal in attacking Iraq was liberation, not conquest,
then the Bush
administration should quickly turn over the running
of that country
to the United Nations. The longer the U.S. stays in
Iraq, the more
vested it will become in trying to shape its new
government —
and the more pressure it will get from American
businesses anxious to
reap financial gain from the U.S. occupation of that
oil-rich country.
"We
have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat
and restore control
of that country to its own people," President
Bush said the night
the war began. We'll
soon find out whether he really meant it.
DeWayne
Wickham writes a weekly column for USA TODAY.
|
