Future a little brighter after deadline met

Lucas Grundmeier

Editor in Chief

From the State of the Union to today, Iraq and the rest of the world has seen promise after promise about the future of the nation be broken, or at least go dissatisfyingly unfulfilled.

The long trail of missteps regarding weapons of mass destruction needs no recounting. And the dangers faced by anybody stepping outside for any reason in Iraq — even inside Baghdad’s so-called “Green Zone” are depressing evidence each day of the flawed thinking that Iraqis would be content after a U.S. invasion.

To be sure, it’s not a large group of people causing killings and other problems, and to be sure, many Iraqis — silent but probably substantial — are happier, better off than they were 15 months ago. And they realize it.

Yet, even those giving thanks for the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the institution of some semblance of democracy have been handed plenty to question in the form of unfulfilled pledges from the United States about the new Iraq.

It’s unfortunate civilian administrator Paul Bremer’s tenure will be remembered for what he just couldn’t bring about. As The New York Times noted Wednesday, not even 10 percent of some 2,300 planned construction projects have begun, electrical outages are the norm for most Iraqis, the battle against unemployment, despite tremendous gains, is still a big problem, and, of course, almost nowhere is safe.

But for all the sniveling complaints about Monday’s transfer of sovereignty meaning “no real change,” it was at least important in this respect — it was a kept promise, a deadline made. We said Iraq would be in charge of its own affairs by June 30, and it is.

The transfer of sovereignty ahead of time is some sorely needed evidence of the United States’ commitment to quickly making Iraq self-sufficient, which was reasonable to doubt after months and months of slow progress and occasional regression.

Mandates leave legacy of U.S. rule behind

Steve Skutnik

Opinion Editor

In theory, full national sovereignty was turned over to the Iraqi governing council on Monday. Like all things in theory however, there’s always a hitch when it comes to practice.

Take the return of “sovereignty” to Iraq’s governing authorities. Although the United States has “officially” handed over the reigns of power, several persistent last-minute mandates handed down by the former provisional administrator Paul Bremer leave the impression that Iraq’s sovereignty more closely resembles just a longer leash rather than a substantial transfer of power.

The Washington Post reports Bremer had issued 97 legal orders as of June 14, “defined by the U.S. occupation authority as ‘binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people’ that will remain in force even after the transfer of political authority.” Such mandates are not empty directives either — a facet of the new Iraqi constitution requires the approval of both the majority of the interim prime minister’s cabinet as well as the interim president and two vice presidents.

Meanwhile, the legal orders cast a spotlight upon the dilemma facing the United States: Either grant the Iraqi people self-determination, or mold Iraq into a liberal Western democracy, even if it means by use of force.

Consider some of the orders themselves: one requiring every political party to run at least one woman out of every three candidates on their slate, another appointing a hand-picked electoral committee with the power to disqualify any candidate or party running for office, and yet others micromanaging every aspect of Iraqi law from driving regulations to intellectual property.

In theory, if the Iraqis are to be a self-governing nation, these are affairs that should be drafted by Iraqi authorities and approved by the Iraqi people — and not quasi-permanent directives from a former occupying power.

Of course, we all know how well theory works out in practice.

Democracy unlikely to succeed in Iraq

Ayrel Clark

Managing Editor

Iraq: An island of contrived peace in a sea of hostility. A democracy, in a region with a history supporting more tyrannical and theological methods of ruling than rule by a free populace.

Have the words ‘too good to be true’ entered the minds of the Bush administration?

Creating a democracy is as unproductive as jumping off a tall building with wings made of duct tape. Democracy is not something that can be forced on a nation — to work, it has to be something the nation”s people want.

For more than a year, American soldiers, not the Iraqis, have fought to bring democracy to Iraq. To be sure, many of the citizens welcome the idea of self government, but if it was something they truly believed in, they would fight for it themselves.

A move toward democracy is part of a nation”s development, its modernization. Nation”s industrialize and urbanize, leading to increased education. This education leads to the ability of the people to define what they want from their government and politically mobilize to gain a democratic regime.

These steps are not taking place in Iraq. Instead of fighting for their rights, the Iraqis are sitting by while foreign soldiers fight for them. In some cases they”re fighting against the soldiers. President Bush may remark that the Iraqis are a ‘proud people,’ but they will take no pride in a government set up by an occupying force.

The United States, the occupying force, may be the most prominent democracy in the world, but it too is imperfect — think treatment of the American Indians or our actions in Chile circa 1970. Our nation is far too arrogant if it thinks spreading its way will lead to peace in the Mideast.

We are ignorant as well if we think democracy in Iraq will succeed, even if it is the best means of governing. With its ethnic divide, collapsed infrastructures and implanted government, Iraq is more likely to be a hostile nation than a vision of peace in a tumultuous region.

Sovereignty means very little to Iowans

Krista Driscoll

Sports/Online Editor

Iowa has no reason to rejoice in the “liberation” of a country most of us will probably never see. We have not been freed from the fear of terrorism or tyranny.

As far as threats to Midwestern America originating from Iraq, there never were any. No weapons of mass destruction were found; nothing remotely large enough to travel the distance required to annihilate anything close to Iowa. In fact, no threats were ever issued from Iraq that threatened our safety or serenity. No veil of fear has been lifted.

The greatest impact of the Iraqi resolution on the citizens of this state was the possibility of having family members returned safely home from service in the armed forces. Unfortunately, Iraq is so torn and bitter that the United States is calling up even more soldiers to boost the numbers required to maintain peace. Officials announced Monday that another 5,600 veterans who recently left the service are being called back into active duty to fill gaps in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To date, 13 Iowans have given their lives to help ensure or maintain Iraqi sovereignty, but for what?

Perhaps we will see a small reduction in the price of gasoline. Perhaps Midwestern corporations will see the opportunity to invest in a country that is being rebuilt and could be exploited for its natural resources. Are these small achievements really cause for celebration in light of what it cost Iowans?

We live in an area of the country that is largely unaffected by this victory for the cause of freedom.