LATE SUMMER 2005 LETTERS TO NEWSPAPERS ON IRAQ WAR:

The Washington Post

Monday, August 29, 2005; Page A14
 
Letters to the editor: Perspectives on the War in Iraq

President Bush argues that "immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake" that "would weaken the United States" [news story, Aug. 24].

This may or may not be true, but it seems that making mistakes has been pretty much the guiding theme of U.S. policy in Iraq.

WALEED HAZBUN

Baltimore

 

====
 

International Herald Tribune

 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005

 

Letters to the Editor

 

Iraqi federalism
 
Robert A. Levine ("The federalist solution," Views, Aug. 20) seems to imply that the major U.S. drawback for a federalist system in Iraq is that the administration might be viewed as reneging on commitments it might have made for promoting democratic equality and civil liberties across Iraqi society.
 
But a federal system in Iraq, while supported by most Kurdish and some Shiite leaders, would not be likely to end the slide to civil war. In fact, it would likely accelerate the process of sectarianization, fail to rebuild a fractured society and create more regional instability.
 
Still, the United States should not oppose any system agreed upon by the Iraqis themselves. Instead of offering their own preferences for what the Iraqi polity should look like, American policy makers need to acknowledge that U.S.-led regime change seems to have created a nation-building challenge for which there is no solution.
 
Waleed Hazbun, Baltimore
 

===

 

The Baltimore Sun
 

Letters to the Editor

Originally published August 21, 2005

 

Impossible to put Iraq back together

 

The Sun's editorial "Failure is an option" (Aug. 19) bravely suggests that, "If the various sides haven't hit on a winning formula by Monday," it would make sense to allow the process to start over.

 

The Sun suggests that this process, which includes new elections, may lead to the incorporation of Sunni voices as well as diminish the power of what it calls the "unpopular" Shiite parties.

 

I agree that the United States should avoid pressing for a "shotgun" constitution and that a delay is likely warranted.

 

It is unclear, however, how Iraqi politics will evolve in the meantime. Popular support for Kurdish autonomy will only grow stronger. Moreover, there are troubling signs of increased sectarianization and the making of a civil war that threatens to tear apart an already fractured Iraqi society.

 

Economic reconstruction shows limited progress while the insurgency remains deadly for both Americans and innocent Iraqis.

 

It's possible that the U.S.-led regime change has created a nation-building challenge for which there is no solution short of going back in time.

 

Waleed Hazbun

Baltimore

 

The writer is a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University.

 

===

 

Baltimore City Paper

7/20/2005

The Mail

 

Take the Long View on Terror

 

Russ Smith makes an excellent point by noting that those who blame the recent outbursts of Islamist militancy and terrorism on the Iraq War risk sounding like shortsighted partisans who fail to realize the scale and scope of the threat the United States currently faces (Right Field, July 13).

 

A longer view of the problem, however, suggests more troubling hypotheses: 1) An earlier wave of Islamist mobilization (beginning with the Iranian revolution and the assassination of Egyptian president Sadat) was largely directed against the power and policies of authoritarian regimes with declining legitimacy, many of which were backed by the United States due to Cold War geopolitics; or, 2) The post-Cold-War mobilization of such militant groups and their resort to terrorism directed at the United States (and others) has been, in part, fostered by the vast expansion of the projection of U.S. military and political power across the Middle East and Central Asia since the first Gulf War. The administration of President George W. Bush has been brave enough to largely recognize the validity of the first theory, but risks vastly exacerbating the effects of the second.

 

While Bush deserves credit for promoting the idea of political reform in the region, its not clear, as Smith notes, if "[tipping] over the traditional playing board in the Middle East" is really a responsible means to try to promote stable--let alone inclusive, pluralist, and democratic--polities across the region.

 

Waleed Hazbun

Department of Political Science

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore