assessment: Taking stock of people and ideas in the news.

The Next MacArthurWho will run Iraq after the war?

By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Thursday, Feb. 27, 2003, at 12:25 PM ET

If there's one thing we know for certain about the American occupation of Iraq, it's that it won't be headed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Or anyone else with stars on his collar: Nothing gets the Bush administration in denial mode like comparing the postwar reconstruction of Iraq to MacArthur's seven-year occupation of Japan after World War II. Pentagon and State Department officials repeatedly insist that turning Iraq into the cradle of Islamic democracy will take no time at all in terms of a military presence. Thirty days! No, 90 days. OK, six months. Well, maybe a year and a half. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman estimated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month that the entire process of reconstruction would take two years. But no more! Maybe a little more.

There are laudable reasons for the administration to want to distance itself from the MacArthur analogy and the idea of a long-term occupation. For one, it's not a very popular proposition among Iraqi exiles. The leader of Iraq's Shiite Muslim exile community told MSNBC.com this week that appointing a U.S. general to oversee Iraq could spark a "religious war." For another, as John W. Dower details in Embracing Defeat, a history of the American occupation of Japan after World War II, the initial steps toward Japanese democratization weren't very democratic. Japan was given no sovereignty, no diplomatic relations, its citizens were barred from traveling abroad, and its flag and national anthem were banned. Actions like those were acceptable because Japan had waged a war of aggression and surrendered unconditionally. But they would be odd steps to take after an American-led war against Iraq that was sold as a war of liberation for the Iraqi people.

So, it makes sense to point out the differences between 1945 and 2003. Different times, different eras, different wars. But the ongoing discussion of how Iraq's postwar reconstruction will be both similar to and different from MacArthur's occupation of Japan has obscured a different question: Who is the Bush administration going to appoint to run Iraq? Gen. Tommy Franks will control U.S. military forces for as long as they are inside Iraq—the Pentagon is asking for enough funds to pay for a year of reconstruction after a war. But the project of creating a new Iraqi government will likely last much longer than that, and someone other than Franks will be in charge of it. In a blueprint leaked last Friday to the Washington Post, the Bush administration revealed that it would take unilateral control after a war, and the creation of a new Iraqi government would be directed by a "yet-to-be-named American civilian."

Who is this ruler to be named later? The administration has been silent on the possibilities, though sources told the Post that it would be an American "of stature." Unfortunately, the idea of a former governor or ambassador—the requisite job experience mentioned by the Post—running Iraq inspires hilarity rather than confidence. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge could fold the job into his duties as Homeland Security czar, setting up a Web site that encourages Iraqis to load up on duct tape. If you're looking for a respected American of international stature, you could do worse than Bill Clinton, who loves to govern and has a lot of time on his hands. Henry Kissinger, a former diplomat who has a lot of experience running client states, could be a good fit if he could be convinced not to plot to assassinate himself.

Serious nominees are hard to come by. There's been some speculation in the British papers, but then again, the British papers aren't shy about speculation. London's Observer declared that former Sen. George Mitchell is a "front-runner," but the Bush administration prefers "civilian" Norman Schwarzkopf. Both seem highly unlikely, but Mitchell would be an interesting selection, if only because he's part of a type—other examples include Warren Christopher, Jimmy Carter, and John Danforth—that Slate's David Plotz dubbed "free-lance holy men."

The Financial Times floated an intriguing choice, though it conflicts with the Post's report that a civilian will get the nod: Lt. Gen. John Abizaid. The 51-year-old Abizaid works out of the U.S. Central Command field headquarters in Qatar as a deputy to Gen. Tommy Franks. An American of Lebanese descent, Abizaid is fluent in Arabic, which means he has the rare ability to communicate directly with the Iraqi people. Abizaid's education—he studied at the University of Jordan and holds a master's degree in Middle Eastern studies from Harvard—makes him eminently more "qualified" (if such a thing is possible) to oversee Iraq than MacArthur was to rule Japan. Prior to the occupation, MacArthur's knowledge of Japan consisted of a "mixture of prejudice, presumption, and grand bromides," according to the historian Dower. But the Bush administration has repeatedly stated that the military should not be involved in nation-building (or "post-conflict reconstruction," as it's sometimes called), so it stands to reason that Abizaid will help direct the military side of the occupation—finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction and hunting down terrorist cells—rather than the civilian side.

No matter who gets the job, the duties will be fairly clear. Maintaining security will be the most important goal—ethnic tensions may lead to violent reprisals by the Shiite majority against Saddam's ruling Sunni elite, and the Kurds are already threatening to do battle with Turkish soldiers who will be allowed to enter Iraq from the north. "No one should think we are bluffing," a Kurdish official told the Washington Post. "There will be conflict." Furthermore, a Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis estimated that 150,000 Iraqi troops, plus a reserve force, will be needed to prevent a postwar invasion by Iraq's neighbors. That leaves 200,000 Iraqi soldiers who will have to be integrated into civilian society. There will also be an immediate humanitarian crisis set off by the war and the likely destruction of Iraq's civil infrastructure. A program of "de-Baathification," similar to de-Nazification, will have to be carried out. One way to limit the power of Saddam's Baath party and to increase the number of regional voices that will be heard in the government would be to create a bureaucracy that is as decentralized as possible, giving power to local governments all over the country. Finally, Iraq's economy will have to be rebuilt, especially if Saddam torches his country's oil infrastructure.

How will we measure the success of such an enormous project? Here's a barometer from the MacArthur occupation. Less than 20 years after its unconditional surrender to the Allied forces, Japan had rebounded from the perception that it was a hopelessly militaristic nation bent on colonizing all of Asia, and the world threw a party to celebrate: Tokyo hosted the 1964 Olympics. If there's a Baghdad Games in 2024, you can declare the postwar reconstruction an unmitigated triumph.

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

Chris Suellentrop, a former Slate staffer, writes "The Opinionator" for the New York Times.

Illustration by Charlie Powell.

If you liked this Assessment column, check out Backstabbers, Crazed Geniuses, and Animals We Hate, a collection of our all-time funniest, meanest, sweetest, and weirdest profiles.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks From The Fray:

One option not addressed is if Abizaid becomes the actual power, while the civilian holds the de jure authority.

What if the man who can communicate with the people becomes the public face to the Iraqi people, managing their demilitarization and their infrastructure rebuilding (as commander of the troops and peacekeepers who would inevitably be involved in some of the heavy lifting)? And the civilian who speaks perfect english without any trace of Arab becomes the face to the USA and the western world, the lenient, fair, civilian authority?

-- BenK

(To reply, click here.)

I think CS is shooting to low in passing along the speculation about Gen. Abizaid and too high (or wide, if you prefer) in throwing out names like Jimmy Carter.

It's a bit misleading to use McArthur as a model at all. More to the point, the US High Commissioner for Germany was Dep. Secy. of war John McCloy -- a Wall Streeter who served as a right arm throughout the war to both Secy of War Stimpson and Chief of Staff Marshall, with the main responsibility for organizing the nation's manpower and resources. Thus, McCloy had these four traits:

1) The widest possible experience running a massive and complex operation;

2) Experience working hand in glove with the US military -- fully understanding their perspectives, needs and goals;

3) Dependability as an implementer of policies made by the President and his counselors (of which he himself was one); and

4) Demonstrated good judgment and political sense at the highest levels of the nation's government, policy-making and diplomacy.

Overseeing the US occupation and the reconstruction of Iraq will require the same traits. That leaves out people who have never worked quite at such a level; people whose views may clash with the military; people may not be politically or personally reliable for any reason; and people whose reputation for good sense and judgment on this level of responsibility is not subject to serious question.

This is a tall order. I don't think General Schwartzkopf meets several of these standards. But I have what I think (if I don't say so myself) is a brilliant suggestion that would give the country a person who measures up to this stature and give Bush the added advantage of naming a Democrat!! Bill Perry, a Clinton SecDef and one of the best public officials in the country. Bush need not worry about partisanship, since Perry is a pro before he's a partisan. He has the respect of the Pentagon and (mostly) of Congress. He has no glaring flaws. He's goit all the right experience at the highest levels of policy-making and management.

-- Publius

(To reply, click here.)

I am clearly the most qualified to hold this post of honor and (it is to be hoped) opportunity for self-remuneration.

For one thing, I come from an old Louisiana family. Louisiana trails the nation in most things, but the one thing we know more about than any other part of the country is third world, neo-colonial government. We've been doing this in Louisiana since before there was a USA, and it has always worked very well, or at least very profitably for the governing class. Our governing class has a particular talent for the extraction of oil wealth in a highly efficient manner that doesn't permit the resulting riches to get bogged down in the local economy. As an admittedly minor qualification, after a lifetime of observing Mardi Gras royalty, I have an intuitive grasp of the niceties of protocol appropriate to a Vice-Regal court.

Secondly, I'm a medical doctor. The medical profession has a rich tradition of the kind of innovation in the field of governance that this job will clearly require. Giovanni da Procida, a 12th century medical doctor, was the founder of the Sicilian Mafia. Originally formed in resistance to the Angevin occupation of Sicily, this longest-running NGO in history has retained its relevance over the centuries by constantly evolving in response to changing opportunities for wealth creation. Jean-Paul Marat, also a medical doctor, introduced many innovations during the French Revolution in the field of corporal political persuasion, and could have written the book on "the paranoid style" in politics. Rove and Ashcroft, accomplished though they are in this direction, could learn a lot from the sans-culottes demagogue. George Habash, a medical doctor, founded the PLO, and by that fact alone, established himself as a major innovator in the field of political chaos theory.

I feel that I am amply qualified, perhaps over-qualified, to ride a conquered Iraq into the ground in the spectacular fashion that seems envisioned by current US policy. Even further, I promise not to get caught by the media blowing any of the plunder in Vegas -- at least not during the presumably brief tenure of the administration that would appoint me to this post of honor and misplaced trust. How many of my rivals are willing to make the same pledge?

-- gtomkins

(To reply, click here.)

Once Saddam is removed from power, Iraq will effectively be in a state of civil war as, indeed, it was in some regions in 1991 when Saddam's hold on outlying cities was weakened. He regained power then via bloody repression. Sooner or later, that same civil war will break out again -- with our soldiers caught in the middle if they're still there. The only way to EVER leave Iraq is to create a coalition government of people who loathe each other, and anyone who thinks that's easy is drunk.

The last time this country got involved in a civil war in the Middle East was in Lebanon in 1982, and 240-odd Marines lost their lives. Ronald Reagan, having invested very little of his prestige in that war, saw the writing on the wall and got the rest of them the hell out.

Bush has staked his Administration's prestige on this war -- he has DEMANDED it in the face of formidable opposition. He will keep our soldiers in the line of fire for as long as it takes, whatever it costs. The war may be about WMDs NOW, but within a year it's going to be about the fact that a new collection of "the best and the brightest," on the right this time, have gotten in over their heads. And, as was the case last time, your sons and daughters will reap the whirlwind.

-- The_Slasher-8

(To reply, click here.)

No sane person capable of negotiating this post-war pit of vipers--assuming such a person exits--will want the job, so the field is immediately narrowed to the lunatics who might actively pursue the position.

No one is more alert to the romantic possibilities of colonial administration than the man who penned the following only last year:
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.
And so it is that I nominate Max Boot as Viceroy of Iraq.

Boot's lust for empire as expressed in last year's Weekly Standard article isn't just a passing fancy. Writing in last week's Financial Times, Boot, now serving as a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, makes the case that America's Destiny is to Police the World.

He has friends in high places, including Paul Wolfowitz and others among the brilliant fruitcakes populating the Bush administration, and one suspects that he could in short order round up a number of other quite capable wackos who fancy themselves in jodhpurs.

"M'name's Boot. Run a little outfit called Iraq. P'raps you've heard of it?"

-- Betty_The_Crow

(To reply, click here.)

A lot of people try to compare the future Iraq war with World War II. As has been pointed out on the web, the upcoming Iraq war has much closer analogues to the Spanish American War at the turn of the 20th century.

As a result, we might not get a MacArthur, but an Otis.

INTERESTING PARALLELS:

Terrorism sparks global conflict -

* S-A War - Remember the Maine!
* Today - The Twin Towers

Prepared Undersecretary uses war to further personal geo-political agenda -

* S-A War - Teddy Roosevelt and Big Stick Imperialism
* Today - Paul Wolfowitz and Preventative War

War justified by the suffering of a populace at the hands of cruel despot -

* S-A War - Cuba and Philippines suffering under Spain.
* Today - Afghanistan and Iraq suffering under Islamic extremism and the Bath party.

Justification for war flimsy and viewed skeptically by the world:
* S-A War - Did the U.S. really have authority to invade Cuba and the Philippines? Was the Maine disaster trumped up?
* Today - Does the U.S have authority to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the inspections and UN resolutions stacked against Iraq so that there's no way they can avoid war?

WHAT THIS CAN TEACH US:

* Be prepared for a long occupation and for guerilla warfare. The Philippines was a long running terror campaign brought under control by a brutal military governor. Will the same happen in Iraq?

* President Wolfowitz?

* Is China or India the new Japan? Will growing American influence in the Middle East sphere cramp the aspirations and growth of a young, booming country? Will they militarize under a cult of personality? (Look at the BGP in India.)

-- Kilroy

(To reply, click here.)