A Progressive Iraq: NETWORK's Economic Proposals

For the last couple months, I have been examining the leading policy plans for Iraq's future and judging them against a progressive framework that I feel comfortably encompasses a liberal view about the realities of the situation in Iraq. Briefly, an Iraq plan is considered progressive if it fully takes into account these four assertions:

1. The Iraq War was a mistake.
2. Our presence in Iraq is making things worse, not better.
3. Iraq is a political problem, and it requires a political solution.
4. Our goal in Iraq should not be to “win,” but to leave responsibly.

The goal behind this project is twofold. First, the assertions give progressives a way to discuss our own plans for Iraq's future. It is not enough to end the war. We must be able to intelligently propose solutions for the post-U.S. Iraq. Second, by examining as many serious policy proposals as possible, I hope to fashion my own bottom-up plan that I feel will be both effective and worthy of progressive support.

NETWORK, a Catholic lobbying group based in Washington D.C., has a plan for Iraq that is a bit different from those put out by large policy think tanks. It lacks the same level of detail found in other plans when dealing with international negotiations, troop withdrawal timelines, the intricacies of Iraqi internal and external politics, and Iraq's neighbors. However, NETWORK focuses on the economic rebuilding of Iraq, which they say is key to ending the conflict. Their plan is notable because it treats Iraq like other underdeveloped countries in need of aid. The plan provides a robust framework for increasing non-military aid to Iraq and fostering bottom-up rebuilding efforts, things that have been sorely lacking both in actual events on the ground and in most policy proposals on the issue.

NETWORK does take care to lay the groundwork for their economic proposals. In doing so, they hit many of the above assertions and establish their "progressive credentials" in a sense. NETWORK clearly states that they opposed the war from the beginning (pdf), that there is no military solution to the Iraqi problem, that we are stuck in a war with no end in sight and casualties mounting every day. It is clear that we need to begin the withdrawal immediately. The focus on rebuilding Iraq for Iraqis, by Iraqis also underscores their agreement with the assertion that the U.S. isn't out there to "win," only to leave responsibly.

NETWORK asserts that:

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT is the only realistic way forward. Through local development and micro enterprise it will be possible for the Iraqis to reclaim their country. The U.S. should fund these efforts.

The actual rebuilding of Iraq is too often forgotten in other plans. Before researching NETWORK's ideas, I myself had largely put economic solutions out of mind as well, preferring to concentrate on what I perceived as more immediate, actionable items. However, without a clear economic plan for restoring civil society to Iraq, all the best laid conferences, troop withdrawals, partitions, reconciliations, or other ideas will likely end in failure. Until the Iraqis can lead stable, normal lives in their country and have access to jobs, educations, and futures, there will be no true peace. Unemployment and economic poverty are one of the leading causes of terrorism and reliance on the older (perhaps more stable) sectarian structures that are currently tearing Iraq apart.

NETWORK's economic proposals are grounded in progressive development ideas that are currently being used the world over. They include micro-finance, community education programs, and refugee support, all conducted with a grassroots, ground-up ideology and gives control of the money to the Iraqi people. Starting at the top, they recommend aid to Iraq be increased to $5 billion per year as recommended by the Iraq Study Group. This money would continue to flow even if the U.S. withdraws from the country.

They also have detailed recommendations for Supplemental spending bills being passed by Congress:

• $100 million for Community Action Programs (CAP) and the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund (Marla Fund)
• $290 million for UNHCR and the humanitarian needs of refugees and displaced persons.
• $100 million for restarting 143 Iraqi state owned enterprises.
• $100 million for the support of civil societies and peace building.

These funds would support micro-finance and community business projects, especially for Iraqi widows, orphans, and other victims of violence. They would cover international costs for handling the more than 3.8 million Iraqi refugees that are displaced inside Iraq as well as in neighboring countries (something The Center For American Progress also supports). Funds would also be used to restart Iraq's state-owned business, providing 150,000 jobs.

Most interestingly, $100 million would be used to support non-military conflict resolution programs. These programs would train local Iraqi leaders in conflict resolution and peacebuilding skills. While I'm usually hesitant to get involved in Iraqi internal politics, giving leaders the skills to better their situations is something every progressive can support. These programs would hopefully give local leaders better ways to deal with sectarian competition that usually results in violence.

By fully funding NGO work in Iraq, NETWORK believes we can create the conditions necessary for peace. The task is monumental, however. Iraq's educational infrastructure, health care industry, civil services, and local governments need to be built up to functioning levels (pdf). Today, most of these rebuilding efforts are run through the military or through the heavily guarded State Department. While these efforts work to improve the U.S. Army's standing in the eyes of the Iraqis, they are in a large sense top-down approaches. NETWORK's strategy takes the NGO model instead, working with local organizers in Iraq to create Iraqi-run projects, projects that have a lot higher chance of success.

NETWORK also advocates involving all of Iraq's neighbors in the rebuilding effort. Moving beyond simply discussing border security or even a Muslim peacekeeping force is a great step. While the U.S. should pay for the bulk of the rebuilding efforts, they can be supplemented and supervised by regional powers, or better yet, regional non-governmental groups. This kind of cooperation would go a long way towards turning international involvement in Iraq away from harmful meddling and towards stability.

On the whole, the NETWORK plan isn't a complete solution to Iraq. Discussions of international relations, diplomacy, and troop movements are necessary parts of any plan. However, too often economic proposals come down to laying out a dollar amount and leaving it at that. NETWORK goes into depth with their proposals, giving suggestions on how to spend that money and how to provide oversight, using tried and true methods from the development word. It's a refreshing change from military-centric policy proposals and it is one that should have a place in any progressive's larger strategy.

I think NETWORK's priorities; stability, local economies, and easing refugee pressures; are the right ones. More importantly, they focus the power in the hands of the Iraqis, avoiding neo-colonial overtones that could increase tensions. Do you agree? Where should aid money for Iraq go and who should retain control over it?

Further Progressive Iraq reading:

We Need A Progressive Plan For Iraq
A Progressive Iraq: Obama’s Plan
A Progressive Iraq: The Iraq Study Group Report
A Progressive Iraq: Looking Far Forward
A Progressive Iraq: The Center For American Progress - Strategic Reset
A Progressive Iraq: Joe Biden’s Soft Partition
A Progressive Iraq: The Brookings Institute - Soft Partition
A Progressive Iraq: Bill Richardson’s Plan

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: