Dec 4^th saw Marilyn McAfee lead a lively discussion on the U.S. “democratization” policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Calling on her years of experience in the Foreign Service she gave an insight into the challenges and requirements facing the U.S. in these two countries and in the Middle East in general.

McAfee began by outlining her experience in Latin America where she was involved with establishing modern justice systems in Guatemala and Chile.  She learned from these efforts that a stable legal and political infrastructure must exist to have something to build upon.  In McAfee’s view you have a far better chance of fixing a broken infrastructure than trying to build something new.  In the end, the key to success is for the people of a country to take “ownership” of the new process.  They will only do that if they can relate quickly to the new system and see results in a reasonable timeframe.  

Regarding Iraq, McAfee first stated that there is no question we must stay and finish the task.  She feels the answer to the much-debated question whether this effort should proceed unilaterally or multi-laterally comes down to a conclusion that we do both.  The U.S. needs to provide security unilaterally and use that mission to influence the ultimate outcome in Iraq.  The U.N. should deal with other aspects of nation building such as building the infrastructure for democracy.  McAfee feels this approach has several advantages in that it adds legitimacy to our efforts in Iraq; it defines a mission for all based upon proven skills; and it relieves the U.S. of some of the burden.

McAfee outlined four critical success factors for the Iraq democratization effort.

1.      We must establish security throughout the country. 

2.      We must eliminate any vestiges of the corruption that was rampant in the old Iraq. 

3.      We must quickly establish and maintain economic stability.

4.      We must build a system of laws that the people trust and see as fair.  McAfee saw some hope that this could be a secular system and not the Islamic Sherea as we see in neighboring Iran.  She based this conclusion on the tribal differences between the majority Iraq Shiites and those in power in Iran.

McAfee briefly discussed an alternative to direct elections that purports to deal with the lack of infrastructure quickly. This was the idea proposed by James Woolsey and others calling for Iraq returning to a “constitutional monarchy”.  As tribal loyalties still play a key role in Iraq today this may be a viable solution.  The idea foresees Iraq divided into three tribal states, Kurd, Sunni and Shiite. The federation would be held together through the monarchy.  In this effort the model in neighboring Jordon could be of some help.

Turning briefly to the role the Arab/Israeli conflict played in Iraq, McAfee saw this activity as a separate, distinct and unrelated event relative to Iraq.  She therefore felt the situation with the Israeli’s should be dealt with separately.  She volunteered that the recent efforts in Geneva and Secretary Powell’s planned meetings with that “unofficial” group were encouraging developments relative to the Palestinian problem.

McAfee concluded her remarks on a somber note by emphasizing the importance of the task in Iraq and the need to get it right.  Muslims, worldwide see this as another in a long series of embarrassing defeats going back to the Ottoman Empire.  Failure to build a new Iraq that is a true example for a better life could result in Muslims banding together and embroiling all of us in a “world war of civilizations”.