Iraq: Stability or “Democracy”?
President George W. Bush’s tepid endorsement of Iraq’s premier Nuri al-Maliki last week (“a good guy, good man with a difficult job”) brings to mind Rab Butler’s sly “defense” of the beleaguered British Prime Minister Anthony Eden at the time of Suez in 1956: “He is the best Prime Minister we have.”
Mr. Bush’s statement was made on the same day U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker described Maliki’s work as “extremely disappointing,” and one day after Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, urged Iraq’s Parliament to oust al-Maliki and replace his government with a more unifying one. Sen. Hillary Clinton, the 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, echoed Levin’s call by expressing hope that Iraqis would find a “less divisive and more unifying figure” to lead them. On the Republican side, Sen. John Warner of Virginia called al-Maliki’s government “a failure” and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described it as “pretty much a disaster.” From Neocon Central, Charles Krauthammer nodded approvingly: “The administration had vainly hoped that the surge would provide a window for the Maliki government to reform and become that kind of government. It will not. We should have given up on Maliki long ago and begun to work with other parties in the Iraqi Parliament to bring down the government . . . "
In an interesting twist, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner joined the chorus by calling for Maliki to be replaced: “I just had (US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) on the phone 10 or 15 minutes ago, and I told her, Listen, he’s got to be replaced,” Kouchner told the media. A day later he apologized, saying “It’s not the French foreign minister’s role to decide who will or not become a prime minister in another country.”
When prominent Democrats and Republicans, neocon pundits and French One-World leftists start beating the same drum, there is bound to be more than meets the eye:
—Republicans are setting the scene for General Petareus’ forthcoming progress report by grooming Maliki as the culprit for the failure of the “surge” to translate modest military gains into durable political assets.
—Democrats already see Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, and having a “responsible” Iraqi government on the ground is the key to her “smart” disengagement strategy.
—Neocons want to reinstate the former Iraqi interim prime minister Eyad Allawi, but since he has little support among the Iraqi people they want to do it by decree from Washington.
—Intelligence professionals warn that Iraqi leaders are “unable to govern” and predict that “levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high” and that al-Maliki’s government will not be able to achieve “national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.”
It is noteworthy that some “exasperated front-line U.S. generals” are talking openly of non-democratic alternatives to al-Maliki. Brig. Gen. John Bednarek, a senior member of the US Task Force Lightning operating in Diyala province, told CNN that “[d]emocratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future”; his commander, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, advocates putting in place a “government that is really a partner with the United States.” According to CNN, senior American officers now suggest privately that the entire Iraqi government must be ousted by “constitutional or non-constitutional” means and replaced with a stable “but not necessarily democratic” entity. While Administration officials still talk about preserving the nascent democratic institutions, they, too, admit their ambitions are not as “lofty” as they once had been.
Generals on active duty are loath to make politically sensitive off-the-cuff remarks. Mixon’s and Bednarek’s statements would have sounded heretical only a year ago. Today they reflect a growing consensus behind the scenes that “stability” should come before “democracy” in Iraq. There are two additional indicators: the U.S. is openly arming Sunni militias and under new constitutional changes announced last Sunday former former Ba'ath Party members will be able to apply for government posts and re-enlist in the military.
The attacks on al-Maliki reflect the growing realization in Washington that, in geopolitical terms, the main beneficiary of the U.S. action in Iraq has been Iran. The United States removed its arch-enemy, Saddam, and replaced him— in the name of “democracy”—with a Shia-led government that seeks to remake the whole of Iraq in the image of the Islamic Republic across the Shat-al-Arab.
American interests in Iraq are threefold: to disengage without appearing defeated, to leave behind the least undesirable status quo, and to counter as much as possible the advantage gained by America’s rivals and enemies. It is therefore essential to stop the Shia tail wagging the White House dog. The Shi’ite leadership, thoroughly penetrated by Iranian agents and Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, will not be intimidated by the prospect of U.S. disengagement for as long as they rest assured that in the name of “democracy” they will retain the levers of power.
The Administration appears to have finally grasped that it needs to level the playing field by strengthening the weaker party in the ongoing Iraqi civil war—the Sunnis. The least undesirable situation we can leave in Iraq is the one that Tehran and its Shia clients in Baghdad find least palatable. The creation of an anti-Shia, anti-Iranian, nationalist Sunni-Arab entity in central and western Iraq is the best possible bulwark to Ahmadinejad’s intention to create a Tehran-dominated belt that would extend over Iraq and Syria to the Hizballah-controlled redoubt in southern Lebanon.
Yes, said the Emperor Franz II, on being told that a certain gentleman was a patriot, “but is he a patriot for me?” When praising the virtues of spreading democracy in the Middle East Mr. Bush would be well advised to keep asking himself, if the project’s actual or potential beneficiaries are democrats for us.
Entries(RSS)
"... talking openly of non-democratic alternatives to al-Maliki."
We HAD a non-democratic alternative to al-Maliki who was providing stability, and we invaded to take him out. Wasn't that this "least undesirable situation" you write of?
"The least undesirable situation we can leave in Iraq is the one that Tehran and its Shia clients in Baghdad find least palatable."
Democracy in many of those places will merely mean that they will vote in a totalitarian government hostile to our beliefs and to our interests, will it not? Paid for with the blood of US and Allied troops?
Or, am I missing something?
Excellent article, as usual, Dr. T.!
I understand Dr. Trifkovic's point, but I don't really think his prescription of a Sunni nationalist enclave is feasible. The Sunnis are likely the smallest of the three major sects. They are now have less access to resources than the Shia or Kurds. While the Kurds would not directly intervene, certainly the Shia would actively resist such an effort. How would it be accomplished apart from a direct US offensive against the Mahdi Army/Badr Brigade/and Iraqi Dept. of Interior (which is wholly penetrated by SIIC's Badr Brigade)?
Isn't a more feasible path a nationalist compromise between al-Sadr and the Sunni that cuts out the Iranian clients Dawa and SIIC? Such a suggestion is certainly open to criticism of naivete in assuming Sadr would make such a deal and not be beholden to Iran, but his public pronouncements certainly indicate a frostiness to Iran. Moreover, his personal history (his family stayed in Iraq, while the SIIC/Dawa factions fled to Iran) would seem to indicate a more nationalist bent. Finally, since Dawa and SIIC are wholly clients of Iran, how would Sadr distinguish himself as a leader but by striking a Shia nationalist non-Iranian pose? Certainly, he wouldn't be hostile to Iran, but if he wants power, he'd need the Sunni (and Kurds) help in overcoming Dawa/SIIC. And once in alliance with them, he couldn't be too cozy with Iran (admittedly, the Kurdish parties have their own ties to Iran).
Admittedly, I know so little that anything I say should have a big disclaimer, but this seems a more feasible course (and one less demanding of American blood and treasure) than the "Sunni-only" course Dr. Trifkovic suggests (which would be a de factor partition of the country).
Relevant to my point:
Sadr Order Six Month Shutdown of Mahdi Army
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082900586.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Not to be the token isolationist, but who cares if Tehran gets Iraq? Why not one big Shiite state? Why do we concern ourselves with any of this mess? Why are we still there?
I don't think anyone disagrees in principle with removing ourselves from the conflicts of the region, but I'm afraid we've meddled so long that we can't accomplish that by simply walking away. We'll need a coordinated plan to disengage, which I assume is what Dr. Trifkovic suggests.
It reminds me of Gregory Peck's line to David Niven in "The Guns of Navarone": "You're in it now, up to your neck!"
Saddam Hussein was a Sunni. We backed him in the past for all of the same reasons we want to abandon the redout, and Shi'ite Maliki, for stability. We never should have fought Gulf War I when Saddam was apparently given the green light to absorb Kuwait, by George Bush's father when he was president. Saddam would have remained a friend of the U.S. and kept his petrol valued in dollars rather than as he did toward the end due to our draconian sanctions on his country switching it to the Euro. And he would have remained the appropriate counterweight in the region to the Shi'ites, if that is really an issue, which it may be to Sunnis in Iraq, Saudi etc. But the Jewish-Israeli lobby in the U.S. is so strong, it and its operative neocons literally coerced George Bush's father when he was president (however that is done as a practical matter) into double-crossing Saddam and destroying his army for absorbing Kuwait. That lobby is called AIPAC which I think stands for American Israeli Political Action Committee. Many people say they all should be registered as foreign agents because all they do is function in behalf of what they perceive to be the best interests for the state of israel. But we are also a military industrial complex and the stocks go up when there's war or wars so that is a big factor no doubt. The right people get rich or richer off of these bloody catastrophes where everyone else is concerned. By the time George Bush's son was to be president and with all of the neocons he had surrounding him the Bushs probably just figured if you can't beat them and their AIPAC lobby, might as well join them. Big mistake, they're not that 'smart' even about the interests of the state of israel either. Now it seems they're pushing for the attack of Iran. It's all just not intelligent, is it? Too bad Saddam isn't still around. I really believe he just assumed we couldn't be this stupid...but he was wrong.
A COORDINATED PLAN would entail relocating the bulk of U.S. forces into fortified wide-parameter garrisons outside the main centers of population, from which they could be deployed to macro-manage damage limitation, rather than fine-tune a "desirable" outcome.
"A COORDINATED PLAN would entail relocating the bulk of U.S. forces into fortified wide-parameter garrisons outside the main centers of population, from which they could be deployed to macro-manage damage limitation, rather than fine-tune a “desirable” outcome."
I agree that we should remove our forces from their primary involved in the sectarian conflict, but how would that macromanaging relate to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia? Would our forces continue to act against AQiM, but refrain from confronting other Sunni insurgent groups (perhaps that's what they're effectively doing now). I assume it also means no attacks against Mahdi or other Shia groups.
I also agree that we likely cannot finesse an outcome in Iraq. Does that mean we leave it to the Iraqi to figure that out? Or is the redeployment just part of a larger diplomatic effort using EU, UN, Russian, Arab League, Iran to broker a resolution? (I don't see Iran doing anything other than sabotage an effort that diminishes their influence).
Is this essentially a partition plan? While redeployment is important since it would reduce our casulties and stop us being the focal point of the conflict, what else must be done so we can extricate ourselves without excessively harming our interests in the region (the obvious goal without debating what the precise definition of our interests is).
I still don't see why we need to be acting in the region. How will continued US military presence help the situation? Why, exactly, must we counterbalance Sunnis and Shiites? From what I understand, Sunnis are the more dangerous sect, being more likely to have global aims, while the Shiites are far more concerned with regional disputes.
I think walking away *is* the wisest course of action, and have yet to see a good reason not to.
And why should American taxpayers be paying to macro-manage foreign nations....ever?
The fact is, we aren't going to walk away. It isn't going to happen. The establishment won't do it. So the question is, what is the best policy that can be made within the framework of the possible.
Mr. Wilder,
In that case, I say we chuck out the establishment. If the choice is endless war and intervention or no more beltway elite....well, isn't the answer obvious?
It's pretty obvious (see immigration, foreign policy, tax policy) that the establishment cares about the average American as it cares about the average dust mite. Why should we continue to tolerate them?
"In that case, I say we chuck out the establishment. If the choice is endless war and intervention or no more beltway elite….well, isn’t the answer obvious?"
I can't--and wouldn't--argue with that! Get a rope (and lots of it)!
"chuck out the establishment"
All in favor, say "aye".
Aye!
re:“chuck out the establishment.” Where the establishment goes, the Lobby goes, and it ain't going anywhere.
Then allow me to quote my father by saying "Kill them all, and let God sort them out".
Back to Dr. Trifkovic's subject, the GAO report on the "progress" in Iraq is, unsurprisingly, decidedly grim. It would appear that Dr. Trifkovic is correct in surmising that the criticism of Maliki is to creat a fall guy for the lack of success in the surge.
Meanwhile, a Marine sergeant is going on trial accused of leading his troops in murdering 19 women and children. While terrible things have happened in the past, this war (and the Army's lowering of recruitment standards to include criminals) will only foster more perversion of our armed forces. We need to withdraw them to whatever extent feasible, before we lose entirely the type of Army we want to have as a free nation (using even a broad definition of "free").
"When praising the virtues of spreading democracy in the Middle East Mr. Bush would be well advised to keep asking himself, if the project’s actual or potential beneficiaries are democrats for *us*."
Of course, none of the political weenies in the D.C. establishment is engaged with reality or reason closely enough to even recognize such a question if it were put to them point-blank -- much less bring it up on their own.
Per weeniethink, democratic government = pro-American.
Another example of how deep moral flaws such as narcissism (*NATURALLY the majority of people in any & every country will admire & adore America, if only liberated from their dictators and given the chance*) hobbles the elites' ability to engage in real-world politics.
"Per weeniethink, democratic government = pro-American."
So many Americans these days seem hostile to so much of what the United States has always stood for; many Europeans, too.
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but now I think we need to rethink our weeniethink.
"So many Americans these days seem hostile to so much of what the United States has always stood for"
Looking at the devastating impact on global affairs of 231 years of American independence, I'm not so sure there is much NOT to be hostile toward.
In have viewed this war as immoral by any just war standard, unlawful by constitutional standards and not winnable by any rational military standard, i.e. third-generation warfare -us- versus fourth-generation warfare -them; however, the French gave us a model form getting out of stupidity in Indo-China - not a model that would lead to a desired outcome from the French perspective but a model which would save face for the French. I am not sure that we can cobble together such a plan.
I have predicted all along, that the current chaos, although not the most desired outcome on the neo-con agenda, was calculated as likely, hence, the power enclaves built to house thousands of U.S. troops over the long-term in a very hostile environment.
I am personally for an ordered withdrawal while it can still be done, the devil take the hind most; that, however, is not likely to occur. One scenario which I hope our planners are calculating is that a strike on Iran, which I believe is in the works, could produce a massive Iranian conventional invasion. While they would loose thousands of men, they could catch us in a position in which we are cut off from supplies and routes of escape. Ultimately with our superior air and naval power we would prevail, but the army on the ground would be spent with no real reserves save for conscription. One needs to note that the British are all but finished in southeastern Iraq. Perhaps the Shiites are "standing down" to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the U.S. and their ironic Sunni allies. During this "stand down," they will consolidate their hold in the southeast and strengthen their positions therein, ready to be the vanguard of an Iranian force moving into the region and ready to cut off our supply routes and our avenues of land escape. One certainly hopes that our military planners have thought through this and are not so arrogant or intimidated by their political bosses as not to have executable countermeasures planned and ready.
(Re. #13)
"... All in favor, say “aye”. ..."
Aye.
"There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but now I think we need to rethink our weeniethink." -posted above
A friend of mine wrote a story entitled 'American Cartoon' in which it is obvious to all but the protagonist that even his in earnest predicting, to the right people in N.Y. society with whom and for whom (while employed) he is working, the inevitable calamities they are heading for on this present course, gets one/him fired. Shhh. Because these people either are (or at least perceive themselves to be) insulated to the point, that they can only benefit further in terms of wealth and power if the calamities do in fact occur, or, if on the other hand they don't well, what a pleasant 'surprise'. It's really a sort of seven of one, half-dozen of the other.
The protagonist's wife is aware of this, since she is an heiress in this society and to this world, one of the few actually privileged, like european royalty, americans. However she knows there is nothing she can do about it either, but does not wish to 'wake up' her husband. She sees him as not necessarily weak, or dumb in the overly naive sense, but perhaps one of the remaining decent or good souls in the world, so that's in fact refreshing to her, who wants for nothing else. No doubt had she needed him to be otherwise, he may have been perceived by her as insufficiently mercenary. While Her current theory is let him find out, whatever it is he finds out. That all of what her husband predicted while emplolyed by his wife's ilk, prior to being let go has now come to pass of course means nothing to his former employers, that's the point.
The largest theme in the story is don't chase what you can't catch. With regard to the theme the last question remaining as a result of this contemporary tale (if one were looking out the window today) is how many of those either in the story or within the story's implied population will Acutually find themselves included within the inextricable confines of the theme...Who haven't experienced it already within the story itself. Ah, only time will tell. It's a romantic comedy. But it's infinite too e.g. (here's the story but then...)...it continues on out here. ? So who'all are chasing what they CANNOT catch? Ah!
The unwritten plot then, as it were - thins. I suppose it's got to be written to 'thicken' ?! .......... Right?