Don’t Cry For Me, al-Jaafari
The signal from Iraqi leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari that he is finally ready to bow to the inevitable and stand aside may not have anyone dancing in the streets, but it is bringing out the latent optimist in almost everyone. From today’s New York Times:
Ibrahim al-Jaafari’s agreement yesterday to step aside and let his Shiite bloc consider a new nominee for prime minister should finally break the stalemate that has been paralyzing Iraqi politics since last December’s parliamentary election.
The most likely replacement nominees now being talked about are far from ideal. But the only conceivable path to a better future than civil war and chaos in Iraq is lined with distasteful compromise and leaps of faith. No one believes that success is certain.
A new prime minister will at least have a chance to make a fresh start and begin undoing some of the costly mistakes Mr. Jaafari has made since taking office last April. These include, most prominently, his willingness to allow sectarian militias, death squads and torturers to infiltrate the security services and his failure to insist on professional management of the oil industry and other essential economic sectors. Iraq’s hopes for democracy, and even its existence as a single nation, could probably not have survived a second Jaafari term.
Tony Karon, however, is still wearing his pessimist shades:
For all the focus on Jaafari, his departure isn’t likely to be any kind panacea for what ails Iraq. The political deadlock has been based not on personality issues, but on the balance of power both within the Shi’ite camp and between the Shi’ites and other factions. If the Shi’ite bloc drops him, it’s unlikely to choose the U.S.-favored Abdul Adel Mahdi as his replacement. Not only is there resentment created by U.S. intervention in the political process, but Adel-Mahdi is the candidate of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the arch-rival of Jaafari’s major backer, the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr. More likely is the emergence of a weak compromise candidate to preside over a fractious government facing divisive issues ranging from revising the constitution and oil revenues to dealing with the militias responsible for growing sectarian strife. Not surprising, then, that Secretary Rice warned Wednesday that violence in Iraq will continue after a new government is formed, and it will be subdued only gradually. What she didn’t say, of course, was that she was presenting the best-case scenario.
It would give me a terminal headache to pay as much attention to this stuff as would be necessary to get these names right but I do know that Iraq is a sovereign nation now, for good or ill, and must make their own decisions in these matters. And they certainly should be able to expect a decent amount of time to make them. The headlines mewl out “Iraq hasn’t formed a government! Iraq hasn’t formed a government! I must run and tell the King!”. Of course not one reporter in 20 or one reader in 100 could tell you that Iraq has a parliamentary system and the formation/collapse of governments is a routine thing and not at all what it would mean in an American context. The Iraqis will get this sorted out because they know the result if they don’t. Best case, a kinder, gentler caudillo. Worst case? Smoking-craterville.