Decision ‘08

What’s Missing From Iraq: A Partner (Part Two)

On Monday, I lamented the state of affairs in Iraq, where our no-doubt-good intentions seem to be stimied at every turn by a lack of cooperation from a weak Iraqi government beholden to Sadr. My conclusion:

…[T]he only hope to is to budge Maliki by scaring the hell out of him, unless his government falls of its own accord…no number of troops, no regional partnerships, no plan, period, has a hope of success if the Iraqi government doesn’t sign on…

The key to the above is the phrase ‘of its own accord’…our stated goals of a democratic Iraq don’t jibe well with Vietnam-era puppet governments and covert support of coups against our putative allies. Nevertheless, I note with interest that these ideas are beginning to circulate in Baghdad, even among such Iraqis as the proprietors of Iraq the Model, well-known for their level-headedness:

…[O]ur real problem in Iraq is that we do not have leaderships with patriotic agendas and like we said many times in previous postings; these leaderships that work according to partisan and regional-foreign agendas are the main cause of trouble because they are in power and they would not easily abandon the agendas of their masters and regional supporters and they will remain an obstacle in the face of building the state.

The bitter fact is; it was us who brought them to power and gave them legitimacy through elections. But…regret is useless now.I believe that America would like to see Iraq emerge as a model for the region and is working hard to find a way to solve the current crisis. But that cannot be done without having a cooperative Iraqi partner on the ground who shares similar views for Iraq and the middle east. And that’s the point; that partner does not exist, at least not in the government. And I don’t think Iraq’s neighbors would instruct their representatives (their servants in Iraq) to give America a hand, even though they pretend to be heading in that direction because their vision for Iraq and the region are fundamentally in conflict with that of America. They want to see America defeated in Iraq and that’s of course at the expense of Iraq.

So, to start looking for solutions, America must first start looking for an Iraqi partner, a partner that is devoted to building a model state in Iraq and that favors building a strategic alliance with America instead of grave alliances with rogue regional powers that want to throw Iraq back to the ages of despotism or settle old accounts with America through a proxy war. Perhaps figures like Allawi and his bloc stand as a good candidate for a partner but they’re a candidate not big enough to form a “salvation front” and work with America and save Iraq.

There are other smaller liberal powers but these are shattered and confused and many of them chose to side with religious parties in order to have a chance to win a seat but I also think they might be willing to form new alliances under different frames, and here the Kurds arise as a potential valuable addition to the front—should they choose to stop looking at the situation from a narrow ethnic corner and realized the bigger image of the region. Dismissing Maliki’s government, whether under a constitutional cover or not, will not be a fruitful act unless before that a fresh patriotic front capable of filling the vacuum is established. This front has to be largely from within the parliament in addition to liberal powers that weren’t lucky enough to reach the parliament. This new political mass will be a very helpful asset to the patriotic Iraqi project and to America’s interests, whether on the long term (the next elections) or on the short term in case Maliki’s government resigned.

How can that front be assembled? The only means is explicit, direct support from the United States to this future partner. Everything is allowed in war and since Iran or other countries support this or that harmful party then America has the right, and the moral obligation, to support a party of its choice.

America is in Iraq now and in order to create a cover of legitimacy to any political or military solution, a strong Iraqi partner must first exist.

I agree with much of the above, and yet it troubles me for the aforementioned reasons. Everything is allowed in war? Well, certainly there are certain conventions (such as the famous Geneva variations) that are expected to be followed. Yet those conventions are often observed more in the breach than in obedience. It’s a tough issue. Clearly, Maliki is, whether by choice, or by weakness, completely helpless in the face of the escalating sectarian violence. Yet his government has a legitimacy that we tamper with at great risk.

The questions are simply put, the answers anything but:

Can the U.S. throw in its lot with a coalition of willing Iraqis intent on replacing the current regime without totally compromising what little remains of its reputation for integrity among the global community?

How much support for Maliki opponents, if any, is too much?

Can we abide by democracy in the Middle East if the outcomes are not to our advantage (think Hamas)?

Is realpolitik or neoconservative idealism the way forward for our foreign policy?

The answer is crucial: because if it’s the neoconservative idealism, then ironically, we may have to abandon Iraq, because to scheme against the elected government would be too great a stretch for our devotion to the ideal of democracy in the Middle East.

Those who welcome the Baker study and the ascension of Gates as SecDef should be aware that under the tenets of realpolitik, we would be perfectly justified in seeking Maliki’s overthrow.

It’s a way forward, this idea of a coup, or an overthrow, or a revolt, or whatever you want to call it…but is it a realistic way forward? Is it something that we would not stand in the way of, or something we would condemn, or something we would assist, covertly or overtly?

My own answer, for what it’s worth:

I do think Maliki is a disaster, as I said before…but I also happen to believe in the rhetoric of democracy. I want Maliki to go, but I don’t think I can cross the bridge of active involvement in his undermining, by whatever means.

I would have no problem whatsoever if the Iraqis decided on their own to bring down the government…so I guess that leaves me in the don’t encourage it, but don’t discourage it camp. And even that leaves me feeling a little dirty.

Of course, Iraq the Model’s Mohammed, quoted above, says the new movement could not gather critical mass with the explicit, direct support of America. So maybe the whole thing’s a moot point, anyway. At the very least, though, such talk shows how great the discontent with Maliki has become, both inside and outside Iraq…

5 Responses to “What’s Missing From Iraq: A Partner (Part Two)”

1 Colin Says:
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Mark,

You can support the dissolution of the current Iraqi government without betraying your democratic ideals. Iraq has a parliamentary system, and therefore building opposition coalitions, making the government fall, and calling snap elections are all part of the system. I fully supported the early election called in Canada last year because the Liberal Party was corrupt and needed to be ousted. That was a fully justified and democratically consistent position to hold. Blocs will form, governments will fall, and new governing coalitions will be elected. Not only does a parliamentary vote of no confidence, followed by a new election not violate the democratic ideal, it is the ESSENCE of that ideal. When you adopt a parliamentary system, as the Iraqis did, you accept the volatility of that system as part of your national political fabric. Just like in this country, in this past election, Iraqi politicians need to be held to account for the condition of their country. They need to offer solutions for their people.

As long as we make sure we respect the results of the vote, we can support any coalition we wish. It is completely consistent with our democratic values to support candidates and coalitions espousing those same values. We can work with whoever is elected and still advocate the election of those who hold our most deeply-held beliefs. No, I think the Iraq the Model guys are definitely on the right track. There are enough secular shiites and sunnis out there that, in a coalition with the Kurds, Iraq could finally have the government it deserves. Eventually, this factionalism, the flip side of all of this sectarian violence we keep seeing, with anti-terror and moderate politicians and political groups becoming allied together, will force the radicals out of government. This WILL happen - in time. We just have to convince our fickle public and spineless politicians to give them the time that they need.

By the way, did you see the recent report that the death toll in Iraq for the month of November is (so far) the least deadly month since the Maliki government came to power? Right now, I don’t have a link, but if I find on I’ll make sure to add it.
2 Mark Says:
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Thanks for the comments, they are reassuring…it’s true that I didn’t take into account the parliamentary aspects, thanks for the corrective…

And I’m encouraged to hear the deaths in November are way down, after those in October proved so high…let’s hope it holds until the end of the month (and longer, of course), and then we can come back and say “A-ha!” in the wake of the very discouraging October numbers…
3 Andy Says:
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Good work Mark. As Colin pointed out it’s a parlimentary system over there.

The Kurds hold a significant portion and it would behoove the ‘idealists’ to ally themselves with the Kurds. I forget the % count, but it shouldn’t take too much to tip the scales to put the coalition leadership in the Kurds’ corner.

I think the key is a declaration that we give full support to thoses who back & follow a short list of overarching democratic principles, i.e. freedom of: speech, religion, association and of course de-emphasizing Sharia as the basis of justice.

All others who fall short of basic human rights principles get the realpolitik treatment.
4 Sean P Says:
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if Allawi is experiencing any resurgance of popularity in Iraq?
5 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » The Best Writer On Iraq Gets It Wrong Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:26 am
[…] Here’s an idea: let’s quit looking backwards, and instead look forward, and that means finding a group of Iraqi legislators willing to band together and provide a counterweight to the Maliki government. That’s the part of the Iraq the Model post that Zakaria left out. Everyone knows the current government’s subservience to Sadr is the main problem. Let’s start solving it… […]