In the Arena

Victory in Iraq–Continued

Anthony Shadid, who has covered the war in Iraq from end to end, has this depressing piece about the political stalemate–and the incompetence of Iraq’s political class–in the NY Times today. This paragraph is particularly revealing:

Iraq’s neighbors, in particular Turkey and Iran, often unhelpful, have taken to playing politics here like a parlor game. To break the deadlock, American officials were pushing for a power-sharing agreement that would keep Mr. Maliki as prime minister, and Mr. Allawi [who won a plurality of the popular vote] in charge of security. But, Iraqi officials say, the Iranians are opposed to Mr. Allawi, while the Turks have lingering reservations about Mr. Maliki. Syria, Jordan, plus Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf are sure to want a say.

“We should blame ourselves as politicians because we allowed such countries to have so much influence in Iraq,” said Mithal al-Alusi, a former lawmaker.

Another Iraqi politician, Adel Abdul Mahdi says that a revival of the insurgency isn’t as much of a threat as somethng “unexpected” like a military coup. That makes sense. Iraq remains something less than a country–three Ottoman Empire provinces, badly knitted together by the Brits, a constant scene of internecine fighting except for those period when it was held in thrall by the brutality of a dictatorial leader like Saddam Hussein. We will have spent $3 trillion and countless shattered lives in an effort to give the Iraqis a shot at democracy. It’s still a long shot that they’ll take advantage of that.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • michaelfury

    “in an effort to give the Iraqis a shot at democracy”

    Sure. Whatever you say, Mr. Klein.

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/stole-the-summer-scent/

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “in an effort to give the Iraqis a shot at democracy.”

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Victory in Iraq? Oh, Joe, you’re not still chasing that fairytale are you?

  • nflfoghorn

    Well, ostensibly anyway.
    .
    Of course liberating Muslims doesn’t apply to building a mosque near Ground Zero.

  • nflfoghorn

    Since you’re here EAH, I read your earlier post: I fully understand that bad, possibly unconstitutional laws can be legally passed; my point was that neocons must think the legislative majority does it (i.e., pass uncon. laws) intentionally and with regularity. Whether our regular neocons think that or not is one thing but it appears that they do from my perspective.

  • newfreedomblog

    Rather than bemoan the situation in Iraq, perhaps a discussion could ensue which looks at the problems faced by all nations.
    .
    I found this rather interesting article by a Lew Rockwell, Jr who discusses the problems in Iraq, and why, perhaps, there is a struggle for the Iraqis to form a government.
    .
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/govt-organic-or-artificial.html
    .

    “Thus did a simple theory of the state – kill the king and all will be well – fail. The Bush administration had the idea that the Iraqi state was somehow artificially imposed on an otherwise stable society. The reality is otherwise.
    .
    Which raises the question: just how integral is the state to society? Is it the case that we can expect every society that loses its state to fall into chaos such as Iraq is doing today?
    .
    Before we go there, let us first distinguish the state from society. The state is the only entity that is permitted to maintain a legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force. It therefore operates according to its own law. If you steal or kill, you get in trouble. The state steals and kills as part of its operating procedure, and there is no higher law to keep it in check. The same goes for its monopoly on “justice.” I am not permitted to chase down and punish a person who broke into my house, but rather the state presumes the prerogative of administering justice and allows no competition.
    .
    On the face of it, the role of the state – the legal monopolist on the use of aggressive force against person and property – is absurdly implausible. There is no obvious reason why any society should put up with it. Ah, but then ideology comes into play. We are told that the state serves high religious, philosophical, economic, or social-scientific ends. I won’t bother listing them because doing so would take up the rest of the article.
    .
    The point is that the state is unstable without an ideology to back it up, and convince people that it is necessary. But ideology is not all it needs. It must also put together a matrix of interest-group privilege, as a means of placating the opposition. The state can kill some of its enemies but it can’t ever kill all (as the US is discovering in Iraq). What it must do is co-opt them into a variety of arrangements – usually financial – that reap mutual benefit. In this sense, the state is pushed into the role of a capitalist of sorts. It seeks out trades as a means of making people less hostile and, the state hopes, garnering friends and defenders as far and wide as possible.”

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Well, yes, of course the neocons do reflexively try to undermine many Democratic initiatives and vice versa. I don’t think they believe their own hype, it’s just political posturing. With regard to the individual mandate, though, I don’t think anyone can dismiss concerns over the constitutionality of that clause. It’s a fairly consequential imposition that sets an extremely unsettling precedent.

  • grape_crush

    “We should blame ourselves as politicians because we allowed such countries to have so much influence in Iraq,” said Mithal al-Alusi, a former lawmaker.

    I guess we did partially succeed in imprinting an American-style democracy…looks like the Iraqis got the ‘overly influenced by special interests’ bit right, anyway.

    Thanks for the update, Joe. Any news on the status of extricating ourselves from Iraq?

  • nflfoghorn

    It might, but I doubt seriously that it’ll be overturned in court. The alternative (i.e. what was the status quo – doing nothing) is not a fall-back.

  • Ike Jakson

    I vaguely recall from the campaign trail in 2008 Obama promised that America would be out of Iraq by June last year; apart from all the other promises he made. Oh well, I may be wrong of course.

  • michaelfury

    “the insurgency isn’t as much of a threat as somethng ‘unexpected’”

    “Somethng” like this?

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/memory-against-forgetting/

  • Ike Jakson

    Or Hehewhehehehehe; same feeling you have. Thanks. It’s probably the most relevant response there is for such a ridiculous assumption as democracy in that entire region.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    It’s a bit defeatest to suggest that there are only two routes to go, either the previous status quo or the inclusion of a personal mandate in the reform bill. Reform must have a personal mandate? What about if we enact universal health-care finally?

  • nibblybits

    Derek says: “if I can help the democrats lose in some small way I will feel I’ve accomplished something. Staying home is about the only option until a left-wing party emerges. You don’t seem to get the fact that they, the democraps, are the enemy of the Left, just as much as the Right. In fact, they are more of an enemy because they pretend to be on the Left side and yet they are just another group of war mongering incompetents.”
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/17/morning-must-reads-million-dollar-touch/#comments#ixzz0wyREZlL2
    .
    According to Derek, Al Gore would likely have invaded Iraq too, had Nader not played spoiler in 2000. No, those who went with Nader have nothing to feel guilty about, right, Derek? Because “Democraps” are just more “war mongering incompetents.”

  • nibblybits

    In February 2009, right after his inauguration, he set an August 2010 deadline. He kept it. What is your complaint?
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022700566.html

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    nibblybits I seem to recall the Democrats voting for the war and then continuing to fund it after it became obvious the justification was a lie. In fact, they continue to fund it today, so save your crap for someone who isn’t aware of the facts.

  • nibblybits

    Yes, you’re so right, Derek. Al Gore would totally have invaded. He would definitely have manufactured data and sent his Secretary of State to the UN to make the case. He would have made those nonsense yellowcake in Niger claims, outed Valerie Plame, disregarded FISA rules, wiretapped all of us. I’m almost 100% sure that he would have pooed-pooed an intelligence report titled, “Al Qaeda Determined to Strike in the US” and boy, he would have read My Pet Goat twice through before getting up to deal with 9/11. Thank goodness we didn’t elect that loser.
    .
    It’s lucky you had Ralph Nader to vote for that year. He would have done none of those things. You think Ralph will be in in 2012?

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “You think Ralph will be in in 2012?”
    .
    If he is I won’t have to stay home.

  • nibblybits

    Yea, Derek! Make your vote count, baby!

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I will.

  • apr2563

    Joe: “an effort to give Iraq a shot at democracy.”
    .
    You really believe that was our motivation? Cheney and the oil companies had no vested interest. They just wanted democracy for those poor Iraqis. Bush and friends did not use 9/11 as an excuse to invade, something they had been planning for years?
    A shot at democracy required lies, uncountable deaths?
    Joe you are either still naive or unable to face reality. You and the rest of the media were suckered.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Ike Jakson I seem to recall the two war criminals, Bush and Blair, mentioning WMD a great deal, and the threat they posed, as the reason for invading Iraq, but perhaps I was just dreaming. The democracy argument was rolled out once it was clear there were no WMD.

  • yutsano

    Just as a point of order Ex, a single payer system is also an individually mandated system. It’s part and parcel to how a single payer system works, everybody pays in and is forced to pay in (that can) but everybody benefits.

    e buon giorno mi amici.

blog comments powered by Disqus