The meeting of the Iraqi National Conference has wound up in Baghdad, leaving, from the limited reports available, a very mixed record. Given the series of disasters we’ve seen in the last eighteen months or so, a mixed record is certainly better than the par outcome of total failure.
It was certainly good that the gathering was held at all, and appears to have encompassed a much broader and more representative sample of Iraqi opinion than anything of the kind held since the overthrow of Saddam (or, of course, while Saddam and his Baathist predecessors were in power). This report on the televised proceedings,at Healing Iraq gives an idea of what it was like.
On the other hand, the supposed purpose of the Conference, to elect an advisory council of 100 members to oversee the Allawi government, degenerated into farce. It appears that the Conference was presented with a slate of 81 members agreed by the big parties and a US-imposed decision that 19 members of the old IGC (originally 20, but Chalabhi was excluded after falling from grace). In the absence of any alternative, this slate was accepted by default.
But the biggest success (still not a sure thing, but promising) was the intervention of the Conference in the Najaf crisis, demanding that the assault by the US and the interim government cease and that Sadr withdraw from Najaf, disband his militia and enter the political process. Clearly, if it were not for the Conference, there would have been little chance of a peaceful outcome here, and the potential consequences were disastrous. Sadr has stated acceptance of the Conference’s demands, though it remains to be seen what that means.
I think there’s a reasonably good chance that Sadr will carry through a withdrawal from Najaf and that the government/US will accept this without trying (for example) to demand the surrender of weapons. That would resolve the immediate crisis and would certainly be a good thing for the people of Najaf and Iraq in general, as well as for the rest of us. The bloodletting of the last week, and of the April campaign, has achieved nothing, except to strengthen Sadr.
After that, everything is fairly ambiguous. Although it’s called an Army, Sadr’s militia is not the kind of force to which terms like ‘disband’ and ‘disarm’ are really applicable, certainly not in a country where weapons of all kinds are ubiquitous. Its members can take off their black clothes, and put their guns away, but they will still, in most cases, be unemployed and angry and ready to turn out in arms at short notice. Most likely, we will see a return to the situation before April, with Sadr in effective control of Sadr City in Baghdad and with his (now much more numerous) groups of supporters in other Shiite cities keeping a lower profile, but still ready for another round of armed conflict if it occurs.
There’s similar ambiguity surrounding Sadr’s proposed entry into the political process. The advisory council has been neatly stitched up, and unless this process is reopened, Sadr will be an outsider until (and if) elections are held. There’s no doubt that Sadr’s status has been greatly enhanced by what most Iraqis (Sunni as well as Shiite) see as his successful defiance of the US, so this may be better for him than a minor share in an interim administration with dubious standing.
It seems pretty clear that, if free elections are held, and Sadr runs, he, or his supporters, will do very well. By contrast, a year ago, he was a relatively minor figure. If early elections had been held as Garner had proposed, it seems likely that a moderate Islamist government, heavily influenced by Sistani, would have emerged. That prospect seems much more attractive than any of the alternatives currently on offer.
i believe this is a translation issue, but doesn’t iraqi national congress normally refer to chalabi’s party, while iraqi national conference refers to the convention over the last four days?
in which case, the iraqi national congress is decidedly not a mixed bag.
I’m always doing this kind of thing! I had “Conference”, then read something that gave me the idea I should say “Congress”.
Fixed now, thanks
To say that the US should have settled in 2003 for a moderate, semi-democratic, “Sistanistan” kind of Iraq is a bit like saying Napoleon should have quit while he was ahead.
It seems pretty clear that, if free elections are held, and Sadr runs, he, or his supporters, will do very well.
On the contrary his behaviour shows he thinks he will not do well. The views of non-Iraqis is likely to be influenced by the Western media coverage of Sadr’s activity, which may not be representative of the support he actually has or his importance.
No, his behavior shows he would do well. If he wouldn’t do well, why withdraw his forces?
The intitial process of selecting the 1,000 delegates from perhaps several more thousands of candidates throughout Iraq is in itself a successful democratic activity. Getting from 1,000 to 100 is another demonstration that advocacy and compromise can be part of Iraqi political life. That the conferees could get together enough to send an ultimatum to al Sadr is yet another big step.
There will surely be bumps in the road but this is a very good beginning.
Sadr seems to be going on a revolutionary break. The revolution will resume later when he doesn’t get what he wants.
He should have been arrested the first time he tried his hand at revolution. Each time he gets to paralyze a city with no adverse consequences to his power he gains power because he successfully ‘stood up to’ the Americans. Next time shoot him, no questions asked. Better a marytr than someone who stirs up revolution every four months.
I think there’s a reasonably good chance that Sadr will carry through a withdrawal from Najaf and that the government/US will accept this without trying (for example) to demand the surrender of weapons.
—John Quiggan
Sadr appears to be at the “matyrdom or death” stage of negotiations at this hour, judging from the most recently reported text message from his camp.
Next time shoot him, no questions asked. Better a marytr than someone who stirs up revolution every four months.
Well at least the US is different from that monster, Saddam Hussein, who just killed his political opponents. No?
So remind me, exactly what was the point of deposing him then?
Maynard Handley wrote:
“Well at least the US is different from that monster, Saddam Hussein, who just killed his political opponents. No?”
Excuse me for stating the obvious, but al-Sadr is a wee bit more than just a “political opponent”.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review