I’m going to try hard from now on to avoid debating whether the war with Iraq was a mistake, and to focus on the question of what should be done from here onwards.
I’ve argued for some months that the most plausible option for a stable allocation of power in Iraq is a de facto two-state solution in which the Kurds get effective autonomy and a share of the oil and the rest of Iraq gets a government which will be dominated by the Shiites. With luck, they won’t try and settle too many scores and will recognise the need to keep much of the Sunni professional elite on side. The government would be Islamist, but not a direct theocracy like Iran.
The key to all this, almost certainly, is Ayatollah Sistani. He’s not the person I’d want running my country (or more precisely acting as the eminence grise for its day-to-day rulers), but he seems like the only plausible choice who wouldn’t be an absolute disaster.
Thus far, the occupation government has done its best to preclude the emergence of a government dominated by followers of Sistani, most obviously by trying to put off elections as long as possible. The assumption has been that, given time, a secular pro-American government will emerge (Chalabhi being the favoured leader). This approach is not absolutely hopeless1. Still it’s a long shot at this stage, and policy in matters of life and death shouldn’t be based on long shots.
More importantly, with the apparent blowback of Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr (the latest in a series of disastrous misjudgements on his part), there’s now a big danger that Sistani will either be outflanked by Shi’ite radicals unwilling to accept his quietist position or will feel compelled to advocate overt resistance to the Americans and particularly to the “government” to be installed on June 30, which, on current indications, will lack both legitimacy (being nominated by the Americans) and effective power (since the Americans have announced that they will maintain military control indefinitely). Something needs to be done soon to prevent this.
The urgent requirement is to dump both Bremer and Chalabi and try to find a path that can shift Sistani’s position from passive resistance to active support. This almost certainly entails a commitment to direct elections as soon as possible and an agreement that once an elected government has taken power it should have actual sovereignty, including control over its own military and the right decide what foreign forces if any, are wanted in Iraq. Ideally, the US should bind itself to this course by subordinating its command to the UN (or, failing that, some other international body such as NATO) as soon as the June 30 deadline is reached
Since I can’t see the US Administration following a course of action remotely like this except under extreme pressure, I think it’s appropriate for allied governments to drop the “we broke it, we own it” line and announce that they will not continue to support the occupation beyond June 30 in the absence of a change of policy.
I should say that I’m not claiming that this strategy is guaranteed to work at all, let alone to work well. But I can’t see a better alternative. And, of course, I didn’t support the policies that got us (the world and the Iraqis) here in the first place.
1 As is suggested by this report, which notes the success of secular candidates while also making it clear that a reasonably democratic interim government could have been elected using the approach proposed by Sistani and rejected by Bremer, based on using ration books for voter ID.
This two-state solution might work as a (very) loose federation. I think the key here is the “effective” part of the “effective autonomy” you propose. There is an irony here. The best solution is a “Turkification” of Iraq even as the state of Turkey is one of the biggest external impediments to peace in its ongoing - and to my mind totally irrational - opposition to Kurdish autonomy.
“I’m going to try hard from now on to avoid debating whether the war with Iraq was a mistake, and to focus on the question of what should be done from here onwards.”
Thank you!
Some comments on a very good post:
1/ I’d agree that elections are better sooner rather than later. They are also in U.S. interests, since later allows more time for the situation in Iraq to deteriorate, which will tend to radicalize rather than soften the electorate.
2/ Since you’re creating an all-in-one package, I’m not sure about what you would say about transfer of sovereignty for 30 June. Irrespective of elections, I’d say this should be done come Hell or high water - even if this is what Bush is proposing - because it is important that the U.S. get out of being an occupying power asap (even if in fact, after the transfer of sovereignty, it will be exercising a certain amount of control…).
3/ “I think it’s appropriate for allied governments to drop the “we broke it, we own it” line and announce that they will not continue to support the occupation beyond June 30 in the absence of a change of policy.” Probably the part I disagree most strongly in the post. This strikes me as all stick and no carrot. Allied governments should also announce what they’re willing to put in - men and money - should certain (realistic) conditions in Iraq be met. Otherwise it’s just not serious.
Who says the government has to be “Islamist”? How many Shiites want that? Does Sistani himself want it?
The view of Iraqi bloggers seems to be that Sadr is an Iranian proxy and has to be taken on.
There will not be a two state solution, the Turks will never accept a Kurdish State, a it would encourage the Kurds ( ~1/5 of the population) in Turkey to rebel and join the new state.
Josh Marshall has a new quote from Bush suggesting that June 30th is now less set in stone than one might think. Don’t discount yet another flip-flop.
If one of the necessary outcomes is improved U.S. security, how do we pull out on June 30? What’s to keep the Sunni triangle from becoming a base for international terrorists?
“Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr (the latest in a series of disastrous misjudgements on his part).”
I don’t understand this formulation. When a leader tells his followers to take up arms and kill as anyone who trys to help the US establish a government, how can you think of that as a “Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr.”
But that aside, do you specifically dislike the formulation of the interim Constitution? It seems to have a pretty dynamic balance.
It doesn’t really matter what format is adopted. Chalabi is the next Boss of Iraq. The “democracy” is just window dressing.
“Bremer’s decision to take on Sadr”
This refers to the closure of the Sadrist newspaper al-Hawza and the arrest of one of Sadr’s associates on a warrant for murder that had been outstanding for many months, with the clear implication that Sadr would also be arrested in the near future.
All this preceded Sadr’s call to arms, and has been seen by most commentators as a deliberate decision to eliminate Sadr before June 30. Juan Cole has the most detailed discussion.
You’re right that the interesting questions are about how to find our way out of this slough of despond, rather than how we ended up in it. But surely an obvious first step is to sack those who led us in to the mire, and who show every sign of getting us more deeply enmired.
IOW I think there’s still value in pointing out the consequences of the lies, ignorance and incompetence of our rulers, until we get a change of rulers,
My compliments on a fine essay.
My only comment is that holding one election is easy. The trick to democracy is to have a second, and a third, and fourth, without falling into a civil war. As, indeed, the US did.
While elections are a visible symbol of democracy, there must be an underlying commitment to democratic values. First, people must be secure that losing power will not mean losing one’s life and property in reprisals. Second, there must be a realistic prospect for the losers to regain power. If loyalties are tribally focused, this is unlikely. Finally, there must be negative consequences for those who attempt to gain power through violence, instead of debate.
The view of Iraqi bloggers seems to be that Sadr is an Iranian proxy and has to be taken on.
What a strange thing to say, Mitch. According to Riverbend he has easily over a million followers (“some say four million”). Raed says five to seven million.
Query whether the neighboring states with substantial Kurdish minorities—Turkey, Syria and Iran—would sit still for a “solution” that gives Kurdish Iraqis virtual autonomy.
raj, my view is that the Kurds have had substantial autonomy for years, and that, at this point, the best neighbouring states can hope for is that they (the Kurds) will settle for this rather than pursuing the (chimerical in my view) push for a new state of Kurdistan.
moloko: These were the people I read: 1 2 3. I guess we’ll see who’s closer to the truth.
excellent commentary
Kurdistan is here to stay unless engulfed in an Iraqi civil war of the future.
Sistani is sitting back letting the USA take the pain of dealing with the intemperate and the mob. He’s playing his cards well. He’ll step forward when he feels the USA is mired and wants a face saving solution.
God knows how the Sunnis and the Shias are going to resolve their tensions after that though.
Saddam knew how to keep the peace, shoot lots of people. This method may be used again in Iraq.
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