Sistani Bows Out

There have been a lot of ins-and-outs to the Iraq debate and a lot of silly things said. The silliest period, though, by my money was the "Arab Spring" craze in early 2005 after the elections in Iraq. It was quite clear by that point that, elections or no, the situation in Iraq was actually really, really bad. Nevertheless, people got it into their heads that this was actually a giant victory and that, in particular, Grand Ayatollah Sistani was going to turn into a silver bullet, capable of not only saving Iraq but somehow bringing about regime change in Teheran as well. You guys all remember that, right? Well, now comes this:

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

This via Jonah Goldberg who remarks that it "will take some time to digest, but . . . sure doesn't sound good." I guess my ex ante outlook was sufficiently bleak that hearing this doesn't make things look notably bleaker.

Comments

I wasn't really depressed enough for this to leave my ex antes unchanged.

*Now* I'm depressed.

If Sistani cries havoc and lets slip etc., we're in deep doodoo.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 3, 2006 9:12 PM

It seems the more hawkish al-Sadr has won the Shia's hearts and minds. Sistani was the best hope for calming the situation. We did not give Sistani the support he needed and thusly al-Sadr filled the vaccuum...and there will be a holy Civil War for it. I am guessing Sistani was "too close" to the mullahs in Iran for our government's liking. In their minds they would rather have a bloody civil war in Iraq then have the country be more peaceful with close ties to Iran...

Posted by Porn Store Owner Dude... | September 3, 2006 10:00 PM

From the time of Moqtada al Sadr’s showdown against the US forces in the early days, it was evident that it was just a matter of time before Sistani would be displaced by him. Not only did al Sadr have more street cred as well as manpower and fighters on the streets, but he bore the mantle of heroism acquired from his father’s role in the resistance against Saddam Hussein, a role not shared by most of the other clerics (including al Sistani).

Now al Sadr is the wave of the future for Iraq, whatever the US posture might be, assuming that he is not assassinated meanwhile. One of the biggest mistakes of the US occupation in the early days was in declaring a threat to arrest/assassinate him, instead of seeking to coopt him into the political directorate. That might not have worked even then, but it’s too late to try to coopt him now.

Posted by Jim Dandy | September 3, 2006 10:24 PM

it's going to take jonah some time to digest this, but it sure doesn't sound good? could we ask for a better demonstration of the utter cluelessness of the war-enablers?

Posted by howard | September 3, 2006 10:37 PM

The situation in Iraq is much like that of Palestine in the last months of the British Mandate, with the U.S. in the role of the British. There's nothing for the colonial occupier to do but make gestures at protecting the two warring groups from each other, taking one side here and the other there.

Historian Tom Segev wrote of that period 'For a brief moment, the possibility of making the United States a partner in ruling Palestine made a renewed appearance in the diplomatic world, as it had after World War I. . . . unlike the British, the Americans generally knew how to keep themselves out of such a predicament.' Sadly that is no longer true.

As someone opposed to this project from the beginning, I think it is a good thing that Sistani has thrown in the towel. It should help convince many Americans it is time to do likewise.

The Iraqis will have to work out their political relations with each other among themselves, sooner or later, for better or worse, with much blood or little. We need to get out of the way, and drop that goddamned White Man's Burden.

Posted by David Tomlin | September 3, 2006 11:13 PM

Sistani makes no difference. This "war" is clearly lost and was, in fact, impossible to win in the first place. The Iraqis know this, the American people now know this. There is no scenario in which we begin to win hearts and minds and therefore no point in a continued American presence in Iraq. The American "deadenders" who make ludicrous statements to the effect of "we broke it, now we must fix it" are serving their own interests (and those of the Administration) and not the interests of the American people. I continue to wait for the day that Democrats can muster the balls to stop hiding behind "it's being mismanaged" and demand an immediate withdrawl.

Posted by Just Karl | September 3, 2006 11:22 PM

Also silly: uncritically accepting the anonymous sourced report that Sistani is bowing out.

Competing (and supporting) narratives here:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002723.php

Posted by Bill from INDC | September 4, 2006 12:45 AM

I'll cop to being someone who thought the situation in Iraq would improve once the Sistani backed slate came into power. In my defence, I thought the Sistani-backed slate would follow a strategy of trying to unite Moderate Sunnis and Shia towards the common goal of getting foreign troops out of the country as quickly as possible, + economic & technological improvements. Instead, they seemed to follow a strategy of wanting to let the Americans do their fighting for them by subduing their internal enemies, in return for acceping the legitimacy of the foreign occupation. Every time the Iraqi PM of the moment came to Washington and said "Tenk you, President Booosh" (White House written speeches, BTW) , I felt that the Iraqi leadership had blown it, and was following a wrong-headed strategy.

I mean, it's a fact the British rule brought many benefits to Indian technology and economy, and even benefits to culture and society (and many harms, as well). But any Indian leader, post-Independence, who gave speeches saying "Tenk you, Vinston Churchill", or even "Tenk you, Clement Attlee", would get his ass handed to him by the Indian people. And rightly so.

I think the same thing is true of the Iraqi people as well. I thing every time the Iraqi leaders came to Washington and gave their rather sycophantic speeches, they lost credibility and respect with the Iraqi people, not just among Sunnis but among Shia as well.

Of course easy for me to say that the Iraqi PM should have taken a more anti-Occupation stance, when it's only American troops keeping the PM alive, but I still think it's the truth. And as bad as the situation is, I think if the Iraqis get a good PM and a good strategy, I think the situation is still capable of improving.

Posted by roublen | September 4, 2006 1:38 AM

Roublen: per Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco", that "tenk you" was personally demanded, multiple times, by the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Posted by Doctor Memory | September 4, 2006 1:57 AM

Doctor Mem: Oh, absolutely (though I didn't know Bush personally demanded the flattery). But the Iraqi PM's all aquiesced and delivered the speeches quite willingly, seemingly unaware that they were undermining their credibility for Bush's short-term benefit.

Posted by roublen | September 4, 2006 3:34 AM

"I continue to wait for the day that Democrats can muster the balls to stop hiding behind "it's being mismanaged" and demand an immediate withdrawl."

Why? What do you think that would accomplish?

Posted by Petey | September 4, 2006 9:02 AM

I continue to be amazed by the incredibly high correlation between those who discuss politics in terms of "balls" and those who offer puerile political advice.

Given your generally supportive attitude towards the DLC, and the DLC's position that the most important characteristic of any Democrat's Iraq policy is that it make him look "tough," that's hard to believe. Live and learn, I guess.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 4, 2006 9:06 AM

the letter "l" in firefox has a brownish color to it, and only a tinge-hint of same in IE-6.

thelrd in TEXAS-- an ancient reader of your entries from your undergrad days.

Posted by larry davis | September 4, 2006 10:04 AM

"Given your generally supportive attitude towards the DLC..."

Really? I'd say there's little question I'm in opposition to the DLC more often than I'm in support.

I'm always amazed at how nescient lefties use the acronym "DLC" to mean a whole host of things other than support for the DLC.

"Given your generally supportive attitude towards ... the DLC's position that the most important characteristic of any Democrat's Iraq policy is that it make him look "tough," that's hard to believe."

Yup. That's me in a nutshell, always talking about Democrats need to look "tough". You read me like a blind man who doesn't know braille reads books, SCMT.

Posted by Petey | September 4, 2006 10:05 AM

Color me skeptical. Sistani has a *lot* of "aides," spread throughout the country. During previous crises we typically got conflicting reports of what his position was. He's *always* claimed to be just a religious leader, not a political one. I seriously doubt he's retreated to some quietist stance.

Posted by rd | September 4, 2006 11:13 AM

I agreee with roublen's analysis. One problem is that at every conceivable juncture the administration put domestic politics above getting as good a result in Iraq as feasible. Forcing Iraqi politicians to thank him is a particularly egregious example. Another egregious example is defining leaving as defeat. That one is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by Pithlord | September 4, 2006 11:18 AM

Why? What do you think that would accomplish?

Yes, of course, a sophisticate like Petey considers the wider implications an Iraqi civil war would have on the region before he considers the lives of American soldiers. Petey's refined political strategy involves prolonging the needless death of Americans engaged in a futile struggle in order to avoid looking weak on terrorism. Tell us Petey, who will be the last to die?

The question is not what do we accomplish by leaving, but what do we accomplish by staying?

Posted by Just Karl | September 4, 2006 12:05 PM

Who will be the first to suggest partition. Iraq never was a nation, and trying to preserve it is doomed to fail. Thanks to the Brits, this problem will outlive all of us.

Posted by Mal | September 4, 2006 12:10 PM

Yes, of course, a sophisticate like Petey considers the wider implications an Iraqi civil war would have on the region before he considers the lives of American soldiers. Petey's refined political strategy involves prolonging the needless death of Americans engaged in a futile struggle in order to avoid looking weak on terrorism. Tell us Petey, who will be the last to die?

This seems unfair. Petey never said anything about his prescriptions for US Iraq policy. He was talking about the proper Democratic political maneuvering in regard to US Iraq policy.

If there's anything we can agree on, it's that Bush will never take Democratic opinions or stances into honest account while formulating his foreign policy, so the party's stance in the midterms is practically immaterial to the current policy.

There are important questions to be asked about what a presumptive Dem nominee's foreign policy would be. (The disaster that was Carter in Iran should hopefully point out that real differences among Dems should be important during primary season.) But I don't see why these questions ought to be answered during midterm elections - the only effect that midterm elections will have on Iraq is if Democrats can win the house and hold investigations into lawbreaking and lying in the prosecution of the war. What Democrats say about Iraq in terms of '06 should be read in terms of what will help to win the elections.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that calls for faster withdrawal are not a winning strategy. I don't think this has much of anything to do with the injustice of the war in Iraq. In fact, I'd say that advocating a losing, or suboptimal strategy for winning the midterms is more likely to contribute to the injustice of Iraq.

Posted by DivGuy | September 4, 2006 1:04 PM

"mal" is the first person ever to criticize the Brits for not partitioning enough. Of course, as we all know, and the people of Mandate Palestine and the Indian sub-continent will testify, partition is a magic bullet solution for all problems.

Posted by Pithlord | September 4, 2006 1:27 PM

The analogy to end-of-empire Britain is a telling one. Having colonized the Middle East and the subcontinent, there were no good options. Partition and agglomeration of nation-states were going to be a disaster both ethically and for British interests. The reason for this is that colonization was bad.

Similarly, the US has effectively colonized Iraq. They have no good options between leaving it in place and breaking it up. This is becuase invading Iraq was bad.

Some actions are so bad that they remove the option of good choices in the future.

Posted by DivGuy | September 4, 2006 1:35 PM

Really? I'd say there's little question I'm in opposition to the DLC more often than I'm in support.

Yup. That's me in a nutshell, always talking about Democrats need to look "tough". You read me like a blind man who doesn't know braille reads books, SCMT.

Whatever, Petey. As I noted during my apparent confusion about the level of your support for Isiah, there is a set of blogs that most of us who comment here read. We've read both them and your comments on them since before your name became something of a watchword for bad faith (a less accusatory word would be better, I just can't think of one) ratings at TPM Cafe. It seems reasonable to let everyone decide for themselves whether your positions frequently parallel DLC positions and approve of DLC people (e.g., Sperling, two posts up), and whether those parallels and that support, if they exist, are coincidence or evidence of support for the DLC's program. We'll all come to our own conclusions, just as we can each decide for ourself whether the recent and now seemingly constant appearance of the word "nescient" in your references to the netroots (here, "lefties," which you are apparently not one for the purposes of that sentence) is because it is the mot juste or because you think it makes you sound smart, and smarter still with repetition.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 4, 2006 3:02 PM

"approve of DLC people (e.g., Sperling, two posts up)"

Now it's not the DLC, but "DLC people".

Yup, guilty as charged. I dig Gene Sperling. I'm a huge fan of Bill Clinton too. I think Al Gore is the rare policy/political dual genius. I even like part of what Howard Dean has done.

I just happen to think Al From's basic political direction has some fundamental errors. I know full well the distinction between Gene Sperling and Al From is lost on you, and I think that's too bad. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

At the end of the day, I understand that benighted lefties like yourself find it convenient to use the appellation "DLC" to incorrectly refer to the 80% of the party they don't like, but they might seem a bit less unhinged if they refined their terms a bit to conform to reality.

Posted by Petey | September 4, 2006 3:53 PM

Bill INDC,
Your own analysis doesn't really counter this narrative in the end. Whether Sistani has "bowed out," found himself impotent because of changing events, piqued by US actions or whatever - the fact of the matter is that he has significantly lost influence among the Shi'ite community on political matters. He has always been political - and a moderate to boot. But after the last elections in December 2005 put the Shi'ites permanently in charge of the country, Shi'ites no longer saw fit to avoid retaliating against Sunnis. What was there to lose? If the Telegraph article is accurate, it seems Sistani is now trying to save religious face with his political influence gone.

Posted by Elrod | September 4, 2006 4:01 PM

Petey:

It's not clear to me whether you're claiming that you only like Clinton, Gore, and Sperling, which doesn't really differentiate you much from anyone, or that you like everyone associated with DLC but From. Moreover, my suspicion is that most people who've seen your comments for any length of time might reasonably suspect that even the latter position is a significant move for you. They, and I, might be wrong, of course.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 4, 2006 4:12 PM

"It's not clear to me whether you're claiming that you only like Clinton, Gore, and Sperling, which doesn't really differentiate you much from anyone, or that you like everyone associated with DLC but From."

Well, if we're not talking about "DLC people" like Clinton, Gore, Sperling, and Dean...

And we're also not talking about the "DLC political direction" as personified by From...

Then what the hell are we talking about?

Seriously. I really don't have the slightest clue what you mean when you say "DLC" other than the overwhelming majority of the party that isn't part of the official netroots™ or part of the traditional interest groups.

Posted by Petey | September 4, 2006 5:00 PM

Elrod -

Your own analysis doesn't really counter this narrative in the end.

Well that's why I said countering and supporting narratives. But the element that is countered is the idea that Sistani is publicly throwing in the towel. I believe that he's probably working his ass off behind the scenes. In effect this may wind up the same: futile. But it might not, and it's probably relevant to not digest the above linked article at face value, epecially is Sistani is, in fact, directly asking the US President for a recommittment and additional resources. Thus far, he's been about the most rational player in the game.

Posted by Bill from INDC | September 4, 2006 7:42 PM

DivGuy,

I have no doubt that you are espousing the current political calculus of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, not only is it faulty, it's cowardly, as well. The continued willingness of Democrats to stand mute in hopes of political gain while thousands of Americans are maimed and killed and billions of dollars are wasted for a war WE KNOW TO BE UNWINABLE is disgusting. In addition to being morally offensive, it's bad political strategy and will not endear voters to our party. If a call for withdrawl is not begun in 06, it will be portrayed as a flip-flop in 08. The Republicans will rightly claim that Democrats have shown no leadership of any sort and cannot be trusted with foreign policy. On the other hand, if the Democrats where to begin widespread calls for withdrawl this year (and I've seen no evidence that this is a losing strategy, as you claim) then we would not only build credibilty with voters in 08 on foreign policy, but could also make a better case as leaders on fiscal management. It is a huge mistake to believe that we can demonstrate leadership by pandering to voters in the six months before the elections in 08.

If we are fundamentally in disagreement over the outcome of Iraq, then that is a different issue. But I have yet to see any Democratic plan for victory in Iraq. Calling for the removal of Rumsfeld is woefully short of what's needed.

It's a shame that many of the same people who take credit for helping bring an end to Vietnam War are now enabling the continuation of this War. Every voice makes a difference.

Posted by Just Karl | September 4, 2006 7:46 PM

I should add that part of the counternarrative is that we shouldn't uncritically trust anonymously sourced insights into Sistani's mind from third parties, though that's the main source of info about the man.

The "aides" claim he's withdrawing to religious matters, while almost at the exact same time he publicly meets with the Iraqi Prime Minister and asks for laws banning firearm possession among "non-governmental troops." Yet those inclined towards the narrative that Iraq is f'ed up beyond repair uncritically choose to endorse the narrative that Sistani is out of the game, so now we're REALLY IN TROUBLE.*

* Note: I'm tabling the argument over whether Iraq is actually f'ed up beyond salvage; I'm limiting my comment to pointing out that those inclined towards certain narratives cherrypick articles that reinforce said narratives. Which is the reason for my initial comment.

Posted by Bill from INDC | September 4, 2006 7:48 PM

I'm limiting my comment to pointing out that those inclined towards certain narratives cherrypick articles that reinforce said narratives. Which is the reason for my initial comment.

Well, you might try looking at the set of predictions each side made based on those narratives, and decide whose biases seem most useful in sorting out what's going on in Iraq. I leave it to you to determine who has had the better argument for neigh three plus years.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 4, 2006 8:54 PM

"Well, you might try looking at the set of predictions each side made based on those narratives, and decide whose biases seem most useful in sorting out what's going on in Iraq."

So you're actually arguing that cherrypicking your facts is just fine and dandy if you think your narrative is correct?

You must worship at the altar of Dick Cheney. Benighted, indeed.

Posted by Petey | September 4, 2006 9:01 PM

irsqk rmbpyts olrcmavdn juoqab bvmg ycrnvia hkfzr

Posted by sdthnjoz gazhkm | May 31, 2007 12:05 PM

seqvcow ysjfh ofnry xwntq svor kdnivfxaj uhocdit http://www.tgrunf.tphrvwxbq.com

Posted by pgfbvzym aimysoeuj | May 31, 2007 12:07 PM

seqvcow ysjfh ofnry xwntq svor kdnivfxaj uhocdit http://www.tgrunf.tphrvwxbq.com

Posted by pgfbvzym aimysoeuj | May 31, 2007 12:07 PM

Very good site. Thanks.
http://sites.blockstar.com/micks/vicodin.html vicodin and alcohol

Posted by order vicodin | June 8, 2007 10:12 AM

Very good site. Thanks.
http://sites.blockstar.com/micks/vicodin.html vicodin and alcohol

Posted by order vicodin | June 8, 2007 10:13 AM

Very good site. Thanks.
http://sites.blockstar.com/micks/meridia.html buy meridia online

Posted by meridia cheap | June 9, 2007 5:46 PM