The Problematics of Neocolonialism

I've been posting for a while now on the odd situation in which the US military has been waging war in Iraq against forces loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, whose movement also includes members of the cabinet of Iraq's allegedly sovereign government. Well, the inherent tension of that idea seems to have come to a head recently as the US constructed a series of roadblocks in order to blockade Sadr City only to have Prime Minister Maliki tell us today that we need to lift the seige.

And so it goes. The situation is an intractable conceptual and practical muddle. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and the most effective military forces in Iraq are the US military and the smaller British detatchment. But American troops are under the command of Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush and ultimately answerable to the dictates of the American political system. The British troops answer to Tony Blair and the British political system. But the supreme political authority in Iraq is Maliki and his government, which has to respond to its own imperatives. It doesn't make sense to bend the disposition of the bulk of the United States Army to what Maliki feels he needs or wants to do, but it also doesn't make sense for Maliki's policies to be bent according to the dictates of US Central Command. Which is just to say that the continuation of a gigantic and open-ended American military presence in Iraq doesn't make sense.

I agree with Kevin Drum that the generals who are learning to love timetables and deadlines are tragically late to the party. Throughout 2004, Iraq was under a state of formal military occupation. 2005, meanwhile, was a year of political transition in Iraq -- elections held, constitutions written, assemblies, referenda, etc. The time for announcing a timetable was late '04 or early '05 with the actual timetable pegged to the political events of 2005 so that withdrawal was part-and-parcel of the emergence of a new political order in Iraq. That might have contributed to Iraqi stability, and if it didn't work out would have at least been a face-saving measure. Now, basically, it's just fucked and there's really nothing to do but get out of Iraq and start working on diplomacy and so forth aimed at containing the fallout from the subsequent mess.

Comments

The situation is an intractable conceptual and practical muddle. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun....Which is just to say that the continuation of a gigantic and open-ended American military presence in Iraq doesn't make sense.

That seems a little facile. It seems to me that you've described a situation in which different powerful parties have different interests and are having trouble coming to an agreement that reconciles those differing interests. To get to where you want to go, I think you have to demonstrate that the interests at play cannot be reconciled.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 31, 2006 1:10 PM

Well, okay, the US government is interested in checking the power of Iranian-backed political parties and their affiliated militias. The Iraqi government, by contrast, is based on Iranian-backed political parties and their affiliated militias. The conflict here is pretty straightforward and not amenable to reconciliation.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 31, 2006 1:42 PM

On past experience, the interests will be reconciled after the parties have fought one another to exhaustion, in perhaps five or ten years. Some issues may become chronic problems, flaring up from time to time. See Palestine, Kashmir.

Posted by David Tomlin | October 31, 2006 1:43 PM

Since Bush discovered that he's supporting a war against the people he put in power so that they can't make common cause with Iran there's just been no end of fun the war in Iraq can inspire. When he discovered that the war's nominal aims were contradictory, well, I bet he wet himself. An insoluble military problem? Hoooray!!!! Every unitary eXecutive boy's dream!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2006 2:27 PM

Are 'problematics' different than problems, or are you just trying to impress us with your pomo talk?

Posted by choo-choo train | October 31, 2006 4:53 PM

It is pernicious revisionism to claim that Bush administration bungling is responsible for the mess in Iraq. Going into Iraq at all created the mess. There was no hope for any outcome but an Iraq more attuned to Iran and Islamic fundamentalists, with the Kurds having more wealth and power to fight for an independent Kurdistan. Chaos was a certainty.

I have an idea. How about we agree that war is a bad thing and where there is peace, those arguing for war have, how to put this nicely, no business discussing foreign policy.

Posted by epistemology | October 31, 2006 4:57 PM

"There was no hope for any outcome but an Iraq more attuned to Iran and Islamic fundamentalists"

Well, I disagree with MY and epistemology. If Hakim and the Badr/SCIRI crowd were capable of controlling Iraq, then that is a side we could support and achieve stability. But the most pro-Iranian forces seemed utterly determined to fuck over Sadr and Baghdad and possibly Sistani and marsh tribes but do not have any where near the resources to succeed, or the humility to compromise.

And because the factions all seem to have reasonably stable power centers and resources, I don't see anyone compromising or submitting.

The difference from epist is that I did not really see this coming until around the period Moqtada took the Ali Shrine in Najaf.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 31, 2006 5:25 PM

this mystifies me as well -- there obviously was a time when it made sense to set a schedule to withdraw tied to certain events. didn't anyone notice the inconsistancy between having the iraqis elect a supposedly sovereign gov't and then sticking around and still trying to run things (so that you undermine the gov't and lose any cover for leaving honorably)?

Posted by dj superflat | October 31, 2006 7:41 PM

"2005, meanwhile, was a year of political transition in Iraq --..."
Assuming their elections etc. are more legit than our own.

Posted by o | October 31, 2006 11:34 PM