"Easing Him Out"

Talk of a US-sponsored coup in Baghdad seems to be back in the air. "In other words, Nouri al-Maliki could be in trouble unless he delivers," says the utterly ridiculous Wolf Blitzer, before asking John Burns "do you think he has the guts to go stand up against Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, this Shiite militia in Sadr City?" Burns, fortunately, knows what he's talking about and says "I don't think it's a question of guts." But then Burns continues:

I think one interpretation you can make of the Bush plan is that they've built this assumption in, that Maliki will not fulfill those pledges, he won't meet the benchmarks and the Americans have been working desperately behind the scenes to create a kind of parallel political movement, a moderate political movement based on factions within the existing Iraqi parliament that could be used as a vehicle for a parliamentary coup against Mr. Maliki.

This strikes me as incredibly ill-advised. The saving grace of the Iraq situation has long been that Iraq has a nominally sovereign government that has any number of policy disputes with the US government. The result is a not, big, wide door for the American government to walk through where we proclaim our mission (the removal of Saddam Hussein) accomplished, shake hands with Iraq's prime minister, and head home in an amicable manner. The more we don't just accept US-Iraqi differences as a reason to leave, and instead choose to meddle in Iraqi affairs (note that Maliki only got into power in the first place thanks to Zalmay Khalilzad's machinations against Ibrahim Jafari) the deeper we sink into the combined quicksands of commitment and illegitimacy.

Comments

Absolutely right. The media blackout of the actual wishes of the Iraqi government and people has to stop, then maybe we can withdraw.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 13, 2007 2:40 PM

It's remarkable, if predictable, that Blitzer would be so completely ignorant of the realities of the basic situation. Maliki isn't going to turn on Sadr, not because of some failing of personal courage, but because Sadr is his boss.

Bush, in his own ignorant delusion, thinks HE is Maliki's boss, and Blitzer, good little courtier that he is, either believes or pretends to believe the same thing.

Posted by jimBOB | January 13, 2007 3:10 PM

As I understand it, the size of the Shiite population makes it the case that any ruler of Iraq is either going to be (1) too accommodating to Shiite militarism or (2) illegitimate as the leader of a supposedly democratic government.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 13, 2007 3:10 PM

Diem. Vietnam.

Posted by John Emerson | January 13, 2007 4:13 PM

Just to amplify on Neil's point, Maliki is from the Dawa party, the largest Shiite group without their own militia, as was Jaafari. Their current allies amongst the Shia are the Sadrists, who run the Mahdi army. The alternate Shia group is SCIRI, who are tied very closely to Iran. The Kurds are major players, but we just pissed them off by arresting the Iranians they've been dealing with, over their strident objections. Needless to say, they also have their own functioning militias. There is no way to deal with any of them without explicitly supporting groups that run militias. The only group in Iraq proper without a militia nor Iranian ties are the Sunnis, and they're the source of the frickin' insurgency>/b>. Honestly, WTF are we smoking? The "moderate factions" are a sick fantasy. We're so deluded that we think we can knock out the government of a supposedly sovereign nation, and just replace it with mainstream political figures who don't even exist. It's despicable, it's ludicrous, it's going to make me speechless someday.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | January 13, 2007 4:14 PM

Sorry about the accidental overbolding.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | January 13, 2007 4:15 PM

jf seems to know a lot about the powers within Iraq. I have to agree with him. The Iraqi government must solve its internal problems.

Nothing would seem worse that a US coup to depose the recognized government. It might help for a short time in Iraq - although I believe it would not - but we will need allies in various places for many years and who would trust us.

Posted by K | January 13, 2007 4:36 PM

"The more we don't just accept US-Iraqi differences as a reason to leave, and instead choose to meddle in Iraqi affairs.... the deeper we sink into the combined quicksands of commitment and illegitimacy."

I'll once again qualify my comment by saying that I still have no clear picture about what's happening over there, but, really, how much legitimacy, authority or any other real power does the existing Iraqi government have anyway? I can't think of even a single example of an action the Iraqi government has actually taken.

With that in mind, what difference does it make WHO we pretend is in charge? All the decisions involving Iraq will continue to be made in Washington anyway.

Posted by James Gary | January 13, 2007 4:37 PM

Yes, they will continue to be made in Washington, that is, until we get the f*** out of course.

Posted by Thunderlips | January 13, 2007 4:59 PM

I certainly don't have an special knowledge, beyond reading Tapped, LGM, and Spackerman regularly, but it seems like we're approaching a crisis of ratioality. We beleive the current government is ineffective because it won't deal with militias, but have yet to accept that a majority of the Iraqi representatives act on behalf of parties with active militias. There is just no governing coalition that CAN crack down on militias, any more than Bush can crack down on Evangelicals or business conservative, for instance. They're not the enemy, there the base of the entire movement. Maliki may claim he wants to crack down, but he's blowing smoke at us, and we very much know it.

Similarly, we would like a government there that would fight Iranian "meddling", but the factions in power, both Shiite and Kurd, have been asking the Iranians for assistance. The Kurds tried to defend the quasi-consulate from US troops in Irbil. Our policy there has gone batshit crazy, for lack of a better description.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | January 13, 2007 5:05 PM

How about this: We're sorry! We fucked up your country, even worse than it was fucked up before. If you can't afford to leave, well, you're probably going to have to live in hell for the rest of your lives. Stuff happens, but we're outahere. Oh, and again: we're sorry!

Posted by SqueakyRat | January 13, 2007 5:55 PM

I know that the Bush administration is trying to round up the usual "moderate" suspects for an effort to overturn Maliki if the prime minister doesn't go along with the surge. However, I would bet my house that Iraqi moderates would just as incapable of overturning Maliki as they were of overturning Saddam.

The real threat of a coup comes from the Iraqi Army which is largely separate from the Iraqi political structure, has a (relatively) unified command apparatus, and is under the thumb of the American military. If the Bush administration wanted a more pliable government, they would be more likely to turn to Iraq's generals than another set of politicians.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 13, 2007 7:23 PM

The odds that Malaiki's replacement will be an improvement are quite low.

Look at poor ol' Israel.

They kicked the hapless PLO outta Lebanon and got a militia that could kick their asses in return.

Posted by alphie | January 13, 2007 7:45 PM

can't we just let Halliburton fight this war for us??
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by MinorRipper | January 13, 2007 7:53 PM

If the Bush administration wanted a more pliable government, they would be more likely to turn to Iraq's generals than another set of politicians.

I'd bet all in there is something very much like a 21'st century "Free Officers Corp" at the military level and that the majority of officers belong to it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 13, 2007 7:55 PM

The problem with turning to the Iraqi army is that we can't under any circumstances claim that it represents democratic opinion, and that is the hook we hung out hat on, at least after we gave up on WMDs.

We are really fighting to get ourselves in as much crap as possible right now. All the factions in Iraq that can garner majority support either have militias (the Kurds and Sadr), are strongly Iranian influenced (the Dawa party of Maliki and Jaafari before him), or both (SCIRI, waiting in the wings right now). The obvious solution would have been to court Iran's help for the past few years, to help stabilize both Iraq and Afghainstan, lessening their hostility toward us and possibly easing their attempt to go nuclear. Instead, we arrest their diplomats who are in Iraq by Iraq's invitation, structure out military to threaten them (the appointment of Fallon), all while we are shown to be shickingly feckless and they get to show off the fruits of diplomacy. Remember, too, that they would have been the leading player in the region against al Qaeda's Sunni-based movement, instead, they are merely yet another enemy for us to fight. After provoking all this conflict, we then send in more troops to be caught in the midle, because the ones that we have there just aren't enough...it's literally insane (doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result).

There was a time that it could be explained as a political ploy to boost republican chances. It now seems like a combination of outrageous cynicism (Cheney), deranged overconfidence (Rumsfeld), and deluded Messianism (Bush). Meanwhile, we're more and more screwed.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | January 13, 2007 8:00 PM

jfaberuiuc said it best. there is just no political 'solution' available.

Posted by sam | January 13, 2007 8:43 PM

Needless to say, a military coup wouldn't have much chance of "working" in the sense of stabilizing Baghdad. But what has the Bush administration done since the initial conquest that had much of a chance of working? From the Bush administration's perspective, a military coup would have certain advantages over a parliamentary coup in terms of the personnel that came to power. As far as justifying a coup, Bush's people could just say that they didn't have anything to do with it and that Iraq might need to establish "security" before "democracy" anyway.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 13, 2007 9:20 PM

Hey Ric, I think we have a disagreement over unlikely hypotheticals, but not much more. We agree that the administration is incompetent and two-faced, and that sticking with the current government is recognized as a losing option.

I think the problem with the military goverment idea is that it is unclear how such a leadership can establish security if it in turn has to oppose the militias. It is the latter who provide the de facto government more so than the former, as best I understand it, to the extent that they are separate entities. In the end, my guess it that we can trade a civilian government propped up by the Shiite and Kurdish militias for a military government propped up by the same militias, but the gymnastics required to cover our ass on giving up democracy as well as WMDs as well as all the other justifications for war might even be beyond the current administration's talents...not that they've been unable to surprise me in the past with their blatant Orwellian messaging...

Posted by jfaberuiuc | January 13, 2007 11:32 PM

Hey, jfab, you're certainly right about unlikelihood of these hypotheticals and the mental gymnastics needed to justify any kind of military coup. However, of all the institutions in Iraqi society, the Iraqi military is the one that is most closely associated with the U. S. As long as the Bush people are trying desperately to "win" in Iraq, a military coup has to be considered to be a possibility. Obviously, forcing a showdown with the Mahdi Army and attacking Iran are bigger possibilities. But the risk of a military coup is there.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 13, 2007 11:52 PM

Point taken. It's sometimes hard to wrap my mind around the idea that just because something is a bad idea makes it more likely to be chosen by the administration, rather than less. Lord knows the number of things obviously doomed to failure thay claim as keys to success, only to see them fail and then claim six months later are still keys to success, only to see them fail and then....

Good lord, I hope we don't attack Iran.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | January 14, 2007 12:07 AM

Of course we're going to try to get rid of Maliki if he won't take on Sadr. Bush practically advertised it in his speech this week. Pundits can wring their hands all they want and exclaim "gosh, we really shouldn't do that!" but it's not gonna change a thing.

Posted by Steve | January 14, 2007 2:08 AM

Yes, this is playing out just like Vietnam [right down to replacing 'sovereign governments' by coup], but Iraq isn't the only 'Vietnam' we've created. I fear that we're starting to forget about Afghanistan.

The Guardian did a great 3-part slide show series on American soldiers along the Pakistan border, and the similarities in strategy and tactics between the two conflicts are scary!

http://www.stickwithanose.com/2007/01/14/that-other-war-2/

Posted by Stick | January 14, 2007 11:30 AM

You're just now noticing that Bush, Cheney et al don't believe in democracy, and consider Iraq a client state? Where have you been? (Snark, I know you know this.)

Posted by Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | January 14, 2007 2:27 PM