Back to the War

I dunno. It's just too depressing, I guess, but for a while now I haven't really said much of anything about Iraq the country as opposed to Iraq the political issue. But just in time to confirm that the surge can't possibly "work" if by "work" we mean something like create a functioning pluralistic polity in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani (the good kind of Shiite theocrat, we'll recall) has come out against rolling back de-Baathification. Spencer Ackerman notes that this more-or-less marks the complete collapse of Zalmay Khalilzad's agenda in terms of bringing about political reconciliation in Iraq.

Khalilzad, it's worth saying, was the General Petraeus of his time -- the lone high-ranking administration official who actually had a good reputation and seemed as best I could tell to more-or-less deserve it. He couldn't, however, deliver the goods. Not through any particular fault of his own except that he was a diplomat rather than a magician. Just as Petraeus is only a general, only a man, only an American, not someone capable of conjuring the social bases of a liberal pluralistic Iraq out of the ether.

Comments

Good Lord, a triple negative. Perhaps it's true it couldn't have been phrased any other way, but... it's late, I've been drinking, and that one took some serious silent math to figure out.

Posted by benny | April 3, 2007 1:31 AM

Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck. I knew Iraq was lost when Sistani bowed out of taking place in active political life. Just fuck. Hopefully we'll at least work on now getting Iraqis who have helped us out of the country.

Posted by Reality Man | April 3, 2007 2:23 AM

Just think, when the Democratic nominee (insert name here) wins the presidency in '08 they and their party will instantly be at fault for everything that has happened in the previous 8 years. When the history books are written (by Republican leaning publishers) it will be the '06 > '08 Democratic Congress capped by the new Democratic President that lost Iraq. It's a done deal. Bush again will be bailed out on a spectacular failure. Arbusto/Spectrum 7/Harken redux.

Posted by steve duncan | April 3, 2007 6:28 AM

I think if I had to pin down the problems in Iraq to one over-arching failure, it's the complete lack of specific strategic goals since the fall of Baghdad. It's baffling to me when people ask whether the surge is "working" or not. Working to do what? What is the material goal of the surge? Of our presence at all? Grand concepts like security, stability and democracy can't be strategic goals because the terms are so (purposefully) vague that there aren't any rubrics for determining success. This is a great situation if you are a war profiteer and a terrible situation for most anyone else.

Posted by Freddie | April 3, 2007 8:01 AM

Perhaps Ackerman has access to a fuller translation of the statement. But according to the NYT story, Sistani's aide said that there was "a general feeling of rejection" about the proposal. This certainly sounds different than Ackerman's gloss that Sistani "forbid backsliding on de-Baathification." Isn't it possible that some renegotiated weakening of the current proposal might still meet with Sistani's approval?

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 3, 2007 8:03 AM

It's baffling to me when people ask whether the surge is "working" or not. Working to do what? What is the material goal of the surge?

I think the purpose of the surge was to establish some semblance of order and stability in Baghdad itself, so that in an atmosphere of diminished tension and fewer recriminations, progress could be made on Sunni-Shia reconciliation measures like this de-Baathification law.

Unfortunately, it appears that so far, while there has been some improvement in the situation in Baghdad, the insurgency has just moved its most spectacular operations elsewhere.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 3, 2007 8:18 AM

Just as Petraeus is only a general, only a man, only an American, not someone capable of conjuring the social bases of a liberal pluralistic Iraq out of the ether.

While I share your skepticism, it's worth noting he has, you know, an army at his disposal to do the conjuring, which is more than Khalilzad had.

Posted by right | April 3, 2007 8:25 AM

There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a couple of days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

Also check out a new post on my blog.

Posted by Swan | April 3, 2007 8:33 AM

An idea that needs fuller development is the Meghan L. O'Sullivan story. She's supposedly Bush's (now former) Iraq expert, but apparently she knew nothing much about Iraq when she was hired -- it's all been on-the-job-training. She was so far down the totem pole that no one even knew who she was when she quit. What this apparently means is that the job of actually knowing something about Iraq was passed around the office until it reached someone too low-ranking to turn the job down.

Posted by John Emerson | April 3, 2007 9:33 AM

Matt: Petraeus "not someone capable of conjuring the social bases of a liberal pluralistic Iraq out of the ether."

right: "it's worth noting he has, you know, an army at his disposal to do the conjuring"

How the hell does an army help you conjure the social bases of liberal pluralism? Petraeus has himself a great hammer, but this problem is not a nail.

Posted by nolaboyd | April 3, 2007 9:33 AM

Khalilzad ... was the General Petraeus of his time -- the lone high-ranking administration official who actually had a good reputation and seemed as best I could tell to more-or-less deserve it.

Khalilzad has always had a great reputation, but for what? You can find plenty of reporters saying that he's sharp as nails, but very few showing how. I don't have anything bad to say about the guy, but you have to wonder when you see again and again that he's a "great diplomat without ever seeing his great diplomacy. Spencer Ackerman is a prime culprit here, but surely he has a good answer. For other reporters, I wonder if lauding Khalilzad is a way to sound informed and moderate while otherwise trashing (deservedly so, I'm sure) U.S. Iraq policy.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | April 3, 2007 9:45 AM

Slothrop,
Khalilzad did do a pretty good job in Afghanistan, his native country. After he left though, the place started sliding back into chaos.

Posted by michesmith | April 3, 2007 11:58 AM

I can believe it, but what exactly did he do?

Or are you attributing our general successes there to him?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | April 3, 2007 1:24 PM

Swan,
No infidelity. The NSA and CIA have installed child porn on their machines and locked it in unremovable files. Easy to do and the penalties are much worse than you wife, boyfriend, girlfriend or husband being mad at you. Wheeeee! Your tax dollars at work.

Posted by DILBERT DOGBERT | April 5, 2007 2:57 PM