Don't Call It An Ouster

Let me note something else from the O'Pollahan appearance on Fox News Sunday. First, O'Hanlon concedes that there's been no political progress in Iraq. Then Pollack concedes the same. Then he says that "this level of political stalemate is absolutely unacceptable. And I agree with Mike entirely that we can't give this much more time." So, if in a few months things aren't any better then it's time to leave, right? No, of course, not. As is well known, integral to being Very Serious is the idea that tomorrow is never the right day to end the massive American military presence in Iraq. Instead, Pollack says that "the administration needs to be pushing much harder and maybe even thinking about, if the surge continues to work in terms of providing security, can we move to a different government, one that actually would be able to strike these hard bargains."

Chris Wallace, journalistic instincts perking up at the sight of a newsworthy coup proposal asks "When you say a different government, meaning ousting Maliki and putting another man in?" Pollack, because he's a smart guy recognizes that this is a bad idea and says he "wouldn't necessarily suggest that the United States try to oust anyone" since, after all, "Our experience of ousting foreign leaders has been a very bad one." At this point, however, he proceeds to suggest ousting Maliki:

But I think what we could do is go to the Iraqis and say, "Look, you're planning to have national elections in 2009. This government is deadlocked. It can't do it. You need to move those national level elections up and get a new parliament, hopefully one that actually can produce real results."

Will we be giving the Iraqi electorate explicit instructions on who they're supposed to vote for in these elections?

Comments

Well that worked so well in Palestine...

Posted by Rob | August 10, 2007 3:51 PM

People need to get it through their heads that sometimes there is no American solution to a problem. (In this case, there seems to be no "solution" at all, but the general principle still stands.)

Posted by Adam Kotsko | August 10, 2007 3:58 PM

Will we be giving the Iraqi electorate explicit instructions on who they're supposed to vote for in these elections?

Actually, the trick would be to secretly pick the candidate/slate that we wanted to win, and then make a huge public display of our overwhelming support for all other candidates/slates. Followed up by harsh criticism of our secret favorite.

Just might push our clandestine choice over the top. Either way, it would help.

Posted by Eric Martin | August 10, 2007 4:01 PM

The Republicans are really good at GOTV.

Posted by ogged | August 10, 2007 4:06 PM

"Our experience of ousting foreign leaders has been a very bad one."

Somebody ought to tattoo that to his forehead, backwards and forwards, so everyone can read it and so he can read it when he looks at himself in the mirror.

Posted by Robert Earle | August 10, 2007 4:21 PM

Little Orphan O'Pollahan sings...

the sun'll come out tomorrow
so you gotta hang until tomorrow
come what may*
tomorrow tomorrow i love ya tomorrow
your always six months away!

*Cost of U.S. operations in Iraq:
estimated 90 U.S. military fatalities, 650 wounded, $10 billion each month

Posted by joejoejoe | August 10, 2007 4:26 PM

It's nice to see you watching Chris Wallace's show. He is a better interviewer than reflexive Fox-bashers on the Left might think.

Two substantive points here:

1) Suggesting Iraqis move up their elections isn't anything like suggesting a coup. I doubt there's any provision in Iraq's constitution to support this though (btw, when this constitution was ratified, Kaus wisely lamented that they didn't stipulate a shorter period before the next election, e.g., 2 years).

2) New elections aren't necessary to get a new government, in a parliamentary system like Iraq's. If enough Iraqi parties are disappointed with Maliki, they can form a coalition to oust him.

Posted by Fred | August 10, 2007 4:28 PM

Translation from Left-Speak to English: early elections = coup. OK!

Posted by Al | August 10, 2007 4:56 PM

What loathsome creatures O'Hanlon, Pollack and their ilk are. Like Greene's Quiet American, carelessly spilling other people's blood and never even noticing except when it gets on their shoes.

I'd second MY's idea of an O'Hanlon primary except that (a) Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, (b) she'll hire O'Hanlon or others just like him, and (c) I will not only be voting for her but knocking on doors, phone banking, organizing house parties and doing everything else I can to help her win in November.

Ugh.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 10, 2007 5:17 PM

I love the way Pollack makes calls for aggessive action, while constantly qualifying and hedging each pronouncement: "needs to be pushing much harder and maybe even thinking ..." [yes, maybe even thinking, but of course not actually doing] "wouldn't necessarily suggest" [but, I guess, wouldn't necessarily NOT suggest--it probably all depends on the circumstances, at least for the most part] "get a new parliament, hopefully one that actually can produce real results" [which would certainly be preferable to one that couldn't produce real results]

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 10, 2007 5:38 PM

Suggesting Iraqis move up their elections isn't anything like suggesting a coup.

I agree. "Suggesting" that a sovereign nation alter its electoral schedule to your liking when 150,000+ of your troops are occupying said nation is most emphatically not a "coup." It's imperialism. A "coup" is something else entirely.

Glad that we could reach across the partisan divide and clear that up in a spirit of comity.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | August 10, 2007 6:11 PM

Let's get one thing straight. We don't care who you elect as long as it's our guy. Maliki wasn't our guy, but then he was, but now he's not again. So elect someone else. Someone we like. We're teaching you democracy, get it? So get on with it.

Sigh. Another victory achieved by careful attention to winning hearts and minds.

This would be so funny if I wasn't old enough to have already lived through it a couple of times. Hope you younger folk are enjoying it though.

Posted by DrBB | August 10, 2007 7:04 PM

"Will we be giving the Iraqi electorate explicit instructions on who they're supposed to vote for in these elections?"

Not necessarily, since whatever new government emerges will be the next president's problem. This is all just more fuel for the Friedman Unit generator:

We have to give time for the Iraqi elections to occur...

Then we have to give time for the newly elected government to succeed...

New elections and a new government will surely kick the can to 2009. Democrats who want to leave before they 'have a chance to succeed' hate democracy. Lather, rinse, repeat...

Posted by Steve in Sacto | August 10, 2007 7:20 PM

Damn, Uncle Kvetch, you have truly earned your name. Rarely have I seen a vacuous post so neatly skewered. Well kvetched.

Posted by DrBB | August 10, 2007 7:45 PM

O'Hanlon has always been a very even handed observer on the Iraq scene; itemizing the positives and negatives of the situation.
Pollack most recently along with Byman;
authored a position paper for the CFR on
the prospects of a retreat; Newsweek made a big fuss about it, it didn't focus on the downside.
He found some progress on several fronts, (mostly
military) less on others (de-baathification. oil
revenue sharing. Which is expected, considering
the tribesmen of Anbar, Diyala province (Dulaimi, Jibbur, Ubeidi) made up the bulk of Saddam's armies which liquidated the political leadership and most of the population of the majority; and
said elements were beneficiaries of the theft of
oil revenue from the Shia (Awazim, Muntafiq)and Kurdish zones. I'd expect it will take a while
to reconcile 80 years of misguided policies. That
these same beneficiaries were until recently, supporters of the 'Iraqi resistance' complicates
the issue a little feather.

Posted by narciso | August 10, 2007 8:40 PM

Does anyone else remember how it took months and months and months to set up the Maliki government after the Purple Finger Election?

And how it was the best we could do?

What's going to be different this time?

Posted by grytpype | August 10, 2007 8:48 PM

While I'm at it... let's move up OUR election and oust Bush and Cheney! Now that would be cool...

Posted by grytpype | August 10, 2007 8:54 PM

Yup. This whole conversation belongs under the "Very Serious People" tag.

Read: VSP = incompetent morons.

I got banned (the first time) from TPM for calling Ivo Daalder an "idiot".

Tell me I'm wrong.

Not to mention that "the surge continues to work in terms of providing security" is THEIR notion, not anybody else's on the ground in Iraq or who reads the stats.

And this bit: "You need to move those national level elections up and get a new parliament, hopefully one that actually can produce real results."

"Hopefully" - based on what?

Anybody can see this sort of thinking can be only one of two things:

1) Complete idiocy.

2) Ruminant evacuation to cover the real intentions.

Or both, I suppose, given these guys history.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 10, 2007 9:49 PM

I'm beginning to think that this O'Hanlon fellow must have done something horrible to Matty in a past life (I'm not Matty; I'm Matt Y, MATT Y).

The thing I wonder about is not whether people like O'Hanlon and Friedman are these like bellweather mouthpieces for the national and international elites but when and how they realized they wanted to become these bellweather wankers for the global elite. I mean was this simply an adult career calculation or did they figure out it was their calling when they were like eight, write suck up letters to presidents and prime ministers, CEOs and various other important assholes.

For some reason I'm thinking of Dead Ringers but crafting strange gynecological tools and snorting lots of cocaine seems like a more noble calling.

I start drinking about 5:30.

I stop when I pass out.

Posted by Linus | August 10, 2007 10:01 PM

"Will we be giving the Iraqi electorate explicit instructions on who they're supposed to vote for in these elections?"

Why not? That's what we did in Afghanistan.

Posted by PaulB | August 10, 2007 11:28 PM

Linus: I truly appreciate someone who comments here more intoxicated than myself (wow).

On topic, No, Bush will not move for early elections. Haven't you seen the awesome surge?

Posted by Andruw | August 10, 2007 11:33 PM

"...he proceeds to suggest ousting Maliki:"

Doggone it -- where's Duong Van Minh when you really need him?

Posted by DuBaun | August 11, 2007 12:45 AM

Of course calling for new elections is just another way to insert about three Friedman Units into the process:
"Oh we can't start withdrawing now. They need security to hold the new elections."

And if a new government was installed their call would be:
"Oh we can't start withdrawing now. They need security to help the new government."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | August 11, 2007 1:09 PM