Maliki is not the Problem

Senator Carl Levin says "said yesterday that Iraq's parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival factions in a matter of days." Today, President George W. Bush made "a striking attempt . . . to distance itself from the Maliki government before September, when the president’s troop buildup faces an intense review on Capitol Hill."

This is crazy talk. As Eric Martin points out we went through this exact cycle just last year. Back in the day some crazy and unserious persosn such as myself wondered what good "ousting" Ibrahim Jafari and replacing him with another member of the same political coalition would do. But no! George Bush and David Ignatius assured us that Maliki was the man. Now Maliki's not the man! But the man's not the problem. There's a structural problem here about what sort of leadership is possible given the objective correlation of political forces on the ground. We can go through a half dozen coups and 17 prime ministers and if it does anything it'll make things worse.

Comments

If 17 coups and prime ministers are what it takes to avoid "surrender" then you can be sure that's the route they will take.

Posted by Bill | August 22, 2007 8:37 AM

Is it helpful to toss around the word "coup" when what is being proposed is a peaceful change in PMs in a democratically elected, parliamentary government? That this sort of leadership change is even possible in Iraq today is a huge advance from a history of leadership changes by way of real coups, the bloody kind.

Matt, you are right that a different PM from the same coalition would probably not make much difference, but there is also the possibility that a new, radically different coalition will be formed (i.e., one centered on a Sunni-Kurdish alliance), as I have suggested here before, and that major issues will have been addressed in the negotiations to form this coalition.

Posted by Fred | August 22, 2007 8:45 AM

You don't understand. A priori, the war was right and good. Yet the results are bad. Therefore, there must be a simple fix out there . . .

Posted by rea | August 22, 2007 8:47 AM

Fred..."one centered on a Sunni-Kurdish alliance)". Really??? Why would the Kurds trust the Sunnis??? The sunnis have done nothing but try to truck/car bomb them off the face of the earth.

Posted by Tin Foil | August 22, 2007 8:54 AM

"Why would the Kurds trust the Sunnis???

More crucially, what could the Sunnis offer the Kurds, beyond what the Shiites already have? That is the rub. Perhaps peacefully conceding Kirkuk, in return for assurances of a federal oil-sharing law getting passed? Maybe that wouldn't be enough.

Posted by Fred | August 22, 2007 9:00 AM

...there is also the possibility that a new, radically different coalition will be formed (i.e., one centered on a Sunni-Kurdish alliance), as I have suggested here before, and that major issues will have been addressed in the negotiations to form this coalition.

...and a Pony!

Posted by DMonteith | August 22, 2007 9:03 AM

Or, put another way, the Chinaman is not the issue.

Posted by jhupp | August 22, 2007 9:12 AM

I think that the word "coup" gets thrown around because it's not a legitimate parliamentary process to have a foreign occupying power fire the PM and pick his successor. Has the Iraqi Parliament held an actual no-confidence vote? Has Maliki's coalition explicitly demanded new leadership? All I've heard is the United States demanding that the Iraqi Parliament do as it's told. Now, the reason I don't think "coup" is actually correct is because the Iraqi government isn't legitimate to begin with. But when all the usual fuckwits have been squealing about the tender flower of democracy that we must nurture in Iraq, all while supporting our right to push out their PMs and write their oil legislation for them, well... basically, Fred, you can take your purple finger and cram it up your ass, all right?

Posted by mds | August 22, 2007 9:33 AM

"More crucially, what could the Sunnis offer the Kurds, beyond what the Shiites already have? "

The opportunity to be in the minority!

There will be no peace until there is a real payoff for compromise. While we are there in significant numbers, we have the potential to destroy any government we don't like. No one is going to take the political risk of making real, painful compromises while we are there.

Posted by Njorl | August 22, 2007 9:45 AM

Wasn't it just a couple of days ago that rea was trying to convince me that removing Maliki by Constitutional processes, as Carl Levin advocates, isn't a "coup"? It was!

Carl Levin... coupmonger!

Anyway, the idea that a change in leadership, even assuming the same party remains in power, can't have an effect on policies is silly. If we replaced Gerge Bush with Chuck Hagel, would that have an effect on the US policies? Of course.

The correct analysis is that there are structural forces that are at work here, but it is possible that a change in leadership could change the dynamic at work.

Posted by Al | August 22, 2007 9:51 AM

While we are there in significant numbers, we have the potential to destroy any government we don't like. No one is going to take the political risk of making real, painful compromises while we are there.

Unless of course they can never be sure of when we're leaving ha ha. No timelines!

Posted by Bill | August 22, 2007 9:56 AM

Al:

The correct analysis is that there are structural forces that are at work here, but it is possible that a change in leadership could change the dynamic at work.

Therefore, we should trust the Bush administration to strike just the right chord with their new pick. Right?

You doofus. A coup engineered in Washington will have no legitimacy.

Posted by Bill | August 22, 2007 9:59 AM

I find it fascinating that Carl Levin and the Bush Administration can, in the spirit of bipartisanship, neatly agree to blame Prime Minister Maliki in the crucial weeks leading up to General Petraeus's big report.

I think we should take this as a sign that the grown-ups are finally in charge when it comes to Iraq policy. With trouble makers like Harry Reid sidelined, we will achieve a bipartisan solution to all the problems in Iraq in the next six months. Somebody wake up David Broder and tell him victory is upon us.

Unity 2008!

Posted by owenz | August 22, 2007 10:08 AM

Hey, wait a sec -- how can we skip to yammering about Carl Levin's comments about Iraq's government without first giving him and John Warner the O'Pollahan treatment for saying this about the surge:

"We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results — in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents"

Posted by Fred | August 22, 2007 10:14 AM

Hey, wait a sec -- how can we skip to yammering about Carl Levin's comments about Iraq's government without first giving him and John Warner the O'Pollahan treatment...

But Fred, Levin and Warner are critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy! What possible motive could they have for praising the surge and shifting the political blame to Maliki in late August? More importantly, why are you criticizing bipartisan consensus? Levin and Warner are both taking a serious approach to Iraq here. Stop your rabble-rousing at once.

In fact, you should go read the last five David Broder columns as punishment for your heresy. Oh, and three Richard Cohen's too.

(Unity 2008!)

Posted by owenz | August 22, 2007 10:30 AM

"...the idea that a change in leadership, even assuming the same party remains in power, can't have an effect on policies is silly. If we replaced Gerge Bush with Chuck Hagel, would that have an effect on the US policies? Of course."-Al

Al,
It is not that changing Iraqi leadership will not change policies. It is that changing policies is irrelevent when there is no power to implement them. If GQ magazine ranked the 50 most powerful organizations in Iraq, the Iraqi government wouldn't make the top ten.

Posted by Njorl | August 22, 2007 10:36 AM

I will turn off the snark for one second to give my honest assessment. Just look at the time line:

1. Monday - Carl Levin returns from Iraq and says the military aspects of the surge are working but that Maliki is reponsible for the political problems.

2. Tuesday - President Bush dramatically distances himself from the Maliki government in a speech for the first time.

It is obvious what is going on here. Levin, his senate Democrats colleagues, and "moderate" Republican senators have agreed on how to sell the Surge with the Bush Administration. This is not an example of Democratic "retreat." It it is not like FISA, where the Democrats were outmanuevered and confused. This is not mere cowardice. It is a coordinated, well-planned, bipartisan effort to sell the Surge.

Here is the reality: the Democrats and the White House are on the same team in this "debate." They are allies. They are playing on the same team. They are working together. They will defeat anyone opposed to the Surge...together. Democrats and Bushies. Hand in hand. The fix is in. The debate is bogus. They are both selling the Surge.

The compromise has already been reached. Obviously. The Surge will be hailed by both sides as a military success. The ongoing political problems will be blamed on Maliki. There will be broad, bipartisan agreement that Maliki must go and the Surge must continue.

Posted by owenz | August 22, 2007 11:36 AM

"Is it helpful to toss around the word "coup" when what is being proposed is a peaceful change in PMs in a democratically elected, parliamentary government? That this sort of leadership change is even possible in Iraq today is a huge advance from a history of leadership changes by way of real coups, the bloody kind.

Matt, you are right that a different PM from the same coalition would probably not make much difference, but there is also the possibility that a new, radically different coalition will be formed (i.e., one centered on a Sunni-Kurdish alliance),"

There is a basic contradiction here. It is possible to think of a situation in which the Iraqi parliament in a vacuum independently passes a no-confidence vote against Maliki and elects a new PM. However, unless there is either 1) a coup or 2) massive genocide against the 60% Shi'ite majority, the next government would be majority Shi'ite, mostly Dawa and SCIRI (sp?). This is a bit like expecting a coalition of blacks and Latinos to suddenly come to power in the US and unlike the Iraqi Sunni-Kurd relationship, neither American blacks or Latinos have tried to commit genocide against each other like Saddam did against the Kurds in the late 1980's. In addition, the Sunni areas tend to have less oil than Shi'ite areas, which is one of the reasons the insurgency is there in the first place. What do the Sunnis have that the Shi'ites couldn't better offer the Kurds?

Posted by Reality Man | August 22, 2007 12:13 PM

The compromise has already been reached. Obviously. The Surge will be hailed by both sides as a military success. The ongoing political problems will be blamed on Maliki. There will be broad, bipartisan agreement that Maliki must go and the Surge must continue.

As painful as it is to acknowledge it, I think owenz is right. The fix is in.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | August 22, 2007 2:22 PM

As painful as it is to acknowledge it, I think owenz is right. The fix is in.

The most disgusting part will involve Levin and other "sensible" Democratic Senators pretending to agree with liberal Democrats like Russ Feingold - who aren't in on the fix - before selling them down the river.

I'm confident that a solid cluster of courageous Democrats will stand up and tell the truth. Levin's report clearly signals that their efforts will be futile, however.

Posted by owenz | August 22, 2007 3:15 PM

Okay, but owenz suppose you're right. Suppose they come in and say "The Surge is working militarily, but the Iraqis aren't doing the political stuff that needs to be done and it's Maliki's fault." So what?

What if they don't replace Maliki? What if the current ruling coalition ousts him and puts in someone we like even less?

The "point" of the surge (such as it was) was to provide enhanced security so that a political solution could be reached. Now it sounds like they're saying "no political solution can be reached with the current government". So what happens when the government doesn't change? Can we call it hopeless THEN and bring our troops home?

I tell you, I've played games of Risk with 8 year olds that involved more forward planning than these bozos seem to be making.

Posted by NonyNony | August 22, 2007 4:01 PM

Of course the fix is in. The Democrats know that Iran is the next target and you have to have the troops in Iraq "surged" in order to have any hope of having any of them survive the Iranian retaliation.

Of course, this merely means the Iranians will have that many more HOSTAGES once the war starts, but there you go.

Here's the bottom line: outside of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and maybe a couple of other Representatives, NOBODY IN CONGRESS FROM EITHER PARTY IS GOING TO EVEN TRY TO STOP THE WAR!

Get a clue!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 22, 2007 8:54 PM