Bottoms Up

Here I am reading David Sanger's New York Times account of the latest twists and turns in the White House's Iraq policy, and eventually he's compelled to mention that "circumventing a central government that the United States itself set up is unlikely to prove easy." Similarly, we hear that "Bush and his commanders weighed whether to reward the Sunnis with early provincial elections, restoring a degree of political power to them." This, though, needs to be followed up with the revelation that "calling elections is no longer within the power of the United States."

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the article, however, was an anonymous Defense Department official using the term "bottom-up reconciliation." I see through Google that the term is a big hit already on hawkish blogs and Pentagon talking points. And, indeed, Spencer called it a couple of weeks ago:

In response to the inability of the national government to resolve Iraq's multifaceted sectarian wars, over the last several months, administration mouthpieces have changed the subject. Baghdad politics is outré. The new fashion is what's called "bottom-up reconciliation" -- that is, political advances in Iraq's 18 provinces meant to reveal a new spirit of Iraqi brotherhood. Expect to hear a lot about bottom-up reconciliation in next month's congressional testimony from General David Petraeus and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. And expect it to be as disingenuous as every other portrayal of political progress in Iraq.

The crux of the matter is that bottom-up reconciliation isn't reconciliation at all. It's the Anbar Awakening business given a new label in the hope of confusing people. But while Sunni Arabs falling out with AQI is welcome, it's by no means the same thing as Sunni Arabs reaching a political accommodation with Shiite Arabs. Rather, while the Sunnis once thought that their best hope of regaining Sunni supremacy was to ally with AQI in fighting an American/Shiite front, they now think the best hope is to get America on their side and use our guns to fight Shiites later.

Meanwhile, you can see in this circumventing talk that the nature of the mission in Iraq has changed yet again. WMD are done, democracy is done, and now even stability is done, and we're trying to circumvent the central government that, 18 months ago, we were desperately trying to bolster.

Comments

(Excellent post. It's great to get ahead of the curve. This is why I read blogs)

Posted by Chris | September 2, 2007 11:38 AM

A "bottom up reconciliation" is occurring. Of course, we usually call it by another name: "ethnic cleansing."

Posted by fostert | September 2, 2007 11:45 AM

Wow - interesting post.

"Bottom-up Reconciliation" is an absurd joke, and I hope (and think) most Americans can recognize that. What does it even mean, really? That we are going to gather random Sunni's and Shi'ias, put them in a room together, make them introduce themselves and shake hands down a line or something, and then keep doing this until every Sunni has met every Shi'ia and then the Kurds and Turkomen get thrown in and its all one big cool, Craft-Macaroni-and Cheese family?

The big picture in Iraq is that there is currently no state. There is no state precisely because no political faction in Iraq commands universal trust, respect and assent. How going from a de facto pro-Shi'ia policy to a de facta pro-Sunni one is going to alter that dynamic is beyond me.

That the sunni's are now trying to cajole us into helping them proves what I have thought all along. We are not controlling Iraq. It is controlling us.

Posted by Neal Murray | September 2, 2007 3:07 PM

There's a reason why so many of these bogus ideas resonate among significant parts of the American population and why there really hasn't been pressure from the citizenry to just call it quits and get the hell out.

Americans don't like to admit defeat.

They may fully understand that our adventure in Iraq will continue to swirl down the toilet. They may really get that. But I suspect they just don't want to force the action that says, yes, we accept it. So any thin reed of hope, some tiny sign that suggests that, hey, *maybe* things will get better will allow them to put off the reckoning another day.

And that is totally consistent with Bush's strategic goal, which is to make it to Jan. 20, 2009, and pin the defeat on someone else. It's consistent with Petraeus who, being a certified military genius, is motivated to show any scrap of progress from the implementation of his brilliant ideas. In some regards, it consistent with the Democrats who don't want to win the Cassandra award of being right about Iraq and know full well that a disastrous war in Iraq in November 2008 translates into an overwhelming Democratic tsunami.

Everything is aligned for continuation of the war until then. Our only alternative is to keep pressuring the likely Democratic nominee to sign up for winding up this adventure beginning 1/20/09.

Posted by santamonicamr | September 2, 2007 4:58 PM

"Our only alternative is to keep pressuring the likely Democratic nominee to sign up for winding up this adventure beginning 1/20/09."

Email me when this happens.

Bottom-up Reconciliation - reminds me of Elwood Blues: "It's not lying. It's just...bullshit."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 2, 2007 10:53 PM

bottom-up reconciliation should only occur between a man and a woman.

Posted by aliar | September 3, 2007 10:42 AM