The Trouble With Proxies

Joe Klein wonders why American blood and treasure is being expended over which Shiite group controls which town in Iraq: "Perhaps it is that Sadr's Mahdi Army is the most potent force opposed to long-term U.S. bases in Iraq—and that a permanent presence has been the Bush Administration's true goal in this war. I suspect the central question in Iraq now is not whether things will get better but whether the drive for a long-term, neocolonialist presence will make the situation irretrievably worse."

One shouldn't, however, underplay the extent to which the Bush administration may have no real motive at all. When you're establishing an indirect rule relationship with a local proxy like Maliki and his regime, you risk circumstances in which the tail wags the dog. We like Maliki because we have "influence" over him. To retain that influence, we need to be useful to him. He wanted to fight Sadr, but couldn't take him down alone, so our troops had to fight, too. His fights are now our fights, even if his fights don't really have anything to do with our interests.

DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Samuel Bendet, U.S. Air Force

Comments

They have motive: War gives their lives meaning, puts a "spring" in their lives.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 10, 2008 2:21 PM

Well, this sort of explanation might apply *now*, but it doesn't explain our past behavior too well.

For example, a major factor behind Sadr's rise was our various botched early attempts to close down his newspaper, ban his party, destroy his militia, and kill him. At that point, we were---just as now---much more closely aligned with the same most pro-Iranian organization/militia.

It's pretty clear that the reason Sadr's been repeatedly targetted is that he's a strong nationalist, and is opposed to a continued U.S. presence. That's also the reason the Iranians have generally been cool to him, since he's also very suspicious of too much Iranian influence.

Posted by RKU | April 10, 2008 2:21 PM

al-Sadr seems to be the closest Iraqi politician to a nationalist (as opposed to sectarian. That is reason enough, in true imperialist fashion, to bring him down using sectarian surrogates like Maliki (or Maliki using the imperial power to bring down a nationalist parvenu)..

Posted by della Rovere | April 10, 2008 2:28 PM

George Bush has had one goal in Iraq and it has been his sole goal for quite a while: to get to Jan. 20, 2009, without having to admit defeat or start a process (like withdrawing troops) that smells like defeat.

I don't believe he has any other thought in his head. I don't believe he cares about a long-term presence in Iraq, control of oil, establishing a democracy or what have you. He got rid of Don Rumsfeld to buy himself time. He put David Petraeus in charge with the sole mission of getting things quiet enough, using whatever means possible, in order to keep the American people from revolting before Jan. 20, 2009.

On Jan. 20, 2009, it will be another President's problem, and if we withdraw then or things turn out very badly then, it won't be George Bush's fault, and he can claim we were always on the road to victory.

It's really just that simple.

Posted by santamonicamr | April 10, 2008 2:28 PM

Joe Klein wonders why American blood and treasure is being expended over which Shiite group controls which town in Iraq

Because one "Shiite group" represents the democratically elected government? No, no. Too crazy.

Posted by right | April 10, 2008 3:05 PM

Fitting picture. Except our soldiers are the ones being herded.

Posted by Trevor J | April 10, 2008 3:10 PM

They've always intended to keep a military presence in Iraq long-term. It's vital to our national interests in their opinion. One only need look at the expenditures for bases, for embassies, and for infrastructure that only benefits us, not the Iraqi people. They want to be able to assert their control over the Middle East region more quickly. They want to know that oil is safe for our eventual consumption, or perhaps, I should say, safe for their eventual profit.

Posted by Julene | April 10, 2008 3:21 PM

right,

You are aware that we routinely shun, destabilize, and work against any group or government, democratic or otherwise, that is a close ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

By a similar metric, we support, no matter how unsavory, any group opposed to the regime in Tehran. So we should be supporting the Mahdi militia too.

Posted by Greg | April 10, 2008 3:38 PM

He wanted to fight Sadr, but couldn't take him down alone, so our troops had to fight, too. His fights are now our fights, even if his fights don't really have anything to do with our interests.

Maybe one day the "liberals" will actually understand what went on. Today isn't that day.

Posted by SteveIL | April 10, 2008 4:06 PM

Joe Klein getting something right while Matt Yglesias gets it wrong is a pretty rare occurance, but that's exactly what we're seeing.

The US has no particularly need to back Maliki - he could be deposed at any time just the way Jaafari was. He, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on US support, being the unpopular head of an unpopular government who obtained his position through mostly back-room negotiations among the US and various Shi'i and Kurdish parties - his own party, Da'wa, having considerably less parliamentary support than the Sadrists. It's very implausible that Maliki is doing anything the US seriously doesn't want him to do, especially if it's a military action, where the "Iraqi army" (read: collection of Kurdish & Shi'i militias in uniform plus nonideological formerly unemployed young men in it for the salary) requires US logistical backing and air support at every step.

The particular timing of this attack may be explained by Maliki's politicking around the upcoming provincial elections, but the US desire to destroy the Sadrist movement has a much more longstanding basis in a fear of anti-colonial nationalism and is the most basic factor in explaining what we're seeing.

Posted by Kalkin | April 10, 2008 4:41 PM

Nice photo.

Stupid post.

Posted by robert powell | April 10, 2008 5:46 PM

One shouldn't, however, underplay the extent to which the Bush administration may have no real motive at all.

Is there nothing, literally nothing so obviously inane that a member of our beloved media will hesitate to say it? It would seem not.

For the benefit of that tiny minority of Americans who are not pure and perfect idiots, there are at least 125 billion barrels of sweet crude under Iraq, possibly the same amount again in regions of the country that remain unexplored. Even at present prices, this is 10 to 20 trillion dollars worth, and unlike the dollar, I think we can expect the value of this resource to increase over time. I also believe I can state without fear of contradiction that control of this resource does not constitute 'no motive at all'.

Posted by RLaing | April 10, 2008 6:15 PM

I'm beginning to believe our goal is simply to make people in Iraq stop shooting at us. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by Th | April 10, 2008 6:21 PM

Daren't I say it, but the same with Maliki is true with Israel. Without oil and Israel the Mideast would be Pennsylvania to Virginia.

Posted by The Other Alan | April 10, 2008 9:13 PM

"Because one "Shiite group" represents the democratically elected government? No, no. Too crazy.

Posted by right | April 10, 2008 3:05 PM"

That same Shi'ite group has been using force and bullying tactics to remove democratically-elected governor of rival parties in the provinces. Some democratic ally.

Posted by Reality Man | April 10, 2008 10:34 PM

Hey, RLaing - don't equate the majority of the people of the US with our media elite. Remember a majority has seen through this war for several years now. To paraphrase Daniel Ellsberg, it's not much of a testimony to the American people that we are so often lied to so successfully, but it does say something good that the ruling class have to put a lot of effort into lying.

Posted by Kalkin | April 11, 2008 12:04 AM

Y'know, I argued with the late Steve Gilliard about this, but he had a clue about Sadr, based upon his reading of colonial wars, pretty early on. He understood that Sadr represented the people who ensured Saddam and outlasted him, who actually regarded Iraq as a distinct national entity rather than a piece in a regional puzzle or a space to be carved out.

You'd think that a country with a quasi-mythical nationalist past (though War of Independence and Civil War) might have grasped the character of such a movement.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 11, 2008 12:25 AM

I'll second Kalkin at 4:41.

No Shiite group has faced opposition from the US occupiers as determined as the Sadr movement. US opposition to Sadr began long before the national elections where Sadr's group did well. And even before the provincial elections that Sadr boycotted, giving his rivals political power in their regions disproportionate to the popularity of their ideas.

If the US had directed the same energy (overt and covert) towards weakening the ISCI, there likely would be no ISCI by now.

If the US had been neutral the Sadr movement likely would have amassed the political power necessary to require the US to leave by now.

The US has never been neutral toward the Sadr movement nor has it ever directed remotely similar resources to disempowering other Shiite groups, or any Iraqi groups other than Al-Quaeda and the Sunni resistance. Not only has the US failure to treat other Shiite groups the way it treats Sadr not been a coincidence, but it is amazing that there is any observer to whom this difference in treatment has to be pointed out.

The idea that the US is a disinterested bystander in the rivalry between Sadr and Hakim is bizarre and unexplainable. I don't think anyone who has followed events in Iraq could believe that.

The story that Maliki forced the US to attack Sadr, or Maliki forced the US to add another attack on Sadr to its uninterrupted 5 year campaign to weaken Sadr doesn't pass the laugh test. Nobody should be stupid enough to believe that.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 11, 2008 1:14 AM

Joe Klein refers to "a long-term, neocolonialist presence..."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this war was constructed on the traditional colonialist template, not fundamentally different from the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. The goal may have been "neocolonialist:" the installation of a reliable but nominally "democratic" proxy regime that would render a U.S. occupation unnecessary outside a few permanent bases like the ones in the Gulf states. But the proxy regime has failed.

The U.S. presence was originally meant to control Iraq's oil resource and insure "stability" (against radicalization) in the region, but now the goal (as santamonicamr suggests) has been downsized to passing the baton, and the blame for failure, to the next administration.

Posted by Geaghan | April 11, 2008 1:21 AM

I think it's really interesting that so many people seem willing, even eager, to attribute to Sadr all sorts of heroic status.

This is the guy who arranged the murder of Hojjatulislam Sayyed Abdul Majeed al-Khoei, depriving Iraq of a universally respected visionary leader who was a powerful advocate for human rights and cooperation among communities. Inheriting his father's organization, which he has in some important respects run into the ground and significantly lost control of on the margins, Sadr seems to spend more time in the Iranian city of Qom, where he's reportedly being treated for clinical depression, than he does in Iraq. Members of his group have been named as comprising a major portion of the Shi'ite death squads that brought Iraq to the brink of civil war, but on the American left he seems ready to move in on Che's territory as an iconic figure. Wonder why?

Posted by Robert Powell | April 11, 2008 2:01 AM

Like Arnold Evans, I second Kalkin who put it better than I ever could. Joe Klein's article was a good one, and even a remarkable one coming as it does from a columnist often accused of taking GOP talking points and treating them as unbiased information. And Klein is right about al-Sadr (and Iraqi nationalism in general) being an obstacle to the neocolonialist project.

I read somewhere (but can't find it back) that the US was indeed surprised at the Maliki initiative, not because they disagreed with it, but because Maliki jumped the gun. The offensive against the Mahdi Army had been planned for June.

The US has so consistently been on the side of sectarian politicians and militias, that it is hard to believe that the Bush administration "may have no real motive at all" when it bombs the Sadrists on behalf of the Badrists. Here's a suggestion: how about oil? Seriously, does anyone believe that al-Sadr (or any Iraqi nationalist) will ever go along with PSAs?

Posted by Hans B | April 11, 2008 4:32 AM

This POS Powell weighs in with this laughable horseshit: "where he's reportedly being treated for clinical depression".

Cite some evidence or STFU, moron.

And nobody I've ever read said that Sadr is "heroic". Virtually all the articles I've seen on him treat as a cautious, clever, and knowledgeable about the poor Shia Iraqi street, but that's about it.

Since you're so interested in "history", maybe you need to go back and read up on exactly what he's managed to pull off despite being targeted by just about everybody in Iraq - the US, the other Shia groups, the Sunni. Everybody but the majority poor Shia hates him - but he's managed to produce a movement of millions with a 60,000 man strong militia - and now, more support from Iran.

"Members of his group have been named as comprising a major portion of the Shi'ite death squads that brought Iraq to the brink of civil war,"

Yeah, and the rest of them were murder squads created by the Badr Brigade with US training from the exact same scumbag - one Steele - who did the training for Salvadoran death squads.

So STFU, Powell, you lying POS.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 11, 2008 6:14 AM

It's all clear now--the US is against Sadr...because he's backed by RSH!

Posted by Robert Powell | April 11, 2008 7:47 AM

Bobbitt is such a reliable fucking hack. He's like Al without the mitigating sports talk.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 11, 2008 1:30 PM

The ignorance displayed in this post and these comments is truly astounding.

Posted by Scott | April 11, 2008 6:02 PM

To the vast majority of posters above:

Thanks for taking the time today to share your end-stage, bi-polar, passive-aggressive, paranoid-schizophrenic, black-helicopter-watching, tin-foil-hat-wearing, Neptune-orbiting, decidedly-unmedicated, parlor-socialist insanity with me:

I find it....breathtaking.

Posted by MarkJ | April 11, 2008 9:54 PM