The Trouble With Sadr

Rich Lowry lists six reasons why Americans should die fighting Muqtada al-Sadr:

1. That Maliki represents the lawfully constituted and internationally recognized government of Iraq and Sadr represents an outlaw militia;
2. That the fighters Maliki controls—i.e., the security forces of the state of Iraq—work alongside American troops instead of blowing them up with Iranian-supplied munitions;
3. That Maliki is working to create a stable Iraqi government that will be an (imperfect) ally of the United States, while Sadr is a sworn enemy of the United States;
4. That Sadr's forces participated in the wanton killing of Sunnis that was a key accelerant of the civil war;
5. That the Sunnis support what Maliki is doing, and to the extent they see him moving against Shia thugs, national reconciliation becomes more likely;
6. That we have long been urging Maliki to take this sort of action against deadly Shia sectarians, even if we didn't like the particulars of how he went about it here.

Item six is absurd -- we should tilt against Sadr because we've urged such a tilt in the past? Better to stick to a five-point plan. On point four, yes Sadrist forces participated in sectarian killing of Sunnis, but so did Badr Brigade forces so this seems like an un-compelling reason to take sides in a JAM-ISCI throwdown. Point five seems extremely dubious -- reconciliation is the effort to get the different Iraqi factions to work out an agreement amongst themselves rather than fighting, having some factions engage in pitched battles with the Sadrist faction isn't a step toward reconciliation, it's evidence of the absence of reconciliation.

Point one is accurate, but pretty lacking in context. It's not as if Maliki is running some kind of even-handed drive against partisan militias -- he's turning the state security forces over to militias aligned with his government while cracking down on the party militia of one party. Meanwhile, that party was part of his government until the United States helped engineer their departure. Our beef with Sadr antedates the Maliki government and has no particular relationship to the parliamentary coalitions of the day.

Points two and three get to the heart of the matter. We oppose Sadr because Sadr opposes the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Indeed, at times he opposes it through violent means that lead to the death of our troops. But "killing people who oppose the U.S. military presence in Iraq" isn't a reasonable rationale for the U.S. military presence in Iraq. This is what's led Joe Klein to speculate that the anti-Sadr tilt is driven by our quest for permanent military bases. Sadr is an opponent of what we're doing in Iraq, but he doesn't have some larger conflict with the United States -- he's not plotting an invasion of Delaware, he's willing to sell oil on an open market, etc. -- and while his credentials as a liberal democrat are highly suspect, so are those of the people we work with in Iraq (and Saudi Arab, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, etc.) all the time. That's not to say we should partner-up with Sadr or wish him particularly well in his adventures, but it's just to reiterate the point that we could easily afford to adopt a posture of indifference to Iraq's internal political disputes and just go home.

Comments

OFF TOPIC.

Dogs love robots, robots love dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcL6-mjRNk

Posted by ferd | April 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Wow!

Ignorant moron makes moronically ignorant claims about Iraq---Film at 11!

Posted by RKU | April 12, 2008 5:59 PM

My crackpot theory is that backing Maliki and Iran-friendly ISCI vs. the more nationalist Sadr helps reconciliation. A big stumbling block to getting the Sunnis on board with elections is the majority status of the Shia. Sunnis have been reluctant to play ball with the new gov't because (in part) they know they'll be outvoted (and outgunned) by the Shia bloc. Drive wedges into that Shia bloc, create two rival factions that can be played against each other - each about as powerful as the Sunnis or the Kurds - and the situation changes.

It's better to have the iranian-friendly faction in gov't, because being in gov't gives them some incentive to keep at least a little distance from Tehran. The Sadrists, being more Iraqi nationalist by nature, are "safer" playing the role of outlaw because they're less likely to form strong alliances with Iran as Dawa and ISCI might if the roles were reversed.

I'm not giving the Bushies credit for thinking this up as a deliberate strategy of divide-and-balance, but it might actually create an environment where a stable coexistence can evolve over the short-to-medium term. Long enough for us to get the heck out of dodge.

Posted by mattt | April 12, 2008 6:17 PM

mattt- that's not really all that 'crackpot.' I guess the question is: do we want to balance the sides and go for reconciliation, or do we want to pick a winner and have them dominate. Strangely, I think our policy is intended to do the latter, but actually leads to (but not accomplishes) the former.

Posted by fostert | April 12, 2008 6:28 PM

Out of 3, the last remaining reason:

3a - Maliki is working to create a stable government ...

Um, no, there is no way Maliki can get a point here that Sadr doesn't also get. Maliki's current Iraqi patrons, the Kurds and Badr favor regional independence, which inherently means fighting over which regions get what resources. Regional independence is also opposed by a 2:1 ratio by Iraq's citizens.

3a, like 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, was just a rhetorical distraction from the harshness of the truth of 3b.

3b - ... that will be an (imperfect) ally of the United States, while Sadr is a sworn enemy of the United States;

Matt, you've pointed out before that the nature of this "(imperfect) alliance" is that Maliki would depend on US firepower to compensate for a deficit in legitimacy that springs from advocating unpopular positions (such as opposing Sadr on the issue of denying a long term US presence)

Once you figure out the difference between Sadr and the tyrants the US works with "Saudi Arab, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates" you'll have a complete picture of US policy in Iraq.

The answer is that Sadr's Iraq would occupy the same position off of that list as Syria and Iran. But neither Syria or Iran is planning an invasion of Delaware. These two do though, support enemies of Israel.

And really that's the answer. As difficult as it is to support the US' relationship with Israel while at the same time calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq, reality is reality. 4000 US troops who have died preventing Iraq from being run by someone like Hussein or even worse, Sadr, died to ensure that Iraq does not become an active opponent of Israel.

The US ultimately has one dispute with Sadr. Sadr thinks Iraq should be part of the Muslim struggle for justice for the Palestinians - which to Sadr means supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and asserting that the right to return is more important than Israel's right to retain a Jewish majority. The US thinks Iraq should oppose Sadr's conception of that struggle.

By far most Iraqis agree with Sadr's side of this essential dispute with the US, as do most people of the Middle East.

Keeping a government there that opposes him is pure classic colonialism and over the medium to long term it is certain to fail.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 12, 2008 6:36 PM

Wait, wasn't Sadr just being praised by neocons a few months ago for something or other? Or am I way off-base?

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 6:37 PM

right on, on both counts. I don't see our dog in the fight.

Let's not have any illusions about Sadr (not that you seem to). He opened up Iraq's post-Saddam politics with a lynching. Anybody know what his beef was with that cleric, Al-Khoei, other than that maybe he got in the way?

But, this is par for the course behavior of all iraqi militias by now. Anybody who doesn't do this has no power, and anybody who has power, does this.

Posted by spockamok | April 12, 2008 6:40 PM

Matthew dismisses (1) too easily. So Maliki is not Thomas Jefferson. Nevertheless the point stands that his is the recognized government and Sadr's is an outlaw militia that has no legitimacy (fascinating how Matthew points out as if in praise that Sadr is "willing to sell oil on an open market" - pray tell, what oil does Sadr own to be "willing to sell" in the first place?).

Yet to Matthew it's as if an election never took place at all and these are just rival factions with equal and symmetric claims. So easy for a Western commentator to dismiss the election in this country for some reason! Meanwhile, to people who don't dismiss elections, an elected government successfully standing up to outlaw militias is a prerequisite for anything resembling long-term stability with anything resembling democratic legitimacy. So the question is whether one is indifferent to whether a democratic future is in store for Iraq. Clearly, Matthew Yglesias is. And therein lies the disagreement, because not everyone is, nor are we required to be.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 12, 2008 6:42 PM

Maliki's is the recognized government because so far he has had our support. So to use that as an argument for further support of his government is just as circular an argument as many others that have been pointed out to be.

Posted by gregor | April 12, 2008 6:48 PM

Iraq's is not a usual elected government. Iraq has an elected government one of whose factions the occupying power opposes for reasons that existed before the election.

The United States actively, very actively opposed the candidate for prime minister that was presented by the largest bloc of parliament, in line with Iraq's constitution. The president of the United States said that candidate would not be tolerated and the US secretary of state along with the British foreign minister flew into the country for the express purpose of coordinating the opposition to that candidate.

If Russia occupied the United States and openly declared war on the Democrats and Republicans, Ralph Nader could emerge as the leader of the "elected government". For Russia to argue at that point that it has to continue its war against the Democrats and Republicans because they oppose the elected government would be ridiculous.

The United States has been actively intervening in Iraq's politics in opposition to Sadr pretty much ever since the invasion. At this point to say it is doing so out of respect for the parties the US have favored up to now with its influence on Iraq's politics is backwards for the reasons Matt spells out.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 12, 2008 7:00 PM

"pray tell, what oil does Sadr own to be "willing to sell" in the first place?"

Well, about a third of Iraq's oil is stolen and sold on the black market. It's safe to say that Sadr's people are involved in it, because it's happening in Basra. Sadr's people probably control a majority of the black market oil. And that would represent about one fifth of Iraq's output. To put it in perspective, Royal Dutch Shell would be more than happy with that cut. I'm sure Sadr is too.

Posted by fostert | April 12, 2008 7:04 PM

gregor,

Maliki's is the recognized government because so far he has had our support.

No, Maliki's is the recognized government because it came to power as the result of an election, which is a big reason we support it.

Well, some of us.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 12, 2008 7:04 PM

I asked what oil does Sadr own and fostert says,

Well, about a third of Iraq's oil is stolen and sold on the black market. It's safe to say that Sadr's people are involved in it...

People who steal do not own the thing they stole and their "willingness" to sell the thing they stole on the open market is not a mark in their favor. Nor should it make us indifferent to their continued participation in said black market, rather than more determined to prevent his piracy.

To put it in perspective, Royal Dutch Shell would be more than happy with that cut. I'm sure Sadr is too.

If you're right, all the more reason to oppose Sadr, to remove the temptation for Royal Dutch Shell (or whoever) to cut a deal to purchase stolen commodity from someone who has no legitimacy and no claim to it, thereby further entrenching the usurper's power and capital.

These arguments make me more opposed to Sadr than before... thanks,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 12, 2008 7:14 PM

Great post Matt. I remember reading Lowry's attempt to riff on you and being highly irritated at the transparent simplifications and fictions in it. I was hoping you'd hit back.

Posted by glasnost | April 12, 2008 7:23 PM

When Lowry enlists, gets killed and then comes over to my house to tell that it was all worth, then I'll consider his arguments.

Posted by Cal | April 12, 2008 7:24 PM

Sonic wouldn't support Sadr if Sadr led Iraq's government. George Bush and the US wouldn't support Sadr if he had taken the top position in Iraq's election. (And being that the Sadr movement nominated Iraq's first choice for Prime Minister, and being that the US continued its opposition, this is not even hypothetical.)

The argument that the US opposes Sadr because of the positions in parliament held by his rivals is dishonest but not serious.

But the US does have real honest reasons that it opposes Sadr that many commentators are willing to perform the most elaborate distractive tactics to avoid discussing.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 12, 2008 7:25 PM

When Lowry enlists, gets killed and, while dead, then comes over to my house to tell that it was all worth, then I'll consider his arguments.

Posted by Cal | April 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Divide-and-rule is evil. Always has been.

There is no way a government in Iraq can be (re-)elected in fair elections if they support a US presence.

The occupation-supporters don't give a sh*t for what the Iraqi people thinks. They are dictators, plain and simple.

And the worst of it is that it is colonial. It's not like in Chechenya (sp?) where it's a matter of being treated like Russians among Russians. The Iraqi are second-class people to the foreign occupiers.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 7:33 PM

Arnold Evans, mind-reader:

Sonic wouldn't support Sadr if Sadr led Iraq's government.

Not exactly sure why you would muse/fantasize about this scenario in the first place, but it sure is fascinating to learn what I would/wouldn't think in some counterfactual.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Sadr was not elected head of Iraq's government (in fact he holds no actual government position). So, your point?

The argument that the US opposes Sadr because of the positions in parliament held by his rivals is dishonest but not serious.

Not sure who was making this argument exactly. The argument I recall making was that the fact that Sadr heads an illegal militia, and that Iraq has an elected government, provides a legitimate reason for people to support the latter against the former. Not sure why the asymmetry here is so hard to understand.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 12, 2008 7:40 PM

The inhabitants of Iraq don't even know what it means to be a citizen, let alone act like citizens. The key element is not a desire to be free of restraint, which even a baby has, but self-restraint, for example not slaughtering your old enemies when you win the election. They don't have that.

How could they know? Half are illiterate, and those that are not read some sort of Baathist crap in school, rather than Locke or Montesquieu.

A country in which no one has any experience at all of liberty, nor any knowledge of it, isn't exactly an optimal candidate for forced democratization. There's no reason to take purple fingers seriously.

A legitimate government, one that locals genuinely believed in, probably wouldn't have to hide behind occupying troops. The current Iraqi government has to be one of the weakest that has ever existed. One of the most incompetent as well: I have never head of another government that couldn't even figure out how to spend money it had.

Legitimacy is something that exists in the minds of the Iraqis, not in in the minds of American bloggers. If Iraqis act as if that government is illegitimate, it is.

If the Maliki government had legitimacy,
they'd be able to walk around Baghdad without being shot or blown up. They can't. Sheesh, legislators spend so much time outside the ciountry (and who can blame them?) that they have trouble even getting a quorum.

Posted by gcochran | April 12, 2008 8:02 PM

Clever Cal, so when Michael Kelly, did die on the way to Iraq, and Fallows, Murphy, and eventually Yglesias and Sullivan, basically turned the Atlantic into a platform against everything he stood for; that proved what. You know, in the real world, you don't come back, zombie movies
not withstanding, when you die; whether from phlebitis or an IED. Now Lowry, following in the path of WFB, was until recently one of the most skeptical on the success of the surge; along with Derbyshire and McCarthy; just goes to show you what the actual track records show. We see how O'Hanlon, Pollock and Co; have beenexcoriated
for not adopting the same position that Yglesias,
Sullivan, have now.How Richard Clarke was able to vent his spleen on the 'Future second wave of AQ, which was caused obviously by the Iraq War; ironically this seems to have come from research conducted for the Atlantic Council;sponsored by the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center .Oh I remember now, that Fallows who prided himself on avoiding the war, then later lamented on the fate of those poor suckers less able to do so; spread the claim of the Great Japanese industrial behemoth, (with nary a reconsideration) and basically spouts PRC talking points, today; his most recent talking point seems the Chinese are putting two much money in America; don't you know I have to make my dystopian American Depression scenario a reality .Murphy, with his increasing ridiculous America as Roman Empire analysis; we're barely at the Jugurthan War point) Yglesias, who supported the war, at the outset, first toted up the enormous prospective cost of the war; 1.2
trillion; Stiglitz, topped it by a factor of 3; now questions whether we should have fought WW 2. Sullivan's gone from echoing Auden after 9/11 to crying crocodile tears for the Gitmo detainee, who almost took down the Capitol building; and cheerleading from the most vaccuous presidential candidate since Chauncey Gardner. Ross, your role, is much like that of David Brooks at the Times is they made some mistakes, the war is probably wrong, we should never 'torture' anyone but your side is acting a little crazy; and should be more responsible, since you're likely to win. Hitchens they allow the occasional arch book review, Kaplan & Bowden are always worth reading; because they believe in the cause of the American soldier whatever mistakes may be made
Sadr a nationalist; funny that's why he had his
wings clipped by a Quds force General, You remember them right, they send EMPs into Iraq killing Americans, they trained Hezbollah, they
were behind the bombings of Jewish sites in Buenos Aires, and thanks to their regional partner, Chavez, is spreading his influence in Latin America. Sadr should have taken out as per; the advice of the late Ambassador Hume Horan ;one of the heroes of the Arabists, for his straight
talk in Saudi Arabia, his role in the Sudan airlift, et al. But the fact that he was the orphan left by Saddam's anti-Shia purge. made us consider not to make him a martyr.

Now I guess I'm being too personal,like perennial Kos also-ran the Stooge man. (he was banned by Wikipedia; what do you have to merit that
perpetual anti-Israeli curmudgeons Richard Stack and Don Williams, Chavez aficionado,Hector and a cavalcade of thousands. I understand if you ban me from your site, and probably the sister sites.
My brother's been to Iraq and now Afghanistan, and I don't countenance the cavalier way his comrades sacrifice are regarded, than
'cannibalized'to further the viewpoint of a favorite party. How the only time, a soldier matters , is when he can become Pulitzer material because of Walter Reed, testify at another
"Winter Soldier" event, or serve as part of another prospective impeachment charge against
Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Posted by narciso | April 12, 2008 8:17 PM

Sonic: That was the wrong answer. You can try again if you want.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 12, 2008 8:17 PM

Wow, this is getting ugly. I would make two arguments:
1) It is ridiculous to stipulate that we don't have a dog in this hunt: there's a whollotta oil in Iraq; and Sadr pretty much comes across as our worst nightmare, barring Al Qaeda, for leadership of the country.
2) The sad truth is that Maliki is no viable alternative, so we are screwed. So it's like Matt says--only much, much worse. IMHO.

Posted by elle loco | April 12, 2008 8:30 PM

Elle:

I agree with you that Sadr is the US' worst nightmare for leadership of Iraq. Worse than Hussein. Al Qaeda was never a plausible contender for leadership of the country, very much unlike Sadr.

But what specific policies or beliefs of Sadr's do you think make him the US' worst nightmare?

It's like everybody is afraid to spell it out.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 12, 2008 8:36 PM

elle loco: right. There is nothing to do but to get out and let things happen, even very bad things. Perhaps follow Krauthammer's advice and promise to strike back if Iraq hits Israel militarily. Kiss the oil profits goodbye. As for Iran's "hegemony" that is a fantasy in the minds of warmongers.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 8:49 PM

Well, Sadr would have to sell oil, and he'd have to sell it at the going price: so we take no hit on that front. He'd be unfriendly to Israel, but Iraq is not a front-line state and will be weak for a long time to come, so that wouldn't have much effect on Israeli security - it certainly never has before.

He'd kick us out of Iraq, but that would save us about $150 billion a year, which would be good.

But we'd have to admit we lost. In terms of objective circumstances, we'd be substantially better off, but we'd lose face. In particular, the people who came up with the idea of or were cheerleaders for invading and occupying Iraq would lose face, a consummation devoutly to be wished.

It would also reduce the chance of our trying any fresh colonial ventures, which would put a spoke in the wheel of those planning such, but since it's now obvious that resistance from even a fraction of a medium sized country is more than we know how to deal with, I doubt we'll try this again for a generation - by which time we'll likely have real fish to fry.

Posted by gcochran | April 12, 2008 8:54 PM

...we could easily afford to adopt a posture of indifference to Iraq's internal political disputes and just go home.

Depends on how one feels about retaining or retaking the White House, or increased or vanished Congressional majorities.

Iraq, from choosing when the AUMF was presented to Congress in 2002 to how it was fought, to who fought it, to what it was fought instead of, to the date when we leave, or never leave, has been driven by domestic, American political considerations.

Iraq has never been primarily about Iraq.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 12, 2008 8:59 PM

Arnold, you got me up against the wall. Of course, Al Qaeda is an absurd benchmark that I shouldn't even have mentioned as a counterfactual. But all I can say about Muqtada al-Sadr is that I am a student of modern history, and when I see video of that guy's affect and how he takes command of his audiences, I get chills. It's that subjective. I have to fall back on the base note of my apprehension of him: Here is a leader who channels a very pure, heroin-like form of Nietzschean ressentiment--that is to say, his complaints against the world for what happened to his father, against Saddam Hussein and against every colonial and neocolonial meddler gives every indication, to me, of having gone radioactive, of feeding on itself, of serving as a toxic tonic that is capable of whipping his partisans up into a frenzy of hatred that literally cannot be quenched. Again--not to say he hasn't earned it...but the truth is, such venom always works on everyone--its wielders as well as its intended victims. This guy is a walking disaster. I believe that all the way down. But of course, I am no Iraq specialist; I'm working only with what I think I know. But to disregard such intimations is an invitation to disaster, too. Can anyone offer a mitigating exegesis of this guy, his animal presence and magnetism, the valence of his rage?

Posted by elle loco | April 12, 2008 8:59 PM

...we could easily afford to adopt a posture of indifference to Iraq's internal political disputes and just go home.

Depends on how one feels about retaining or retaking the White House, or increased or vanished Congressional majorities.

Iraq, from choosing when the AUMF was presented to Congress in 2002 to how it was fought, to who fought it, to what it was fought instead of, to the date when we leave, or never leave, has been driven by domestic, American political considerations.

Iraq has never been primarily about Iraq.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 12, 2008 8:59 PM

gcochran has the most pragmatic theory for bailing--very persuasive in many ways. Some fairly mainstream wag--who was it, peeps?--said at least 2 years ago that we had to be big enough to "lose" to someone in Iraq in order to avoid the classic Pyrrhic victory. I think that in this case there may indeed be no success like failure. But I do continue to believe that if Sadr is anointed as the nationalist liberator, that could buy us a whole other world of trouble. He is a notably, visibly young man, after all....

Posted by elle loco | April 12, 2008 9:07 PM

Sonic,

One could also argue that Maliki forfeited any potential legitimacy when he agreed to participate in an election organized by imperialist occupiers. And that Sadr is the only legitimate force around since he's the only one resorting to unceasing struggle against the occupiers.

I don't think I would make that argument. But I see no reason why a 'democratic future' in Iraq should be any concern of ours. Since I dislike liberal democracy in general, and think it would be a disaster against it, I'm of course inclined to be contemptuous of Maliki and all other 'liberal democrats' (i.e. collaborators with the occupiers). But it's really no concern of mine so I don't have strong feelings one way or the other who wins in Iraq.

There's no reason that a single American should be dying to bring 'liberal democracy' to a nation that will never have it, not in a thousand years.

Posted by Hector | April 12, 2008 9:19 PM

No, Maliki's is the recognized government because it came to power as the result of an election, which is a big reason we support it.

Right, that's also why we support the Hamas government in Palestine. Oh, wait...

Posted by hed | April 12, 2008 9:22 PM

Even a nationalist liberator would have his hands full for a long time in Iraq, with all those centrifugal tendencies. Moreover, I'm dead sure that $150 billion a year is a lot of money, and I'm a lot less sure that Mookey is the next Saladin or Qwisatz Haderach. You look into his eyes and see magnetism, I see a fat dude with a beard who hasn't been particularly militant compared with the interesting troublemakers of history. No Genghis he.

Most of all, all he's got to work with is Iraq. Not Germany, not Macedon, not the Soviet Union. I'm sure that Mussolini wanted to be the big bad, but all he to work with was Italy, and how far can you go with that? Well, Iraq is a hell of lot weaker than Italy was.

Posted by gcochran | April 12, 2008 9:26 PM

See, I think Hector's just tripping. The notion that we individually or collectively can adopt this kind of Olympian Wertfrei view of goings-on in Iraq (or, BTW, in many places) is incredibly facile about the contingencies of history and their impacts on us. It's sandbox-playing. And it gives critiques of national policy a bad name. There, I said it.

Posted by elle loco | April 12, 2008 9:28 PM

Elle:

Can anyone offer a mitigating exegesis of this guy, his animal presence and magnetism, the valence of his rage?

If Sadr rules and starts a war, he would have to be crushed, or at least pushed back into Iraq. But an assumption of him doing that is not the reality of it. Who would he start a war with?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 9:32 PM

Greg Cochran,

"If the Maliki government had legitimacy,
they'd be able to walk around Baghdad without being shot or blown up."

Do you seriously think that having popular legitimacy eliminates your risk of getting killed? If that were true, the democratically-elected leaders of the U.S., France, and most other heads of putatively legitimate governments wouldn't require armored limos and phalanxes of secret service.

Posted by Juan | April 12, 2008 9:39 PM

gcochran and Bengt Larsson speak eloquently to the letting-go. I would like to hope that their analysis is sturdy. It is hard to see where Sadr--a rather less Iran-friendly figure than our current Malikian pals--would go with his animus. But, um, there's a lot of oil over theah. And while I hate to give any credence to the Clash-of-Civilizations claque (I think we should consciously and intently be paddling away from that trope regardless of all other calculations), I have to say that Sadr strikes me as the rare kind of character who could animate and promulgate that kind of larger world-historical horror--he clearly conceives of himself (not unlike Mussolini, inter alia) as just the guy for the job. It's very distressing to have to say so, but I think there are big stakes, at least arguably, in allowing or (if we can) disallowing a Sadr ascendancy.

Posted by elle loco | April 12, 2008 9:44 PM

Hector,

One could also argue that Maliki forfeited any potential legitimacy when he agreed to participate in an election organized by imperialist occupiers. [...]
I don't think I would make that argument.

Well, it's good to hear that you wouldn't try to make the above (strange and unpersuasive) argument. To save time then, let's take it as read that the list of strange, silly, unpersuasive things 'one could argue' is effectively infinite and that (one hopes) you wouldn't make most of them.

But I see no reason why a 'democratic future' in Iraq should be any concern of ours.

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Meanwhile, I (and others) do see some such reasons. Indeed, all else equal I'd like to see a democratic future everywhere. Call me crazy - or heck, call me a liberal internationalist.

There's no reason that a single American should be dying to bring 'liberal democracy' to a nation that will never have it, not in a thousand years.

Especially if one is not in favor of liberal democracy in the first place, as you are not.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 12, 2008 9:46 PM

I have a different impression of Sadr, that he doesn't want to rule, really. That he is a rebel. I could imagine him letting someone else rule while Sadr provides the "muscle". But it's hard to tell. I haven't really read that much about Sadr.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 9:54 PM

"Do you seriously think that having popular legitimacy eliminates your risk of getting killed?"

I think popular legitimacy significantly _reduces_ your chance of being killed.

Since I think quantitatively, I'd say that the risk of an unprotected US president getting killed is about once every twenty years, judging from the historical record. While the risk for Congressmen is far lower.

I figure that Maliki wouldn't last a week if he hit the streets and tried to pull a Haroun Al-Rashid. Twenty years is longer than a week: about a thousand times longer, I think.

to elle loco: since Sadr would never manage to recruit Sunnis, Kurds, or Iranians, his maximum power is pretty limited. By the way, have you had good success reading people's souls via their eyes in the past? Most studies indicate that the average person does little better than chance.

Posted by gcochran | April 12, 2008 10:05 PM

gcochran, I tried pretty hard to billboard my limitations and misgivings about my analysis. There's no way to know today how our views will look some years from now. But I gotta say that comparing my expressed concerns to the foibles of our most disastrous president feels like overkill. Peace out....

Posted by elle loco | April 12, 2008 10:10 PM

I don't support this war, but we should have killed Sadr a long time ago, and may yet have to finish the job.

Posted by Frankie Stone | April 12, 2008 11:11 PM

"Maliki's is the recognized government because it came to power as the result of an election, which is a big reason we support it."

This is always the argument the right wing brings up - and it's completely bogus.

The government in power now has little relation to the government that was "elected". And that government was "elected" by the order of Grand Ayatollah Sistani who approved a slate of Shia parties to stand in the election. He then virtually ordered every Shia to vote for that slate, thus guaranteeing that the Sunnis - who mostly abstained from the elections except for some smaller parties - would not be adequately represented in the government.

This is not to slight Sistani - his SOLE reason for restraining the Shia from attacking the US was to insure that a Shia government got in power and that the Sunnis would never again dominate the Shia as they have for decades. Now that it has been accomplished, the only reason Sistani has not called for the US to withdraw is because of the overall collapse of security in the country and the inability of the "elected" government to control it. This leaves the threat of a Sunni takeover still theoretically feasible, if unlikely.

To call this charade an "elected government" is fundamentally a joke.

Then on TOP of that, most of the Sunni parties, as well as Sadr's crowd (who by the way are I believe the second most powerful crowd in Parliament on the Shia side), have been in and out of the government a half dozen times in protests of one policy or another. I'm not even sure who is in or out at this point. Something like fifteen or twenty government ministers have left their posts in protests back in 2006 and I believe still have not been replaced.

And then of course we had the machinations over who was to be Prime Minister as others have pointed out.

To suggest that this is somehow a "legitimate government" that US troops need to die for is absurd.

And it's made even worse by the fact that regardless of how the Iraqis voted in the elections, the vast majority of the Iraqi people do not trust this government, do not think it has done a decent job, and definitely would not die to defend it, as every Iraqi poll for the last couple years has shown.

Why, then, do US troops have to die for it?

It's total bullshit.

When the provincial elections are held this fall, the Sunnis and the Mahdi Army are going to sweep the elections in their respective provinces - the Sunnis in the north and west and the Mahdi Army in the south. Next year, in parliamentary elections, it is quite possible that the Sunnis and the Mahdi Army will actually sweep into power in Parliament in a manner reminiscent of the recent Pakistani elections.

And just as the Pakistani elections have put a new face on Pakistan - to the chagrin of Bush, who is being told to "butt out" of Pakistan with his "war on terror" - so, too, will the Iraqi nationalists give the boot to Maliki - and then the US.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 13, 2008 12:03 AM

As for Sadr's political pretensions, he has considerable limits. First of all, he is not the top dog in Shia clerical circles, despite his recent efforts to burnish his clerical credentials in Qom.

Second, as others have pointed out, he's not going to inflame the Sunnis or the Kurds to work with him - or anybody else. Iraq as a NATION is virtually destroyed. It would take the rest of Sadr's life just to keep Iraq from completely falling apart into three "federated" states - or simply a collection of provinces ruled by warlords. It's extremely unlikely that he could ever organize anything against anybody.

Third, he wouldn't be motivated to attack anyone anyway. Who would he attack? Iran? They support him and will remain more powerful than Iraq for decades to come. Saudi Arabia? He knows the US would bomb the crap out of him for that? Israel? He isn't anywhere close to Israel and he doesn't have a ton of free money to send to Hizballah even were he to come to power in Iraq - certainly not compared to Iran.

Fourth, it's unlikely Sadr will ever be the leader in Iraq. Iraq is not the sort of "jurisprudence" state Iran is. The Grand Ayatollahs in Iraq, especially Sistani, reject direct clerical control of the state a la Iran. Sadr might be able to set up a coalition government, run by somebody not universally reviled in Iraq as an "ex-pat" or occupation puppet", but he is unlikely to be the ruler in anything but a Dick Cheney manner. And again, he has to deal with the Sunnis and the Kurds - neither of which are interested in starting a "clash of civilizations" with the West in the manner of Al Qaeda.

Bottom line: Iraq is not an issue for the region as long as it doesn't completely collapse into sectarian civil war and a totally failed state in which Iran and Saudi Arabia will be fighting a proxy battle between Sunni and Shia.

And the best way to even approach that not happening is to give Sadr and the nationalists their head in Iraq and pull the US out. I give it fifty-fifty either way, but a continued US presence is a guaranteed one hundred percent failure.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 13, 2008 12:14 AM

There's far too much bashing between sides and not enough interest in ground realities. It doesn't help, of course, that every single public and major media actor backing troops staying lacks the guts or the intellectual interest to pay attention.

The reality in Iraq, of course, is decidedly different from partisan lines argued outside Iraq. It's more productive, though less fun, to check out Iraqi and other on-the-scene bloggers like Totten than it is to read and grumble at conservative blogs.

The real reason Al'Sadr and other extremist militias are worth persuing is that they're nasty and dangerous gangs that Bush Administration negligence on occupation has allowed to prosper. They're as dangerous as Colombian narcogangs are to Columbia. Except, imagine we had these narcogangs back when Bolivar had just won his war.

I see it as our responsibility because we invaded and our negligence has created him and created a horror so bad that half Iraq's elites are running.

Posted by Jon Kay | April 13, 2008 12:41 AM

Actually, according to the BBC, Sadr has claimed that the US will always be his enemy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7344038.stm

Posted by John | April 13, 2008 2:20 AM

"I see it as our responsibility because we invaded and our negligence has created him and created a horror so bad that half Iraq's elites are running."

So you're advocating taking on another 60,000 or so armed militia members, as well as taking on the other scores of thousands of Badr Brigade and others of the TWENTY-EIGHT militias in Iraq because "we created them"?

Right, that will fly. Got another half million troops to spare?

Right now, if Sadr's 60,000 and the Sunni "Awakening" 80,000 decided to get together and force the US out, the US would be gone in a month. Because that would be 140,000 insurgents fighting 140,000 US troops. Despite the superior firepower of the US, the US would lose in a month. You'd have ten thousand US casualties more than the 4,000 you have now.

Not to mention that Sadr probably has a million or two supporters and probably could recruit another twenty thousand insurgents if he was actually under serious threat. Not to mention putting 100,000 rioters on the street.

Get serious. Those ARE the "ground realities".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 13, 2008 4:38 AM

Actually, according to the BBC, Sadr has claimed that the US will always be his enemy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7344038.stm

Actually, the article does not say that. He says "I have no enemy but you. You are the occupier"

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 13, 2008 7:26 AM

The reality in Iraq, of course, is decidedly different from partisan lines argued outside Iraq. It's more productive, though less fun, to check out Iraqi and other on-the-scene bloggers like Totten than it is to read and grumble at conservative blogs.

The real reason Al'Sadr and other extremist militias are worth persuing is that they're nasty and dangerous gangs that Bush Administration negligence on occupation has allowed to prosper. They're as dangerous as Colombian narcogangs are to Columbia. Except, imagine we had these narcogangs back when Bolivar had just won his war.

Could you point to some documentation of why Sadr is such a bad guy? I had a look at Totten's blog.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 13, 2008 8:37 AM

(fascinating how Matthew points out as if in praise that Sadr is "willing to sell oil on an open market" - pray tell, what oil does Sadr own to be "willing to sell" in the first place?).

Presumably Matt means that Sadr, if he controlled the government, would be willing to sell us oil.

Well, it's good to hear that you wouldn't try to make the above (strange and unpersuasive) argument.

Yes, very strange and unpersuasive. I am certain that if the UN sent troops into our country, and told us what our electoral processes had to be, and chose processes in such a way as to make certain that only candidates who were in favor of UN occupation of the U.S. were able to get elected, that you would find the entire affair legitimate, because anything else would be "strange and unpersuasive."

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 9:16 AM

The real reason Al'Sadr and other extremist militias are worth persuing is that they're nasty and dangerous gangs that Bush Administration negligence on occupation has allowed to prosper.

But then why single out Sadr? The supposedly legitimate Maliki govvernment, remember, is itself based on a nasty and dangerous extremist militias that the Bush regime has not only allowed to prosper, but actively assisted in gaining control over Iraq's government. If "nasty and dangerous gang" is the decisive factor then why go after Sadr but not any of the other two dozen plus militias, including the Badr Brigade which backs Maliki?

Posted by Stefan | April 13, 2008 10:26 AM

Actually, according to the BBC, Sadr has claimed that the US will always be his enemy:

Actually, according to the BBC, Sadr has claimed that the US wlll always be his enemy as long as it occupies Iraq.

Posted by Stefan | April 13, 2008 10:33 AM

It's worth remembering, I think, re elections and the alleged "democratic legitimacy" of the Maliki government, that Sadr's supporters were elected as the largest bloc in parliament. Maliki is the US choice for prime minister, not the Iraqi choice. (Now, Sadr didn't get an absolute majority, and would likely still have had to settle for some compromise candidate absent US interference, but do you really think it would have been someone likely to launch a military attack on him?)

The real reason Al'Sadr and other extremist militias are worth persuing is that they're nasty and dangerous gangs that Bush Administration negligence on occupation has allowed to prosper. They're as dangerous as Colombian narcogangs are to Columbia. Except, imagine we had these narcogangs back when Bolivar had just won his war.

1) You mean Colombia. As a Columbia alumn, this confusion is a pet peeve.

2) A far better analogy would be FARC, rather than the paramilitary narco-gangs. FARC, like Sadr, has a populist ideology, a base of support among the otherwise unrepresented poor, and wages an on-again/off-again guerrilla war against a corrupt US-backed government. The right-wing paramilitaries sponsored by the drug lords in Colombia are much more analogous to the Badr types who are allied with the Iraqi government. All of the above are pretty nasty characters, of course, but analysis can't stop there.

3) Dismissing Sadr as just a gangster is really pretty ignorant and foolish. He's a charismatic (in the old, technical sense) leader of religiously-themed, socially conservative, economically populist, anti-imperialist political movement with the support of millions of Iraqis, which grew under Saddam in the 1990s, led by Muqtada's father Muhammad Sadiq, and has roots going back to the 1950s in the original incarnation of the Dawa party. He's become the primary political representative for the unemployed or informally employed Shia underclass. He's also an astute politician who has come through a great deal intact personally and politically and made a number of dramatic shifts, generally to the advantage of his political standing.

If you really want to learn about Sadr, Totten's blog is probably not the place to go. Totten, after all, spends most of his time talking with US troops, not their opponents. I've just finished Independent reporter Patrick Cockburn's new book on Muqtada, which is not only timely but very good and highly recommended. The International Crisis Group did a thoroughly researched report on Sadr which is worth reading, and Faleh Jabar's 2003 book The Shi'ite Movement of Iraq has a lot of valuable background on Sadr as well as his rivals.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 11:29 AM

Glaivester,

Presumably Matt means that Sadr, if he controlled the government, would be willing to sell us oil.

Again someone brings up a counterfactual in which Sadr controls (let alone, had been elected to) the government of Iraq. Why does this fantasy keep popping up?

Sadr is the ringleader of an outlaw militia. Of what value is the observation that 'if he controlled the government, he'd be willing to sell us oil'? This is sort of like saying 'if Al Capone had been President of the United States, he'd have [fill in the blank]'. What point is this even meant to prove or rebut? What supposedly follows from the observation - 'therefore don't arrest Al Capone'?

Yes, very strange and unpersuasive. I am certain that if the UN sent troops into our country, and told us what our electoral processes had to be, and chose processes in such a way as to make certain that only candidates who were in favor of UN occupation of the U.S. were able to get elected, that you would find the entire affair legitimate

To make this parallel actually hold up you would have to postulate that the U.S., prior to this hypothetical UN intervention, had been led for some three decades by a ruthless, tribal, murderous, power-hungry autocrat who showed no sign of letting go of power and every sign of passing it along to his kin. Had I been living in such a scenario then yes I can certainly envision welcoming your hypothetical UN intervention, and whatever election arrangements they make. Why do you think/assume I wouldn't?

More to the point, you've constructed a hypothetical analogy under which (you think, incorrectly) I 'wouldn't find it legitimate'. But we don't need to resort to hypotheticals. There was an actual election conducted in Iraq, you recall, and a quite high turnout (by U.S. standards) of actual people turned out to vote in actual Iraq under the actual circumstances you attempted to analogize. Do you think they didn't think what they were doing was 'legitimate'? If so, it seems your argument is with them, not me. You are blithely telling all Iraqis who voted that what they did, and the result of what they did, is 'not legitimate'. Says who? Says you, right? Who are you to say that? You are rhetorically pushing their vote to one side, declaring it completely ignorable. On what basis? And why is this so easy to do when it comes to Iraq?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 11:36 AM

Do you think they didn't think what they were doing was 'legitimate'? If so, it seems your argument is with them, not me. You are blithely telling all Iraqis who voted that what they did, and the result of what they did, is 'not legitimate'. Says who? Says you, right?

Well, there were a number of Iraqis who thought the elections were illegitimate, because they were held under foreign occupation, including both Sunni groups who called for a boycott, and the Sadrists, who declared that the elections were illegitimate but decided to participate anyway as a tactical move. (Not that crazy; one could make analogies ranging from the IRA's "armalite and ballot box" strategy to the Bolsheviks' participation in the Tsarist Duma.) Are you going to simply dismiss their views - perhaps on the circular grounds that they are anti-democratic?

An anecdote from that Cockburn book I mentioned:

“Maliki declared ruefullly that he could not move a company of troops without American permission. One Iraqi army commander who obeyed an order from the prime minister, without getting approval from the Americnas first, was promptly dismissed and imprisoned by the US military.” (189)

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 12:16 PM

Kalkin,

Well, there were a number of Iraqis who thought the elections were illegitimate,

I'm sure there were, and are. There are Americans who think our elections are illegitimate. (There are lots of people who think lots of things.) How or why you would side with the author of such a claim in this case, yet (apparently) not others, is what is of interest.

Meanwhile, holding up the Bolsheviks as an example of civil dissent or of creditable claims of illegitimacy is not likely to persuade me.

Are you going to simply dismiss their [Sadrists'] views - perhaps on the circular grounds that they are anti-democratic?

How is it circular? This faction, by their statements and actions and your telling of same ('tactic'), wishes to gain power over their nation and country by an extralegal, nondemocratic means. They lack the right to do so and I feel no compulsion to pay tribute to their desire to do so. Why do you? I dismiss their views the same way I dismiss the views of, say, the more extreme right-wing 'militia' types who wish to 'secede' from the U.S. and declare the U.S. government illegitimate and so on. Deciding to credit such claims of 'illegitimacy' is a choice, one that apparently you have made in this case. But on what basis?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 12:50 PM

The real reason Al'Sadr and other extremist militias are worth persuing is that they're nasty and dangerous gangs that Bush Administration negligence on occupation has allowed to prosper.

But then why single out Sadr? The supposedly legitimate Maliki govvernment, remember, is itself based on a nasty and dangerous extremist militias that the Bush regime has not only allowed to prosper, but actively assisted in gaining control over Iraq's government. If "nasty and dangerous gang" is the decisive factor then why go after Sadr but not any of the other two dozen plus militias, including the Badr Brigade which backs Maliki?

Posted by Stefan | April 13, 2008 1:35 PM

I neither held the Bolsheviks up as an example of civil disobedience (only as an example of coherent strategists), nor sided with Iraqi claims of illegitimacy (though in fact I would, on the grounds that the Iraqi government's actions are clearly subject to US control in any number of ways - even when the parliament gets as far as passing bills the US doesn't like, it is simply ignored). I simply asked on what basis you dismissed these claims.

The answer to that question is still not clear to me. You aren't explicit about why you dismiss claims that the US government is not legitimately elected - that's fair enough, but unless you explain your reasoning, it doesn't tell me much. You deny that calling Sadr anti-democratic would be circular, but you don't say whether that's actually your argument.

Nevertheless, I think I can make two points which seem to be relevant. One, it's clearly absurd to compare Sadr to people like the Branch Davidians, see my post above. Two, the circularity should be obvious. Means outside of the Iraqi government is are "extralegal" and "nondemocratic" if and only if that government is a legitimate, democratic representative of the will of the Iraqi people.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 1:36 PM

Sonic Charmer,

The idea that large numbers of people voting lends legitimacy to the elections, or to the idea that elections or liberal 'democracy' are what Iraq needs, is truly dumb. Lots of people vote in elections all the time all over the world, it doesn't mean that they are particularly enamored of the idea of liberal democracy, it means that generally if you give people a chance at power then they will try to go for it. The test of whether someone believes in liberal democracy isn't whether they choose to vote themselves, it's whether they want to allow that same access to the political process to their enemies. I very much doubt that most Iraqis want to do that- whatever faction takes power in Iraq will promptly repress the others. I suspect that the Iraqis, sensibly enough, see freedom and democracy as tools for their faction to get into power, rather than good things in their own right.

I don't particularly like the idea of liberal democracy, but I do vote in American elections sometimes- why wouldn't I? There is a long tradition both in theory and practice of using the tools that the system gives you to try and undermine that system.

Is it that hard for you to understand that people don't like to be colonized? Whether it be in the name of high ideals like Christianity, Socialism or Republican Virtue, or considerably more milquetoast and mediocre ideas like liberal democracy. When the U.S. was trying to negotiate with Zapata to support him against his enemy Carranza, supposedly he said that he would rather be tortured and killed by fellow MExicans than brought to power by the Americans.

There are many reasons one might conceivably view Sadr as considerably more legitimate than Maliki. Perhaps on nationalist grounds, perhaps on Islamic grounds, perhaps on economic-leftist grounds. I don't really know enough about Sadr's ideology to say whether I think he's better than Maliki. But I do reserve for Maliki and his supporters the same utter contempt that I have for the 'liberals' in Venezuela, in Cuba, in Russia and in most other developing countries- all Western collaborators who want to sell out their countries for their own greedy profit. Yes I do maintain that Maliki and his henchmen are an illegitimate force- whether Sadr is any better remains to be seen.

Posted by Hector | April 13, 2008 1:59 PM

Kalkin,

I agree with your points above. What can you tell me about Sadr- what exactly is his ideology and what are his chances of getting into power? I know more, generally, about other parts of the world and not that much about Iraq right now.

Posted by Hector | April 13, 2008 2:02 PM

Kalkin,

You aren't explicit about why you dismiss claims that the US government is not legitimately elected - that's fair enough, but unless you explain your reasoning, it doesn't tell me much.

A discussion over whether the US gov't is legitimate is not one I have the inclincation for here. My point was simply that the mere existence of people in a nation saying 'the government isn't legitimate' does not make it so or even give one any reason to pause and take the claim seriously.

You deny that calling Sadr anti-democratic would be circular, but you don't say whether that's actually your argument.

To be clear then, I do consider the Sadr movement to be (pretty obviously) anti-democratic. You don't?

One, it's clearly absurd to compare Sadr to people like the Branch Davidians, see my post above.

I didn't mention the Branch Davidians (and didn't quite have them in mind), but it's not actually a bad comparison IMHO. The obvious differences including that Sadr has more numbers and that he is probably responsible for the deaths of more people.

Two, the circularity should be obvious. Means outside of the Iraqi government is are "extralegal" and "nondemocratic" if and only if that government is a legitimate, democratic representative of the will of the Iraqi people.

I actually disagree with this. There are means (and ends, of course) that are, on the face of them, intrinsically, nondemocratic - regardless of who actually is sitting in power or how they got there. I'm sure you'll agree with me after a moment's thought.

As for 'extralegality', well there are two senses of that word that might come into play here. One is the sense of literally breaking the laws written by the sitting government, e.g. Sadr's militia's existence is 'illegal' because it is not countenanced by the government (like perhaps other militias are). On that note I understand your point. But another is the sense of breaking laws that might be said to precede all government (such as - not to murder). Anyway, the Sadr movement fails on both counts, and observing this does not require some sort of sweeping affirmation of Maliki's legitimacy.

Meanwhile, whatever one thinks of purple fingers, Maliki at least came to power as the result of an election, however flawed. What position was Mr. Sadr elected to exactly? It's hard to reckon how people who hand-wring over the former's 'legitimacy' can at the same time muse, if not openly fantasize, about the latter's claims to power and are silent on the 'legitimacy' of the latter if they even consider it at all. I can't figure this out except by speculation that civility tells me, however unsuccessfuly at times, I had better keep to myself.

best,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 2:50 PM

If you're really interested in getting to grips with Sadr, who is after all perhaps the most important single political player in the new Iraq, read Cockburn's book. I did a fair amount of research on Sadr before it came out, and while I found some good stuff, there was no single, thorough, clearheaded, up-to-date source. Now there is. If the book is a bit much, this review has a decent short summary.

Sadr's ideology is an Iraqi nationalist variant of political Shi'ism, mostly derived from his father, who was a far more eminent religious scholar. It's a contradictory mixture - Sadrism supports an (arguably more democratic in theory) version of Khomeini's wilayat-al-faqih, rule of the (Islamic) jurisprudent, but is generally anti-Iranian. It's in favor of a multi-sectarian Iraq, with political space for non-Shia, but has clamped down violently on stores selling alcohol and women failing to wear veils. Sadr has denounced the murder of Sunni civilians regularly and forcefully, but the Sadrist militia, the Mahdi Army, which is very loosely organized, has undoubtedly participated in it on a wide scale.

Sadr is, at this point, pretty clearly the Shia political player with the largest popular base. Whether or not he himself survives, his movement will be a power player in any post-occupation Iraq. But - though at one point he was the best candidate for uniting Shia and Sunni on the basis of opposition to the occupation - it's very hard, at this point, to imagine him obtaining significant Sunni (or Kurdish) support. He could rule a Shia splinter from Iraq (though with US and more Iranian support, and a better trained and equipped militia, ISCI might instead); he would likely be part of a very uneasy coalition governing a unified, if federalized, post-occupation Iraq.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 2:52 PM

My post above was in reply to Hector, if that's not clear - I cross-posted with Sonic.

I do consider the Sadr movement to be (pretty obviously) anti-democratic. You don't?

In some ways, it's certainly anti-democratic - its hostility to women's rights, for example, not to mention its sometime murder of religious opponents. But (as far as the former goes) the same could be said for the Republican Party in the United States. On the other hand, its driving force is a pair of fundamentally democratic demands - freedom from foreign occupation for Iraq, and political representation for the Shia underclass. I'm not exactly a fan of Sadr, but I'd hesitate to sum the movement up as "anti-democratic". I would certainly not dismiss his rejection of the Iraqi government for that reason.

I didn't mention the Branch Davidians (and didn't quite have them in mind), but it's not actually a bad comparison IMHO. The obvious differences including that Sadr has more numbers and that he is probably responsible for the deaths of more people.

I think a mass movement which gains its strength from its defense of Shia communities against sectarian attacks, its social services, and its advocacy of the basic demands of millions of constituents is a very different thing from a minor cult - whether or not both are violent, or have bizarre religious ideas.

There are means (and ends, of course) that are, on the face of them, intrinsically, nondemocratic - regardless of who actually is sitting in power or how they got there.

Sure. Ethnic cleansing would be one, which Sadr's movement has engaged in. But this is a product of the rage of Sadr's base at repeated sectarian bombings, not a calculated strategy. In fact it's counterproductive for Sadr in a number of ways. When Sadr has explicitly put forward a strategy, it has been, at various times, either mass protests, electoral politicking, or guerrilla war. None of these is intrinsically nondemocratic.

As for 'extralegality', well there are two senses of that word ... another is the sense of breaking laws that might be said to precede all government (such as - not to murder). Anyway, the Sadr movement fails on both counts, and observing this does not require some sort of sweeping affirmation of Maliki's legitimacy.

But then Maliki fails too - the Iraqi police have been involved in ethnic cleansing longer than Sadr. The US also has a problem - aggressive war and torture are not generally taken to be consistent with international law. In this sense Sadr stands condemned, but you can't use that to make a distinction between him and his enemies.

Meanwhile, whatever one thinks of purple fingers, Maliki at least came to power as the result of an election, however flawed. What position was Mr. Sadr elected to exactly?

Well, Sadr's supporters were elected as the largest single bloc in the Iraqi parliament, as I noted above. But this is a fallacious argument anyway - who elected George Washington to anything before the American Revolution? One doesn't have to believe that Sadr is the "moral equivalent of the founding fathers" (as Reagan might say) to see that being elected is not a valid test of legitimacy.

It's hard to reckon how people who hand-wring over the former's 'legitimacy' can at the same time muse, if not openly fantasize, about the latter's claims to power and are silent on the 'legitimacy' of the latter if they even consider it at all. I can't figure this out except by speculation that civility tells me, however unsuccessfuly at times, I had better keep to myself.

It's not a hell of a lot more civil to suggest that you're thinking things you can't write than to just write them.

Anyway, Sadr is not who I would prefer to see running Iraq. But, of the major Shia politicians, he is not only the most popular but the least sectarian. Dawa and ISCI have no real basis of support aside from sectarian allegiance; Sadr, however sectarian he often is in practice, is also a genuine Iraqi nationalist. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for this at the moment, but he remains the best candidate for someone to forge a cross-sectarian alliance with the Sunnis, and for that reason I make no bones about the fact that, among the visible alternatives, I'd like to see him gain power within the Shia community.

I place a (much) higher priority on ending the bloody civil war in Iraq than I do on having a pro-US government in power. Do you?

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 3:27 PM

Hector,

The idea that large numbers of people voting lends legitimacy to the elections [...] is truly dumb.

Maybe so! But then on what else shall it be based? 'Legitimacy' as such has been raised by others here, not by myself. What secret methods - if not elections and numbers and things like that - have all of you used to divine that Maliki's government is 'illegitimate'? (And, depending on your answer, why should I care about 'legitimacy' in the first place, if it's not based on elections and numbers and things like that?)

or to the idea that elections or liberal 'democracy' are what Iraq needs, is truly dumb

As you've already said, you place no value on liberal democracy in Iraq (if anywhere). Fair enough, therein lies our disagreement. What I don't get is why a nondemocrat would care about 'legitimacy' or imagine that it counts as criticism.

Lots of people vote in elections all the time all over the world, it doesn't mean that they are particularly enamored of the idea of liberal democracy

Indeed. But who was talking about whether Iraqis were 'enamored of the idea of liberal democracy'? The issue (about which I can't figure out why you care) was whether the government is 'legitimate'. 'Legitimacy', if it means anything (I'm not sure it does), is a democratic concept; if one doesn't care about democracy in the first place (as you don't), then how is lack of 'legitimacy' even a criticism of anything at all?

The test of whether someone believes in liberal democracy isn't whether they choose to vote themselves, it's whether they want to allow that same access to the political process to their enemies.

Good point. And this is a good reason why the Sadrists don't count as democratic (something Kalkin was wondering).

Is it that hard for you to understand that people don't like to be colonized?

No. Huh? No. But what's this got to do with what we were discussing?

There are many reasons one might conceivably view Sadr as considerably more legitimate than Maliki. Perhaps on nationalist grounds, perhaps on Islamic grounds, perhaps on economic-leftist grounds.

Of what value is the concept of 'legitimacy' on any of those grounds? Why would or should I give it any credence? On nationalist grounds one might just as readily say that David Duke would be a more 'legitimate' President of the U.S. than Barak Obama. If that's what 'legitimate' means then who the hell cares about it in the first place? Certainly not me.

I don't really know enough about Sadr's ideology to say whether I think he's better than Maliki.

'better'? The issue was 'legitimacy'. Suppose you convinced me that Sadr is (in whatever sense) 'better than Maliki'. However, the latter heads the elected government of Iraq and the former does not. I'm not sure what who's 'better' has to do with anything.

Yes I do maintain that Maliki and his henchmen are an illegitimate force- whether Sadr is any better remains to be seen.

Ok, so he's an 'illegitimate' force, by your standards of 'legitimacy', which (as far as I can tell) connote nothing intrinsically positive or laudatory in the first place. Not sure what I can take away from that but ok.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 3:30 PM

Again someone brings up a counterfactual in which Sadr controls (let alone, had been elected to) the government of Iraq. Why does this fantasy keep popping up?

Boy do you have a short memory, Sonic Charmer.

Let's remember what started this:

Matt Ygelsias wrote:

Sadr is an opponent of what we're doing in Iraq, but he doesn't have some larger conflict with the United States -- he's not plotting an invasion of Delaware, he's willing to sell oil on an open market, etc. -- and while his credentials as a liberal democrat are highly suspect, so are those of the people we work with in Iraq (and Saudi Arab, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, etc.) all the time.

You wrote:

(fascinating how Matthew points out as if in praise that Sadr is "willing to sell oil on an open market" - pray tell, what oil does Sadr own to be "willing to sell" in the first place?).

Here is my response:

Matt's point was not that Sadr had some oil that he was willing to sell, it was just that he would be perfectly willing for Iraq to sell oil on the open market and if he had any power of influence would not use them to prevent this. In other words, Sadr has no intention of threatening our oil supply, so that is not a valid motivation for our preferring Maliki.

You are also ignoring the larger point, Sonic Charmer. As Matt said:

It's not as if Maliki is running some kind of even-handed drive against partisan militias -- he's turning the state security forces over to militias aligned with his government while cracking down on the party militia of one party. Meanwhile, that party was part of his government until the United States helped engineer their departure. Our beef with Sadr antedates the Maliki government and has no particular relationship to the parliamentary coalitions of the day.

That is to say, it is not as if the Iraqi people had a change to choose either Maliki or Sadr (or more precisely Sadr's party) and they chose Maliki. In that case, electoral legitimacy could be a reason per se to support Maliki over Sadr. But we played a large r