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 role in making certain that Maliki or someone like him, and not a Sadrist, was selected as the Iraqi leader. So even if "electoral legitimcay" were used to explain our current support of Maliki, it cannot be used to explain why we helped him to get that legitimacy in the first place.

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.

Strawman. That Maliki be legitimate is important to us because our government is actively supporting him and are responsible for what he does with our support. Our government is not supporting Sadr, so his legitimacy or lack thereof is not as much of a concern. If I were advocating that we switch sides and support Sadr over Maliki, then definitely you would have a point. But our argument is that neither side is legitimate, so why should we take sides?

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 4:00 PM

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.

There's virtually no movement in human history of which it couldn't be said that some of their demands were 'fundamentally democratic'. Particularly if you credit tribal-centric demands as being democratic demands (as you are doing here), in which case virtually all human politics has been 'democratic' since the caveman days. Anyway you've conceded my point, so..

[nondemocratic means] 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 [..]

Anyway, we are resolved: the Sadr movement is nondemocratic.

...., it has been, at various times, either mass protests, electoral politicking, or guerrilla war. None of these is intrinsically nondemocratic.

Call me crazy but guerrilla war against an elected government seems pretty nondemocratic to me. The fact that they say 'but this government isn't legitimate because the election wasn't [kosher/fair/whatever]' does not impress me as much as it does you (what guerrilla wouldn't say that?)

But then Maliki fails too - the Iraqi police have been involved in ethnic cleansing longer than Sadr.

Indeed, all governments fail at times. Again, you've conceded that Sadr is nondemocratic so I'm not sure where you're taking this. The sitting Iraqi government came to power as the result of an election; Sadr's power is based on...what exactly? The supposed symmetry here just isn't apparent.

Well, Sadr's supporters were elected as the largest single bloc in the Iraqi parliament, as I noted above.

That's swell. What are their names, what policies are they proposing, and why aren't we talking about them?

But this is a fallacious argument anyway - who elected George Washington to anything before the American Revolution?

No one. And had I been present prior to the conclusion of that revolution, I wouldn't have gone around muddying the waters by questioning people who called what he was doing undemocratic. It clearly was!

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.

Fair enough, but what then is, and how do you come to the conclusion that someone is 'legitimate' in anything resembling an objective way? Semantically, if/when you say "X is legitimate" and/or "Y is not" are you saying anything fundamentally different from "I like X" and "I don't like Y"? Because if you're not, then why should I care? If you are, then what is your notion of 'legitimacy' based on exactly that I may judge it for myself? and as I said to Hector, depending on your answer, why must I necessarily consider it an important thing?

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.

I know. It's probably only slightly more civil. :)

Anyway, Sadr is not who I would prefer to see running Iraq. But, of the major Shia politicians, [...] 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.

Fair enough - so those are your reasons for favoring (or anyway, least-disfavoring :) Sadr's power. Why bring up 'legitimacy' at all then? You have a preference for who emerges powerful in Iraq right now, it's based on a bunch of (IMHO pretty reasonable) considerations you've worked out for yourself, and (I mean this in a neutral way) none of them have much to do with democracy or 'legitimacy' per se. You've simply taken a rooting interest and you have some reasons; why not just say that, why the attempt to cloak your preference in some bogus higher concept of 'legitimacy' that breaks down upon examination?

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?

Not necessarily. All other things being equal of course I'd like the civil war to end but I don't merely want the civil war to 'end' for the sake of ending just because all wars are bad and they should end. As with all wars, I think it's important who emerges victorious (as do you!) and that there are times when this can trump the simple need to 'end the war'. In the case of a hypothetical involving an 'ended' war with Sadr somehow emerging in powerful, in my opinion that would be such a time. I see that your opinion is different and, so be it.

Best,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 4:01 PM

Sonic is talking about some country, but it doesn't seem to be Iraq: I especially found this point funny.
1. Sadr is the ringleader of an outlaw militia.

Actually, no. When the U.S. rejected Jafari, they hoped to place Hakim, leader of the Badr brigades political wing, SCIRI, in the prime minister's seat. This didn't work. Instead, Maliki allied with Sadr's trend, which is, like, a political party - and in fact the largest faction in the coalition that Maliki headed.

Maliki himself has gone out of his way to praise Sayyid Sadr. Hmm, since, according to the warmongerosphere, Maliki is some kind of George Washington figure, that must mean: Sadr good.

Now, things are changing. The Iranian faction most connected with Ahmenedijad is very pro-Maliki. The faction connected with Rafjansani is pro-Jafari, who is making a bid to take power from Maliki. And Jafari is sounding out Sadr as a potential partner. Meanwhile, everybody seems to think Sadr's trend party will win the elections in the South this October, and so get big enough that - surprise! - they might be able to demand that a Trend party leader become Prime Minister. Or Jafari.

As for Sadr's party stealing oil, that is to laugh. The Fadila party is most often implicated. Reidar Visser has a nice little analysis of that. Instead of the Trend being the chief oil thieves, they are the object of hatred of the chief oil thieves, who have Maliki's ear - after all, we are talking about a Shi'a governing elite that has accrued massive wealth over the last two years, as Iraq has gained its world class reputation for corruption. Another big score for our allies!

If you know so little about Iraq that you don't even know the history of the relations between Sadr and Maliki, you have obviously not been paying much attention. Maybe cause it isn't like a neat war video game. But you can always go back to sighing over President Backbone's Mission Accomplished speech. Wasn't he dreamy? And so manly too!

Posted by roger | April 13, 2008 4:10 PM

Glaivester,

In other words, Sadr has no intention of threatening our oil supply, so that is not a valid motivation for our preferring Maliki.

But as far as I can tell, neither I nor anyone else cited 'he would threaten our oil supply' as our motivation for preferring Maliki.

But we played a large role in making certain that Maliki or someone like him, and not a Sadrist, was selected as the Iraqi leader. So even if "electoral legitimcay" were used to explain our current support of Maliki, it cannot be used to explain why we helped him to get that legitimacy in the first place.

How about that thing where Sadr has gotten and continues to get some of our troops killed. Yes, perhaps you're right, perhaps we had reasons for preferring that Sadr not obtain power. The problem with that being..? Are we required to be agnostic as to who governs Iraq between someone who has killed our soldiers and someone who hasn't?

Nobody involved in this debate is being agnostic; everyone has their preferences. For good or ill, Iraqi politics are not taking place inside a hermetically-sealed test tube perfectly insulated from outside influence. If this counts as a criticism of the 'legitimacy' of the Maliki government then it counts equally if not more so as a criticism of the power of Sadr and his movement. Indeed, if having been influenced by outside forces renders developments in Iraq 'illegitimate' then there is and can be no such thing as 'legitimacy' in Iraq, so let's just drop the whole concept.

That Maliki be legitimate is important to us because our government is actively supporting him and are responsible for what he does with our support.

Well, if our support is withheled, and Sadr were to come to power, then arguably we would be equally responsible for that as well, hence Sadr's 'legitimacy' or lack thereof is just as important. If 'legitimacy' is important either way, that is.

If I were advocating that we switch sides and support Sadr over Maliki, then definitely you would have a point. But our argument is that neither side is legitimate, so why should we take sides?

Because one was elected and the other was not? So where this leaves us is you saying that Maliki may have been elected but he's 'not legitimate'.

Suppose I just answer you thusly: so what? Why is 'legitimate' important?

Would you have an answer that would not simultaneously be a good reason for opposing Sadr gaining power? Curious,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 4:12 PM

If this counts as a criticism of the 'legitimacy' of the Maliki government then it counts equally if not more so as a criticism of the power of Sadr and his movement.

Probably true. If I were supporting Sadr that would be a devastating point.

Indeed, if having been influenced by outside forces renders developments in Iraq 'illegitimate' then there is and can be no such thing as 'legitimacy' in Iraq, so let's just drop the whole concept.

Fine. So you agree to stop using Maliki's election (technically, Iraq's parliamentary procedures, I was under the impression that he was not elected by the people but was selected by the elected body, more similar to a European system than to the American one, but I could be wrong) as a reason for us to support him over Sadr. Glad to hear it.

Suppose I just answer you thusly: so what? Why is 'legitimate' important?

I don't think it particularly is. But you must believe that legitimacy is to be important if you are arguing that the electoral process in Iraq grants one guy a better claim to power than another.

The entire argument about legitimacy is about whether or not Maliki's government position somehow makes it more proper for us to support him over Sadr, so all of my arguments about Maliki's legitimacy were essentially arguments about whether his position granted us a per se reason to prefer him. But if you wish to concede that his governmental position is irrelevant to this issue, we can move on.

Would you have an answer [i.e. for why legitimacy is important]that would not simultaneously be a good reason for opposing Sadr gaining power? Curious,

I do not have a reason that would not simultaneously be a good reason not to support Sadr gaining power. But I do not see legitimacy as having such importance that it gives me a good reason to oppose either Maliki or Sadr.

Well, if our support is withheled, and Sadr were to come to power, then arguably we would be equally responsible for that as well, hence Sadr's 'legitimacy' or lack thereof is just as important. If 'legitimacy' is important either way, that is.

I disagree. To the extent that we feel an obligation to "do no harm" to the Iraqi people, we are obligated not to foist an illegitimate leader upon them. We are not obligated to prevent one from occurring.

Of course, this is a moot point if we agree that legitimacy ( and therefore which of the two won the Iraqi elections + parliamentary procedures) is unimportant, in which case, whether we support Maliki or Sadr must be based on the practical considerations of what each man could do for or againt us.

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 4:41 PM

Sonic's too polite to say it, but it seems that the main reason Mooky has so much admiration and implied "legitimacy" with a lot of people posting here is simply that he's anti-American like them.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Mooky has unconditionally called for his forces to stop resisting, and JAM faces opposition from all the major parties in Iraq--Sunni, Kurd, and Shi'ite. The (legitimate) Iraqi government is about to pass a law banning all parties with militias from participating in Iraqi politics, and Mooky says he's considering disbanding the "Mahdi army".

The declaration about the new law clearly caught the Sadrists off guard. "We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament" said Sadrist member of Parliament Hassan al Rubaie the day the news broke. "Our political isolation was very clear and real during the meeting" he said, referring to the meeting of the Political Council for National Security, where the legislation was announced. Rubaie confirmed that the Sadrists are now isolated politically--"Even the blocs that supported us in the past are now against us, and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in Parliament. We must go and explain to Sadr in person that there's a problem", he said.

Sadr inherited his organization from his father, and there's little evidence that he's done anything other than run it into the ground and set it up to be destroyed. He was behind the brutal murder of Sayyed Abdul Majeed al Khoei, which deprived Iraq of a widely respected and throughly legitimate leader who was a powerful advocate for human rights and cooperation between communities at a crucial point in the restoration of Iraqi rule. Sadr has so far escaped from being held accountable for this act which, along with the Al Qaeda initiated sectarian bloodbath that his forces participated in has been a major obstacle to the restoration of order in Iraq.

But soon we'll probably be seeing Muqtada t-shirts competing with the groovy "Che" ones.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 13, 2008 4:44 PM

First, I think we need to take a step back.

You seem confused about what "legitimacy" might be or why we care whether the Iraqi government has it. Fair enough. But the way this argument started is that you said that the reason Maliki deserved support against Sadr was that the Maliki represented the elected government of Iraq. I, and various others, deny that this is a valid reason. You're the one who ultimately thinks there is a something special about Maliki which derives from his election; if the notion of legitimacy that I and others are using is unclear, it's because we're trying to prove a negative, that Maliki possesses no such special property.

That's the frame for our discussion, of which I think you're losing sight. Thus, for example, assuming that you're not a royalist, I fail to see how you can say on the one hand that the American Revolution was nondemocratic, and on the other hand that Sadr's movement should be opposed because it is nondemocratic.

Now, to the remaining specifics...

Anyway, we are resolved: the Sadr movement is nondemocratic.

I certainly haven't conceded that, and I am really not sure why you think I have. I made a quite explicit distinction between a movement which has antidemocratic elements and one which is, as such, antidemocratic. If the two are taken to be equivalent, there has probably never in history been a democratic movement.

Call me crazy but guerrilla war against an elected government seems pretty nondemocratic to me. The fact that they say 'but this government isn't legitimate because the election wasn't [kosher/fair/whatever]' does not impress me as much as it does you (what guerrilla wouldn't say that?)

Well, what impresses me isn't the bare fact that they "say" the government isn't, in fact, a democratic representative of the will of the Iraqi people, but the fact that in saying so, they are correct - for reasons I've already given.

That's swell. What are their names, what policies are they proposing, and why aren't we talking about them?

We are talking about them, or I thought we were. They're part of the Sadrist movement.

But if you want more specificity, why don't we follow one of those links I put in earlier. One of Sadr's supporters is named Nassar al Rubaie, and he had this to say about a bill which he not only advocated but successfully passed through the Iraqi parliament: "This new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the U.N. mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the U.N. mandate without conditions... any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Of course, Maliki and the U.S. ignored this resolution, which is one of the reasons I don't accept Maliki's government as genuinely democratic.

All other things being equal of course I'd like the civil war to end but I don't merely want the civil war to 'end' for the sake of ending just because all wars are bad and they should end. As with all wars, I think it's important who emerges victorious (as do you!) and that there are times when this can trump the simple need to 'end the war'. In the case of a hypothetical involving an 'ended' war with Sadr somehow emerging in powerful, in my opinion that would be such a time. I see that your opinion is different and, so be it.

Epidemiological estimates put the number of people who have died due to the violence in Iraq since 2003 - both the war between the US and the resistance, and the civil war - at around a million. (That's the recent ORB poll, which is consistent with projections from the earlier Lancet studies.) The death rate is not at its peak, but it continues to be *extremely* high. It is impossible for me to imagine what, absent a civil war, Sadr in power could do which would be worse than the continuing violence.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 4:50 PM

[dropping 'legitimacy'] So you agree to stop using Maliki's election

Not really. 'Legitimacy' aside, Maliki's election still works as a good reason to support him as a pragmatic step in the hopes that democracy sticks in Iraq. He won the election, we (well some of us) want Iraq to have a future in which elections determine governments, therefore let's support him. Nothing wrong with that (especially since we've agreed to drop the concept of 'legitimacy' :-)

[I said if Sadr comes to power because we don't support Maliki then that brings Sadr's 'legitimacy' into it] To the extent that we feel an obligation to "do no harm" to the Iraqi people, we are obligated not to foist an illegitimate leader upon them.

Huh? This begs the question. Leaving aside that I thought we'd dropped the concept, here you implicitly equite 'illegitimate' with 'harm' but says who? You have made no argument for this. If we didn't 'foist' Maliki on Iraq and someone else emerged in power (Sadr?) who's to say that wouldn't do more 'harm' to the Iraqi people? Once again, this concept of 'legitimacy' seems to be used as a crutch, even by someone like yourself who claims not to care very much about it.

To the extent that we feel an obligation to "do no harm" ... We are not obligated to prevent one from occurring.

Why not, if we are in a position to do so? You seem to be operating here from a very specific, and not universally-agreed-upon, principle - that "doing no harm" is primary and "allowing harm" is lesser. But says who? Maybe that's your opinion but it need not be everyone's.

in which case, whether we support Maliki or Sadr must be based on the practical considerations of what each man could do for or againt us.

On this note Maliki wins, obviously. Or at least, Sadr loses.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 5:04 PM

Robert Powell - if I ever see a groovy Muqtada T-shirt available for purchase, I will buy it and wear it, just for you.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 5:12 PM

Kalkin -

You seem confused about what "legitimacy" might be or why we care whether the Iraqi government has it. Fair enough. But the way this argument started is that you said that the reason Maliki deserved support against Sadr was that the Maliki represented the elected government of Iraq. I, and various others, deny that this is a valid reason. You're the one who ultimately thinks there is a something special about Maliki which derives from his election; if the notion of legitimacy that I and others are using is unclear, it's because we're trying to prove a negative, that Maliki possesses no such special property.

Exactly.

Powell -

Sonic's too polite to say it, but it seems that the main reason Mooky has so much admiration and implied "legitimacy" with a lot of people posting here is simply that he's anti-American like them.

Nope. To the extent there is anything good about Sadr, it is that he doesn't want us interfering in Iraq. I don't want us interfering either. I am not anti-American, I am jsut against trying to occupy backwards foreign countries when I see no benefit to us in doing so.

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 5:16 PM

Kalkin,

But the way this argument started is that you said that the reason Maliki deserved support against Sadr was that the Maliki represented the elected government of Iraq.

Which he does, and which you can't dispute. So the way 'legitimacy' comes up is that people try to use it as part of a 'yes but' rejoinder, as in 'yes but he's not legitimate'. Maybe this is a good counterargument or maybe not; it would seem to depend crucially on what 'legitimate' means and why one should care. Hence the resulting thread; get it now?

if the notion of legitimacy that I and others are using is unclear, it's because we're trying to prove a negative, that Maliki possesses no such special property.

It's more like I cited a positive and you're trying to deflate that positive (that the election which brought him to power doesn't matter and can/should be ignored). As I observed early on, a key property of my opponents here is their eagerness & ability to ignore the Iraqi election.

Thus, for example, assuming that you're not a royalist, I fail to see how you can say on the one hand that the American Revolution was nondemocratic, and on the other hand that Sadr's movement should be opposed because it is nondemocratic.

Not sure where you see a contradiction. I don't think I'm a 'royalist' but for the record I do think it's likely that, had I been alive & living in a relevant location at the time of the American Revolution, I might - like a good 2/3 of people here, schoolchildren are typically told - have opposed or at least been ambivalent towards it. Admittedly I'm not really sure where this point goes though. Let's just put it this way: at least the American revolutionaries (leaving aside whether I'd have supported them :) were trying to institute something democratic, or at least, said/told themselves as much. With the Sadr movement there is no such pretense, let alone aim.

I certainly haven't conceded that, and I am really not sure why you think I have. I made a quite explicit distinction between a movement which has antidemocratic elements and one which is, as such, antidemocratic.

Granted. My mistake. Are you saying then that you find the Sadr movement to be democratic? Is there really a dispute here?

Well, what impresses me isn't the bare fact that they "say" the government isn't, in fact, a democratic representative of the will of the Iraqi people, but the fact that in saying so, they are correct - for reasons I've already given.

You just equated 'legitimacy' with 'a democratic representative of the will of the Iraqi people'. So that's what you mean by it, then?

(1) how did you determine the 'will of the Iraqi people' so as to find it lacking in the Maliki government? Particularly since elections (apparently) don't count and can be disregarded.

(2) how, by using this same metric as in (1), did you determine that Sadr possesses more of it (if indeed you have)?

Fascinating stuff here.

Of course, Maliki and the U.S. ignored this resolution, which is one of the reasons I don't accept Maliki's government as genuinely democratic.

Yes, I was aware of this issue. Okay, so are the Sadrists then focusing on working through the Iraqi government and courts so as to resolve this question?

It is impossible for me to imagine what, absent a civil war, Sadr in power could do which would be worse than the continuing violence.

Noted.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 5:30 PM

Huh? This begs the question. Leaving aside that I thought we'd dropped the concept, here you implicitly equite 'illegitimate' with 'harm' but says who? You have made no argument for this. If we didn't 'foist' Maliki on Iraq and someone else emerged in power (Sadr?) who's to say that wouldn't do more 'harm' to the Iraqi people? Once again, this concept of 'legitimacy' seems to be used as a crutch, even by someone like yourself who claims not to care very much about it.

I'll rephrase that:

To the extent that we are in Iraq for the sake of helping the Iraqis build a democracy or to get liberal government (what I called "do no harm"), we have an obligation not to actively try to force them to pick the leaders that we like. That is, we should not foist upon them an illegitimate ruler (which I define as someone whom, left to their own devices, they would not have picked but who gets picked because we manipulated the process).

Under such a scenario, we would have less of an obligation to prevent such a leader from rising than we do not to actively help such a leader.

Leaving aside that I thought we'd dropped the concept,

Yes, I am willing to drop the concept, but precisely because I don't think it is our responsibility to give the Iraqis a democratic government. My statements about our obligations not to force an illegitimate leader on the Iraqis were based on the concept that it is our moral responsibility (which is a major element of your argument, not of mine).

I am not necessarily against foisting an illegitimate ruler on Iraq if we need to do so to protect our interests (for example, if every other potential head of state other than Maliki had pledged to give money to Al Qaeda), but I would be honest about why I was doing it; to protect our interests, and screw the Iraqis' interest. (btw, I do not think that it is in our national interest to try to determine who rules/governs Iraq).

Not really. 'Legitimacy' aside, Maliki's election still works as a good reason to support him as a pragmatic step in the hopes that democracy sticks in Iraq. He won the election, we (well some of us) want Iraq to have a future in which elections determine governments, therefore let's support him. Nothing wrong with that (especially since we've agreed to drop the concept of 'legitimacy' :-)

Let's be clear. The election thing is a smokescreen. The real reason that the people want Maliki is that he would allow us to make Iraq a base of operations for future dominance of hte Middle East and the Sadrists would not.

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 5:35 PM

Glaivester,

To the extent that we are in Iraq for the sake of helping the Iraqis build a democracy or to get liberal government (what I called "do no harm"), we have an obligation not to actively try to force them to pick the leaders that we like.

Actually, leaving aside whether that's what we did, I still don't buy that. It's conceivable that one could make a determination that leader A would be more likely to build a democracy/liberal government than leader B and therefore try to force encourage that outcome. This could be perfectly consistent with the stated aim of trying to build a liberal democracy.

For example (I know everyone hates this analogy and actually I do too but it works here), after WW2 the Allies banned Nazis from government positions. "But what if the German people wanted to elect Nazis? This is inconsistent with building a democracy!", you might say. However, I think you'd be wrong to say that, as you are here.

Anyway just for the record I don't buy that we either "forced" Iraqis to elect the government resulting in Maliki or that we "forced" them not to elect a Sadrist government. For one thing, as many have pointed out, Sadr supporters won a significant bloc of seats. Encouraged? Used what influence we might have? Sure. "Forced"? no.

That is, we should not foist upon them an illegitimate ruler (which I define as someone whom, left to their own devices, they would not have picked but who gets picked because we manipulated the process).

As we've already established, there's no such thing as 'left to their own devices' in this case. Iraq is not hermetically sealed (and the U.S. is not the only external influence). Thus, if this metric makes the Maliki government 'illegitimate', the same holds for any other conceivable government. If that's the case I can't see why I should care about 'legitimacy' as such.

Under such a scenario, we would have less of an obligation to prevent such a leader from rising than we do not to actively help such a leader.

Why? Why is it automatically worse to 'foist' an 'illegitimate' leader X than to withold aid and thereby allow some other, perhaps even more 'illegitimate' leader Y to be 'foisted', perhaps by someone else? I just don't accept your premise that this is somehow a theorem holds true for all X and Y and you haven't made a convincing argument for its universality as some sort of moral principle.

precisely because I don't think it is our responsibility to give the Iraqis a democratic government.

I don't think it's nec. our 'responsibility' either. Just desirable. But yes, this seems to be where the disagreement lies. You're not that interested in seeing a democratic government emerge in Iraq. Meanwhile, others are.

btw, I do not think that it is in our national interest to try to determine who rules/governs Iraq

Do you think the national interest is 'flat' to whom governs Iraq, as in, no conceivable governing arrangement in Iraq could possibly affect us differently than any other? Because if so, that's another disagreement we then have.

Let's be clear. The election thing is a smokescreen.

In a way, all elections are smokescreens :) It's just that when it works, they can be pretty effective ones.

The real reason that the people want Maliki is that he would allow us to make Iraq a base of operations for future dominance of hte Middle East and the Sadrists would not.

Which 'the people' are these? I can't answer for them, whoever they are. I'm speaking only for myself here.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 5:49 PM

I don't think there is much point in debating with dishonest people who just want to take the oil (or rather the oil business contracts).

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 13, 2008 5:56 PM

Glaivester writes:

To the extent there is anything good about Sadr, it is that he doesn't want us interfering in Iraq. I don't want us interfering either.

Thank you! This type of consideration, indeed, is what I suspect to really be driving the anti-Maliki/pro-Sadr (or at least, fantasizing-about-Sadr) sentiment. And note that this doesn't have a thing to do with any hifalutin notions of 'legitimacy' or what our moral obligations are or anything of the sort, let alone what would be best for the Iraqi people. You just don't want there to be U.S. troops in Iraq, and Sadr seems like he'd be an effective vehicle for pushing that outcome. Full stop.

Refreshing when the air is cleared by this sort of candor.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 6:01 PM

Yes, Bengt, I prefer Maliki to Sadr because I want to 'take' 'oil business contracts'. You figured me out.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 6:04 PM

Yes, Sonic Charmer, I sure did. I note that you didn't deny it. Do you, in fact, want the US to be involved in Iraq due to oil business contracts?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 13, 2008 6:16 PM

Of course! I love 'taking' 'oil business contracts'! It's what I do. I keep them stacked under my pillow. I still don't know how you figured me out,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 6:23 PM

Evasion, twice in a row. Well, well.

Forcing the proposed Oil Law on Iraq by extortion (refusing to leave without it) would certainly be a form of 'taking'.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 13, 2008 6:30 PM

Kalkin,

I guess my specific questions about Sadr are the following. Feel free to answer, or not, but I don't know that I have time to read the book on Sadr.

1) What is his party's social and economic ideology?
2) What steps do they plan on taking regarding the Iraqi economy.
3) How do they plan to deal with the Sunni provinces of Iraq.
4) What are their plans to deal with the smaller minorities in Iraq- the Christians, Mandaeans, Turkmen, etc. Obviously these groups are too small to have militias of their own so they would be at the mercy of whoever is in power.
5) How strict Islamic law do they want to apply? Death penalty for conversions and that sort of thing, or something milder?

I should make it clear that I'm more actuated by a distaste for Maliki and company than any liking for Sadr. I don't think we have a positive obligation to bring Jeffersonian liberalism to Iraq, not least because I'm not a Jeffersonian liberal. But I do think we have a negative obligation to at least try keeping, for lack of a better word, "bloodthirsty Islamists" from power, if we can. So how bloodthirsty* is Sadr, really? Of course he's an Islamist, and no liberal democrat, but exactly how bad would things be for Sunnis, Christians, and others in Iraq if he were to get into power?

To use a historical analogy, is the Mahdi Army more analogous to the Viet Cong, or to the Khmer Rouge?

*When I say 'bloodthirsty' I'm not referring to the killings of soldiers, or government officials, or the occasional political opponent like Khoei- such things might be regrettable but they're pretty standard procedure for a guerrilla army. Is there reason to belive that there would be ethnic cleansing and other bloodbaths after Sadr won, above and beyond the usual reprisals that follow a civil war.

Posted by Hector | April 13, 2008 7:59 PM

Sonic Charmer,

It's not so much that I like Sadr (I don't know enough about him at this point to like him or hate him). It's not even, really, that I dislike the Iraqi collaborators although I do. My reaction to your arguments is more visceral and comes from the fact that I don't agree with your basic premise that elections are the sole or most important basis of legitimacy.

What qualifies someone for power and the right to rule ought to be (ideally) that they possess both correct beliefs about how society ought to be structured, and the personal virtues that are necessary to allow them to reach that goal (justice, self-sacrifice, purity of heart, charity, courage, etc.) Elections are no guarantee that someone possesses these virtues. It would be hard to make an argument on teleological grounds that anything could trump virtue as the qualifier for the right to rule. I believe that society ought to be ruled by good men, not popular ones. And I don't necessarily care how those good men rise to the top- through the church, the army, the labor unions, through a popular revolution, or through elections. Providence has many ways of trying to get good men into the places where she wants them.

To take the most extreme example, suppose a junta made up of St. Francis, St. Clare and St. Joan of Arc demanded the right to rule the United States. Knowing who they were, would you demand that they subject themselves to an election campaign against the mediocre likes of Bush and Gore before you would call them the legitimate rulers? You would be pretty silly if you did.

Posted by Hector | April 13, 2008 8:12 PM

As far as I can see Sadr is being demonized because he has a strong political platform (and could realistically take power), but he would be very unwilling to sign the Oil Law. Maliki seems more pliable.

As for legitimacy the Anbar awakening is about supporting lots of (armed) groups who definitely don't support Maliki. Fallujah is now ruled by a Sunni Baathist - definitely not by Maliki's 'government'. The demonization of Sadr seems to be targeted, for oil business purposes, rather than the stated reasons, which would be rather typically Bush.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 13, 2008 8:28 PM

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"?

When your Mom told you to clean your room, how impressed was she when you told her you couldn't do it because you'd made too much mess?

I say, keep our men busy. Aren't we paying them to DO something?

...Got another half million troops to spare?

You have a pretty low opinion of our army. You think we need a 10:1 ratio to take poorly-armed men? Wait, don't we already have more than 80,000 men THERE? Does Al'Sadr have armor or many vests or satellites? Modern support in the hands of competent generals like Petraeus make it take many gangsters to kill each soldier. And, like gangs, the militias have a way of melting away after a few good defeats.

How do we take ALL the militias? One or two at a time. There's little coordination between them because they're fundamentally rival groups.

Posted by Jon Kay | April 13, 2008 8:59 PM

As usual, Powell's last post was a fucking joke. Absolutely nothing in it was even remotely true.

Sadr is not considering disbanding the Mahdi Army, and neither is Maliki going to disarm ALL the TWENTY EIGHT militias in Iraq, including the 100,000 Peshmerga of the Kurds, let alone his supporters in Dawa or ISCI.

Not even close.

The real stupidity of all this is the notion that either Maliki or the US has the power to get rid of al-Sadr and his movement. He has supporters numbering somewhere from two to seven million of the Shia in Iraq. Any conclusive attempt to take him down would drive another hundred thousand Shia into his Mahdi Army - and while battling them, the Sunni insurgents - now numbering somewhere around 80,000 - would take down the Shia government.

This is precisely why the Sunni stopped fighting the US - they couldn't take down the US and the Shia (including both Sadrists and Badr) at the same time. So they made a deal to take out Al Qaeda in exchange for support from the US, to be used against the Shia government.

But if the Shia start fighting each other, the Sunnis would love it. That's why they temporarily have decided not to criticize Maliki so much - because he's aggravating the intra-Shia conflict.

Anybody who thinks the US is actually capable of resolving either of these groups militarily is a moron with no clue about how insurgency works or the limits of an occupation.

Simply put, if the US isn't ready to massacre a million Sunnis or five million Shia, get the fuck out of Iraq before one or the other - or both - kicks you out.

Discussing whether Sadr is going to be "good for Iraq" is totally irrelevant to the reality. Sadr is THE only person in Iraq who could even conceivably put together a Sunni-Shia coalition - even if that now is highly unlikely after the Baghdad sectarian cleansing. Maliki can't do it, and neither can the US. So if you don't like Sadr, tough shit - he's the only option you've got.

The ONLY possibility of avoiding massive civil war in Iraq is if the nationalists on the Sunni side and the Sadrists can win in their provinces, and then sweep the parliamentary elections next year and minimize Maliki and the ISCI and Dawa parties, and form some sort of (however fragile) coalition.

If that can't happen, sooner or later the Sadrists will fight the Badr in full scale civil war, and the Sunnis will fight both as well. And if the US supports any side, the other two sides will target the US. It will be considerably worse than the situation when the US was targeted only by the Sadrists (to some degree) and the Sunnis.

And on top of which, in the north of Iraq, there's a very high probability of civil war between the Sunni, the Turkmen, and the Kurds. And if the Turkmen get the worst of it, Turkey itself is likely to invade northern Iraq because Turkey will not permit an independent Kurdistan with access to Kirkuk oil. That's the reality.

There's zero possibility of the US winning this game. Iraq is broken and two out of three scenarios show it staying that way.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 13, 2008 9:05 PM

For example (I know everyone hates this analogy and actually I do too but it works here), after WW2 the Allies banned Nazis from government positions. "But what if the German people wanted to elect Nazis? This is inconsistent with building a democracy!", you might say. However, I think you'd be wrong to say that, as you are here.

But we weren't primarily concerned with building a democracy in occupied Germany. We were interested in pacification and in building a government that would kowtow to us. And we admitted it. To the extent we built democracy, it was largely merely a means to the end of serving our interests.

As we've already established, there's no such thing as 'left to their own devices' in this case. Iraq is not hermetically sealed (and the U.S. is not the only external influence). Thus, if this metric makes the Maliki government 'illegitimate', the same holds for any other conceivable government. If that's the case I can't see why I should care about 'legitimacy' as such.

Influence is one thing. Influence under occupation is another. If we were to admit that our goal is to elect the people we want, not to get the will of the Iraqi people passed, then I wouldn't mind so much.

Do you think the national interest is 'flat' to whom governs Iraq, as in, no conceivable governing arrangement in Iraq could possibly affect us differently than any other? Because if so, that's another disagreement we then have.

No, but I do not think that the differences between the people who are likely to emerge as the Iraqi leaders is great enough to justify the extra resources we would have to commit to influenceing the election and the potential blowback from continuing the occupation.

Which 'the people' are these? I can't answer for them, whoever they are. I'm speaking only for myself here.

The Bush administration, obviously.

This type of consideration, indeed, is what I suspect to really be driving the anti-Maliki/pro-Sadr (or at least, fantasizing-about-Sadr) sentiment. And note that this doesn't have a thing to do with any hifalutin notions of 'legitimacy' or what our moral obligations are or anything of the sort, let alone what would be best for the Iraqi people. You just don't want there to be U.S. troops in Iraq,

I'm not anti-Maliki or pro-Sadr. I just don't think that it is important enough to us which of them wins the current conflict that we need to take sides. If Maliki were to send a million men out to kill Sadr and to wipe out the Mahdi army, I would not advocate that we use U.S. forces to stop them.

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 9:11 PM

This will be my last set of replies on the thread. Sorry, all, this is an above-average debate, but I've got work to do, and I've already spent too much time here.

Are you saying then that you find the Sadr movement to be democratic?

I'm not saying that overall it is either democratic or anti-democratic. I'm saying that it has some goals I view as democratic, and some I don't. From this I draw 2 conclusions:
1) "Sadr is antidemocratic" is a bad reason for the US to engage in armed combat with his movement
2) I am willing to provide critical support to Sadr with respect to some of his goals, namely the democratic ones - getting the US out of Iraq, and moving Shia politics in Iraq towards nationalism and away from sectarianism

You just equated 'legitimacy' with 'a democratic representative of the will of the Iraqi people'. So that's what you mean by it, then?

What I mean by "the elections were illegitimate" is that "the elections provide no reason to back Maliki". An election that genuinely expresses the will of the electorate has real, if limited, value (thus US attempts to foment a coup against Hamas are inexcusable, regardless of its politics; thus although I think a number of US politicians ought to go in front of a war crimes tribunal, someone 'taking justice into their own hands' would be not just stupid but immoral). Maliki's position is not owed to such an election.

(1) how did you determine the 'will of the Iraqi people' so as to find it lacking in the Maliki government? Particularly since elections (apparently) don't count and can be disregarded.

It's not a question of my determining the will of the Iraqi people (though the BBC tells me that as of what I believe is their last poll "Sixty-one per cent of Iraqis say they have little or no confidence in the national government, and 66% disapprove of Nouri Maliki's handling of the job of prime minister"). It's a question of whether the will of the Iraqi people selected Maliki, and whether Maliki is accountable to the Iraqi people for his actions. Neither holds true; the US selected him, in back-room negotiations, and (partly because of this) he answers to the US, not the Iraqi populace or even the parliament.

(2) how, by using this same metric as in (1), did you determine that Sadr possesses more of it (if indeed you have)?

I haven't. To the extent I support Sadr, its for the reasons I explained above.

Okay, so are the Sadrists then focusing on working through the Iraqi government and courts so as to resolve this question?

Honestly, I don't follow the parliamentary maneuvering of the Sadrist bloc that closely. I imagine so - it fits their dual strategy, and particularly since for quite a while they've only been fighting when attacked - but I can't say for sure. Your point?

If your intention is to suggest Sadr *ought* to stick to working within the system, you are once again begging the question.

Noted.

I suppose you mean to suggest dryly that my imagination does not define the limits of the possible. Perhaps - but unless you care to actually suggest what might plausibly happen after a Sadrist takeover that would be worse than what we're seeing every day right now, it's all I have to go on.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 9:34 PM

Bengt - don't confuse the motivations of Bush & co. with the motivations of your average Internet war supporter. Most war supporters don't own oil companies - they are simply possessed of what some would call "false consciousness" ;). You're making yourself look silly.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 9:40 PM

Hector,

My reaction to your arguments is more visceral and comes from the fact that I don't agree with your basic premise that elections are the sole or most important basis of legitimacy.

What is, then? I get that Maliki fails your legitimacy test and that the election doesn't suffice to give him a passing legitimacy grade. What I don't know is what sort of objective criteria would make him, or anyone, 'legitimate' in your eyes. Indeed, since elections aren't the criteria for you, I don't really know what you mean by 'legitimate', and not knowing that, I can't even gauge whether it's an important or unimportant thing, or even a good or bad thing.

What qualifies someone for power and the right to rule ought to be (ideally) that they possess both correct beliefs about how society ought to be structured, and the personal virtues that are necessary to allow them to reach that goal (justice, self-sacrifice, purity of heart, charity, courage, etc.) Elections are no guarantee that someone possesses these virtues.

Heh. Well, few humans do, elected or not. So by this standard, almost no government is or ever has been 'legitimate'. Why such a high standard would count as a strike against the Iraqi government, and not all other governments, is unclear to me. Back under normal standards, this Iraqi government was elected in a reasonably (and surprisingly, in my book) orderly, free, and fair election - which certainly suffices to qualify it for what most people would call 'legitimacy'.

I believe that society ought to be ruled by good men, not popular ones. And I don't necessarily care how those good men rise to the top

In other words, you are not a liberal democrat. Very well, this explains our disagreement.

To take the most extreme example, suppose a junta made up of St. Francis, St. Clare and St. Joan of Arc demanded the right to rule the United States. Knowing who they were, would you demand that they subject themselves to an election campaign against the mediocre likes of Bush and Gore before you would call them the legitimate rulers?

No, I would point out that they (any one of them) would be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of this country (assuming this is what you mean by 'ruler') since none of these three people were born in the United States. Let alone could they 'rule' jointly somehow, an arrangement for which our Constitution does not provide. I would invite them to run for, say, legislative seats or governorships for which they might be able to obtain eligibility, if they so desired. And yes, I would insist that they go through whatever electoral process was in place in order to be seated in said position.

Meanwhile, the fact that these three people whom (I assume) you hold out as the pinnacle of virtue had decided to form a junta and demand to rule a nation of 300 million strangers living in their future, who had already set up a successful and long-lived republican democracy to choose/eliminate their 'rulers', would give me pause as to whether they really are who they say they are. Or if were sure they are who they are, it would make me question their virtue to begin with. (Would the real St. Francis 'demand to rule' anyone, and if he had been the type of person to do this, would he have become 'St. Francis' in the first place?)

You would be pretty silly if you did.

Ah well, call me silly then. I think it would be pretty silly to do otherwise. *shrug*

Ultimately we subscribe to different philosophies of governance. You are not a liberal democratic republican (which is how our nation is set up), you sound like you are more in the enlightenment mode of rule by 'philosopher-kings'. The liberal democratic republican is less concerned (as you are) with making sure leaders are 'good' than with the ability to restrain and if necessary remove those who are bad. In a way, the latter is a more pessimistic view of human nature, because it is based on the resignation that there will always be bad leaders and hoping to set up a system that ensures 'good' people always lead is a fool's errand. Anyway, it's really no surprise we have trouble finding common ground on the matter of future governance in Iraq - or anywhere else, really.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 9:54 PM

Kalkin wrote:
2) A far better analogy would be FARC,

I can live with that idea. It's true that al'Sadr has some minority popular support, and not ALL from gunpoint, either. Otherwise, I think your comments are either naive or antidemocratic.

Have you read any blogposts of or about Al'Sadr's VICTIMS? They're easy to find,

It would be inhumane to tolerate his rule - most people in his turf are there by GUNPOINT, not voluntarily, and treated terribly. Would you think the gummint should be inactive if the Mafia or a theocratic revolutionary group took over your house?

Well, Sadr's supporters were elected as the largest single bloc in the Iraqi parliament,

BZZT!! His supporters were just a part of the Shi'a coalition that WAS the biggest bloc and eventually elected Maliki PM.

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.

Well, there IS the detail of him being elected by the Continental Congress, which WAS chosen by voters, including George himself. UNLIKE the Contras. But who cares about voters?

You know, I can't seem to remember when it was that Washington ordered voters who opposed him killed, or when he ordered all the non-Anglicans massacred, nor the bit about his protection racket. So that's your idea of democracy, eh?

And you think it's as legitimate as somebody who actually holds his office by the will of decidedly more than the handful of al'Sadr voters not under the gun? That's the same theory of democracy as tyrants use.

Posted by Jon Kay | April 13, 2008 9:56 PM

Hector - remember, I'm no expert! I don't speak Arabic and I have never been to Iraq. I've just read a few books.

That said, feeling flattered, I'll give your excellent questions my best shot:

1) What is his party's social and economic ideology?
2) What steps do they plan on taking regarding the Iraqi economy.

Sadr opposes the US-imposed privatizations, favors social welfare programs, and runs some privately. He comes from a "third way" tradition - his famous grand-uncle Muhammad Baqir, the "first martyr" of his family, wrote a book called "Our Economics" which criticized both capitalism and socialism.

Sadrists have forcibly closed alcohol, music, and video stores, and harassed women who don't wear the veil - with an unclear degree of coordination from Sadr. One of Cockburn's female interviewees says ISCI/Badr is worse.

3) How do they plan to deal with the Sunni provinces of Iraq.

Sadr is theoretically a nonsectarian nationalist. Like most Sunnis, he favors a strong centralized government and Iraqi unity.

Sadrist practice, recently, has been much less laudable. Despite Sadr's denunciations, and despite serious moves towards a cross-sectarian anti-occupation unity in 2004, Sadrists in 2006 were involved in a mass scale sectarian ethnic cleansing, centered in Baghdad. This is undoubtedly partly because Sadr doesn't have full control over his movement, for whatever that's worth. But it's on a wide enough scale that one has to believe Sadr at least tacitly tolerates it to some degree. Perhaps he has to in order to maintain his leadership - the degree of rage among some of his followers after all the takfiri bombings must be immense, and Sadr is the only major national Shia leader to have even an element of nonsectarian nationalism in his movement.

4) What are their plans to deal with the smaller minorities in Iraq- the Christians, Mandaeans, Turkmen, etc. Obviously these groups are too small to have militias of their own so they would be at the mercy of whoever is in power.

This is something about which I know very little (although I believe the Turkmen are, in fact, sufficiently numerous to have their own militias). I've heard of Sadrists persecuting Gypsys, on a local scale, but none of these other groups.

How strict Islamic law do they want to apply? Death penalty for conversions and that sort of thing, or something milder?

See above. Nothing pleasant, but this is how Cockburn puts it:
"The Sadrists stood for the separation of men and women rather than the total subjection of women like the Taliban in Afghanistan."

To use a historical analogy, is the Mahdi Army more analogous to the Viet Cong, or to the Khmer Rouge?

Hmm. Neither, but probably closer to the Viet Cong (who have occasionally been over-romanticized by us on the left). A better analogy, as a representative of a majority sect in a larger country, might be Hezbollah - though the Sadrists are not nearly so organized, and the Iraqi civil war is already bloodier than I believe Lebanon's ever got.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 10:03 PM

Glaivester,

But we weren't primarily concerned with building a democracy in occupied Germany. We were interested in pacification and in building a government that would kowtow to us. And we admitted it. To the extent we built democracy, it was largely merely a means to the end of serving our interests.

I don't know exactly how you've gauged what 'we' were 'primarily concerned with' in Germany (is this spelled out in an encyclopedia somewhere?). I would think that 'we' were concerned with both (to greater or lesser extents depending on the person), and that the same is true of Iraq.

If we were to admit that our goal is to elect the people we want, not to get the will of the Iraqi people passed, then I wouldn't mind so much.

Why? Why would that make a difference, what 'we' 'admit'? Who has to 'admit' this thing, and how would they do it exactly? Under what circumstances?

Honestly, given the grievances you've made in this thread, I very much doubt that Bush (or someone) merely 'admitting' something on national TV (or whatever) would make you mind all that much less. This sounds more like a rhetorical maneuver than a true reflection of what you actually believe, or would believe.

... I do not think that the differences between the people who are likely to emerge as the Iraqi leaders is great enough to justify the extra resources we would have to commit to influenceing the election and the potential blowback from continuing the occupation.

Okay. Good answer. Anyway, I do, I guess. *shrug* But that's what it boils down to, you 'just don't think it's important enough' who rules Iraq to try to influence the outcome. It's a difference in priorities.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 10:07 PM

Jon Kay - this will be quick, because you don't seem like you have the patience for reading.

Have you read any blogposts of or about Al'Sadr's VICTIMS?

Yes, in fact.

It would be inhumane to tolerate his rule - most people in his turf are there by GUNPOINT, not voluntarily, and treated terribly.

Crap. He would never have survived repeated attempts to dislodge him by force were that the case, nor would he have obtained large electoral representation, nor is it what reporters like Cockburn, Nir Rosen, or the ICG have found.

BZZT!! His supporters were just a part of the Shi'a coalition that WAS the biggest bloc and eventually elected Maliki PM.

After 2005, they were the largest group within that Shia coalition. Look it up.

Well, there IS the detail of him being elected by the Continental Congress, which WAS chosen by voters, including George himself.

In fact, it was basically self-selected.

UNLIKE the Contras.

What does Nicaragua have to do with anything?

You know, I can't seem to remember when it was that Washington ordered voters who opposed him killed, or when he ordered all the non-Anglicans massacred, nor the bit about his protection racket.

Sadr has most certainly neither ordered "voters" who opposed him killed, nor the massacre of all non-Shia. I'd be willing to believe a protection racket, but you haven't shown me much reason to give you the benefit of the doubt so far.

That's the same theory of democracy as tyrants use.

... why did I write this reply again? You know what, why don't you take your moral high ground, wrap it in, oh, say, one wafer-bit of tinfoil for every Iraqi your war has killed above and beyond what Saddam and sanctions were already doing, and shove it where the sun don't shine. Though even if your head apparently fits, I doubt the resulting object would.

Posted by Kalkin | April 13, 2008 10:17 PM

Kalkin,

[Sadr movement] I'm not saying that overall it is either democratic or anti-democratic.

Ok. Meanwhile, I'm saying it is anti-democratic.

What I mean by "the elections were illegitimate" is that "the elections provide no reason to back Maliki". An election that genuinely expresses the will of the electorate has real, if limited, value

But how am I to independently determine whether this or that election 'genuinely expresses the will of the electorate'? Without consulting you, I mean? All we're left with is me pointing to a tangible thing (the election) and you declaring that it doesn't count. Doesn't pass muster for you. What more can I say then? You disregard the Iraqi election altogether, and that's why you have no preference between Maliki and Sadr. Perfectly understandable, but for those who don't blithely sweep aside the election, such a conclusion does not so readily follow.

It's not a question of my determining the will of the Iraqi people (though the BBC tells me that as of what I believe is their last poll "Sixty-one per cent of Iraqis say they have little or no confidence in the national government, and 66% disapprove of Nouri Maliki's handling of the job of prime minister").

Similar, if not worse, statistics hold for the government of George W. Bush, so I suppose he too is 'illegitimate'. Meanwhile, this is not the sort of criteria by which laypeople discuss a government's democratic legitimacy. Why is the standard so high in Iraq?

It's a question of whether the will of the Iraqi people selected Maliki,

This is an unanswerable question; what pray tell is the 'will of the Iraqi people' and how on earth do you measure it (if not elections, which you completely disregard)?

....and whether Maliki is accountable to the Iraqi people for his actions.

There is a valid point here; in my book the true test of a government is the 'second election'. Maliki is accountable to the Iraqi people in the sense that regular, periodic elections are provided for and he (his parliament bloc) standards for them. If something happens and he pulls a Musharraf, then obviously I would have to revise my estimation of his democratic legitimacy. But unless/until that happens I'm not sure on what basis you assert he's not accountable to the Iraqi people for his actions.

Meanwhile, after you've just gotten through telling me how important accountability is to you, would you tell me to whom is Mr. Sadr 'accountable'? Oh never mind.

[are the Sadrists pursuing legal means of redress..] I imagine so - it fits their dual strategy, and particularly since for quite a while they've only been fighting when attacked - but I can't say for sure. Your point?

My point is that the Sadrist movement is nondemocratic (remember, you had just cited a reason for doubting Maliki's democratic bonafides), and thus does not merit the symmetry with which you and others would have us treat it. You've bolstered my point with the 'dual strategy' explanation; true democrats don't pursue 'dual strategies' that involve participating in democracy but keeping a militant wing on the side. Movements that operate this way may be many things (including correct, worthy of support, etc. for all I know) but 'democratic' is not one of them.

If your intention is to suggest Sadr *ought* to stick to working within the system, you are once again begging the question.

I'm saying he ought to work within the system if he is to merit the description 'democratic'. Not sure how this is begging any question. More like, 'applying the definition'.

[how you can't imagine Sadr in power could be worse] I suppose you mean to suggest dryly that my imagination does not define the limits of the possible. Perhaps - but unless you care to actually suggest what might plausibly happen after a Sadrist takeover that would be worse than what we're seeing every day right now, it's all I have to go on.

Indeed it is. Best,

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 13, 2008 10:38 PM

Honestly, given the grievances you've made in this thread, I very much doubt that Bush (or someone) merely 'admitting' something on national TV (or whatever) would make you mind all that much less. This sounds more like a rhetorical maneuver than a true reflection of what you actually believe, or would believe.

What I mean to say is that while I would disagee with the policy, I would respect the people advocating it a lot more if they admitted that their primary reason for supporting Maliki had to do with how he fits their agenda rather than trying to suggest that he reflects the will of the Iraqi people. Although I would disagree with it, I would not be offended by an argument that supporting Maliki over Sadr is better for our interests rather than simply staying out of it in the way that I am offended by the idea that a heavily manipulated election held under occupation necessarily gives the person who takes power under the system legitimacy.

I don't know exactly how you've gauged what 'we' were 'primarily concerned with' in Germany (is this spelled out in an encyclopedia somewhere?). I would think that 'we' were concerned with both (to greater or lesser extents depending on the person), and that the same is true of Iraq.

I was under the understanding that the primary goal of post-World War II was to make certain that Japan and Germany were to be militarily neutered countreis that would not have the capacity to threaten their neighbors and that would be dependent enough on others for their security that they would have to "play nice." Some level of democracy was seen as a way to help insure this, but I cannot see it as anything other than a secondary objective or a means.

If we found that a republican/democratic form of government would only lead to more Hitlers and Tojos, do you think that we would have let these countries ever have such a government?

Posted by Glaivester | April 13, 2008 11:51 PM

Glaivester,

in the way that I am offended by the idea that a heavily manipulated election held under occupation necessarily gives the person who takes power under the system legitimacy.

I don't know if I concede your use of 'necessarily' here (when did I say 'necessarily'?), but anyway, why exactly are you 'offended' by this idea? Do you know?

I was under the understanding that the primary goal of post-World War II was to make certain that Japan and Germany were to be militarily neutered countreis that would not have the capacity to threaten their neighbors and that would be dependent enough on others for their security that they would have to "play nice." Some level of democracy was seen as a way to help insure this

Bingo. Both, like I said. And the goal in Iraq is not so different if you ask me.

but I cannot see it as anything other than a secondary objective or a means.

It's a second objective, and a means to the first. Anyway, primary, secondary, who cares? What exactly is the point here? If democracy is 'only' a 'secondary' objective, as opposed to a first, then... what follows? Can you jump to the end of the chapter and tell me where you were trying to go with this?

If we found that a republican/democratic form of government would only lead to more Hitlers and Tojos, do you think that we would have let these countries ever have such a government?

How on earth would or could we possibly 'find' such a thing, even in principle? I'm trying to envision some aging professor standing in front of a blackboard and giving a talk that begins, "Ladies and gentlemen, as we stand here in late 1945, allow me to demonstrate my mathematical proof that a democratic-republican form of government in Germany and/or Japan will, with probability 1, only lead to more Hitlers and/or Tojos resp. First, let X be the set of all Germans. ..."

But it breaks down from there. Where exactly do you go from there? Where could you go?

So I reject the possibility of ever "finding" such a thing, at least not in the a priori sense you mean. (We could always look back on a historical string of rulers and observe the Tojos, if that's what happens (it wasn't, obviously), but we can't exactly look forward and make such a declaration, as you implicitly envision here.) So you may as well be asking, "if we found that all Icelandians were secretly alien reptiles who excrete marshmallows, would we [something]"? It really doesn't matter what the [something] is, let alone whether I answer yes or no, if I find the premise of the question to be nonsense.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 14, 2008 12:26 AM

Charmer,

Well, the proof would seem to be that the United States has traditionally taken a dim view of elections in other countries that result in leaders that are inimical to our ideologies or interests.

How many times have we interefered with the outcome of elections in Latin American countries to keep a socialist out of power? In Chile, in Nicaragua, in the Dominican Republic, and lots of other places as well. It should be pretty clear by now that our support for democracy overseas has always been pretty much of a farce.

Do you, actually, think for a moment we would have tolerated the election of another Tojo in Japan? I don't think you do.

Posted by Hector | April 14, 2008 12:38 AM

Well, the proof would seem to be that the United States has traditionally taken a dim view of elections in other countries that result in leaders that are inimical to our ideologies or interests.

The proof of what? I don't know what thread you're continuing here.

How many times have we interefered with the outcome of elections in Latin American countries to keep a socialist out of power?

I don't know. How many? And this has what exactly to do with an argument that the Maliki government does not merit support against Sadr?

It should be pretty clear by now that our support for democracy overseas has always been pretty much of a farce.

And this is an argument for making it even more farcical and disregarding the Iraqi election altogether, saying Maliki and Sadr are indistinguishable?

Besides, what do you care if 'our' support for democracy is a farce? You are not particularly in favor of democracy in the first place. So it's a farce, and we're really just pursuing national interest against an enemy, who incidentally is quite a bad guy (as I recall you want to ensure only 'good' people govern; shouldn't you apply this standard to Sadr?).

So then, not caring about democracy in the first place, what's your problem with any of that?

Do you, actually, think for a moment we would have tolerated the election of another Tojo in Japan? I don't think you do.

No, I do not. Heck, I was the one who gave the example of us banning Nazis from public life in the first place.

This has nothing to do with the context in which Glaivester raised the issue of Tojo/Hitler to me, if that's the thread you've picked up here.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 14, 2008 12:55 AM

It's clear to me that many people here are not particularly diligent when it comes to separating facts from opinions.

--Anyone who tells you he knows exactly how many "supporters" Sadr can put in the field, and to what effect, should be dismissed immediately as a blowhard, liar, or both. Ditto those who describe how much "support" he has from the general Iraqi public. See below.

--Anyone who "just knows" the Iraq election was illegitimate in spite of the conclusion of the UN observers who were all over it, should accept that their remarks will be greeted with skepticism.

--The "ORB poll" is "consistent with the earlier Lancet study" because both are risible propaganda that's been throughly debunked by peer review of methodology (not least tiny samples and lack of supervision in the surveys). The recent and generally-accepted UN/Iraqi Ministry of Health study which uses huge samples and good methodology comes in at about 25% of the ORB study, and is consistent with most of the other studies that have been done. More credibility problems.

Some people are convinced that we can't do anything useful in Iraq, others that we do far more harm than good, and some even think that just because we don't like the fact that petroleum is the lifeblood of the world economy, we don't need to be concerned about the world's ability to trade in it with the people who produce it for that purpose relatively unmolested.

Fortunately, US foreign policy is made, and will continue to be made, by more serious-minded people.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 14, 2008 2:46 AM