Iraqi Politics

They're having an election over there, too. And Dr. Irak and Ilan Goldenberg see things breaking down into two blocs -- a nationalist bloc of Sadrists and Sunnis who favor nationalism and a strong central state, and a competing bloc of Kurds, ISCI, and Dawa who favor decentralization and collaboration with the U.S. and Iran.

It's an interesting turn of events. Interesting, in particular, because it's kind of paradoxical for ISCI and Dawa, in particular, to be both so close to the United States and so close to Iran. And even more interesting because it seems odd for the in-power coalition to be in favor of decentralization while the out-of-power coalition is skeptical of it. And last it's interesting because in an abstract sense you'd think the Sunnis, as a minority, would generally line up with the Kurds and be in favor of decentralization. To some extent I think what you're seeing here is that the presence of a huge American occupying army as a political issue in Iraq is distorting the lens through which some parties see their interests.

But of course lurking behind all this is the question of what the United States wants to do. The Bush administration has consistently used its considerable ability to influence Iraqi politics in order to try to bring to power leaders it regards as friendly to the American troop presence. An Obama administration looking for a graceful way to exit would have different incentives.

Comments

I thought the Sunnis were opposed to de-centralization because the oil is mostly in Kurd- and Shia-occupied lands. Was I wrong?

Posted by DivGuy | June 10, 2008 2:27 PM

The oil plus the Saddam was a Sunni, so all the nationalist rhetoric/propaganda they were exposed to all their lives stuck better with Sunnis than it did with Kurds or Shiites

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 10, 2008 2:32 PM

Interesting, in particular, because it's kind of paradoxical for ISCI and Dawa, in particular, to be both so close to the United States and so close to Iran. And even more interesting because it seems odd for the in-power coalition to be in favor of decentralization while the out-of-power coalition is skeptical of it.

What DivGuy said in re the Sunnis. Plus are our interests and Iran's interests really that different in this region? At some level the former Iran/Contra-lovers of BushCO must think our interests are the same, otherwise why did they do Iran the favor of removing Saddam Hussein (also a favor to Al Qaeda who are now able to have a base in Iraq ... we do Al Qaeda's bidding, they don't attack us; see! the war in Iraq is connected to the war on terror!)?

Also, how are the Iraqis different than us then? Our current government is at least nominally in favor of decentralization ("states' rights") whilst the opposition wants "bigger [federal] government". We tend to treat the Iraqis as "exotic" even when they are just like us ... much to our detriment. Edward Said might have had a thing or two to say about that ...

Posted by DAS | June 10, 2008 2:46 PM

As DivGuy notes, it's amazing Matt can write this post without acknowledging (a) who has the oil and (b) who would stand to receive more oil money in a more centralized regime.

Posted by right | June 10, 2008 2:52 PM

"because in an abstract sense you'd think the Sunnis, as a minority, would generally line up with the Kurds and be in favor of decentralization."

Oil, oil, oil.

Nobody in Iraq produces much of anything, so the whole shootin' match is over who gets to cash the checks from the oil companies.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 10, 2008 3:28 PM

I agree with all of the above, but need to emphasize:

And last it's interesting because in an abstract sense you'd think the Sunnis, as a minority, would generally line up with the Kurds and be in favor of decentralization.

The Sunnis don't think they're a minority; they believe in a majority Sunni Iraq. That is, when they think of Iraq, they think of a whole bunch of Sunnis lording it over a few scattered Sunnis and Kurds, who are trying to make off with their oil. (Or maybe I should say, they see themselves as Iraqis and Iraqis are Sunnis who happen to be plagued with troublesome, annoying little minorities, which the Sunnis Iraqis have every right to surpress as threats to the nation.)

Hey, people still believe Saddam attacked the US.

They're never going to change their understanding until they fight it out with the Shi'as. (Who, in turn, see themselves as a repressed minority, and as a consequence, don't identify personally with Iraq, just like the Kurds, so they want out, even though they have the manpower to lord it over Iraq as the majority.)

The only solution is for Iraqis to fight it out and break up Iraq, at which point the light will dawn. ('Waitaminute... they outnumber us? How the fuck did that happen?!?') There's no way to do otherwise, because there is no way to convince that the whole thing isn't a plot to deprive them of their God-given rights.

All the elections, manipulations and other dancing around is basically irrelevant to the long term until they cop a clue as a group. And of course, that means the US is irrelevant to, excepts as somebody depriving them of their God-given rights.

max
['So: bloodshed.']

Posted by max | June 10, 2008 3:38 PM

"And even more interesting because it seems odd for the in-power coalition to be in favor of decentralization while the out-of-power coalition is skeptical of it."

You say this in the United States, home of "states rights" Republicans?

If I would generalize from these two cases it would be: the hegemonic coalition has things ok, and generally favors the status quo out of fear of what minorities would change. Believing they can't hold power forever, they rather the government be unable to take away the things they have, and thus favor weak decentralized government. Furthermore, some of the opposition's plans are are so popular that the only way to oppose them is with procedural roadblocks and principles.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 10, 2008 3:55 PM

Another point to bear in mind -- Dawa and ISCI are the exiles' parties. Especially ISCI, which was created in Iran. The two most powerful politicians in Iraq, al Maliki and Hakim, sat out the Saddam period in Syria and Iran. (Can you say carpetbagger?) The Sadrist claim to fame is that they didn't leave under Saddam. Dawa and ISCI may want the decentralized state for the same reason the U.S. does -- divide and conquer.

Posted by rj | June 10, 2008 4:41 PM

Shock Mouse, in the US "states rights" means "I hate black people."

It does not have anything to do with a principle.

Posted by dbt | June 10, 2008 5:09 PM

Iraq, as a make-believe state, is adjustable. The major parties feel pretty much as max says; what's left is to hash out a pragmatic working arrangement. There is a serious role for a central authority in terms of the distribution of oil revenues and major foreign policy issues, but it seems clear that most day-to-day concerns, including security, will devolve to fairly autonomous regional authorities.

No problem. We conclude an agreement that protects our, which is to say the industrial world's interests in exchange for being the Iraqi Airforce for the next few decades, and everybody's happy.

Posted by robert powell | June 10, 2008 6:06 PM

The Dawa Party has now split into two parties, one of which is aligning with the Sadrist and Sunni nationalists, apparently due to disgust with Maliki.

See Juan Cole's blog for details.

Almost certainly the nationalists are going to win big in the provincial elections, especially as they're actually going to compete, whereas they mostly stayed home from the last parliamentary elections.

They will also compete in the parliamentary elections next year.

Almost certainly the Maliki crowd will be driven out.

Iran won't care as long as some Shia still are in charge. Iran will deal with Sadr instead of ISCI or Dawa. And it's likely that both ISCI and either of the Dawa parties will deal with Sadr if it looks like that's their only option.

The only loser in this outcome is the US because the nationalists will demand an immediate (or no longer than one year) withdrawal.

And that ain't happening, even if Obama is elected.

So the next result will be a major ratcheting up of the insurgency as the whole country turns against the US - with Iranian support.

As I've said before, the US won't be in Iraq for more than another year or two - if that. If Bush attacks Iran this year, we'll be out of Iraq by this time next year. If McCain is elected and attacks Iran by this time next year, we'll be out of Iraq by December of next year.

If neither attacks Iran, we'll be out of Iraq either by December of next year or December of the following year - if not sooner.

So all these discussions over the US-Iraq SOF agreement, or "permanent" bases, or whatever, are all irrelevant.

The US ain't staying.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 10, 2008 7:50 PM