-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Marc Lynch
Monday, January 18, 2010 - 2:12 PM
Share
As the disqualification of some 500 leading Iraqi politicians on the grounds of alleged ties to the Baath Party is continuing to roil Iraqi politics, Arab papers today report that both U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill and Vice President Joseph Biden have been intervening with Iraqi officials in an attempt to find a way to walk back the disastrous decision -- perhaps by postponing the implementation of the committee's decisions until after the election. The commission in turn is complaining about foreign interference, while Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki broke his silence by calling to "not politicize" the process (a bit late for that, no?) and some Iraqi outlets are screaming about alleged American threats. There is still a chance that the appeals process could provide an exit strategy, but this doesn't seem hugely likely at this point; the final list of those disqualified is set to be released tomorrow.
Iraqi politicians, especially those associated with Mutlak's bloc such as Ayad Allawi and Tareq al-Hashemi, have been loudly complaining about alleged conflict of interest and abuse of power behind the moves. The indefatigable Norwegian researcher Reider Visser deserves credit for unearthing that Ali Faysal al-Lami, who spent about a year in a U.S.-run prison on charges of complicity with attacks by Shia militias and runs the Parliamentary committee responsible for the disqualifications, is actually standing for election on Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress list. Visser, like a number of Iraqi analysts, argue that they are using their official positions to stack the deck in their own favor: "It is they who effectively control the vetting process for the entire elections process. They enjoy full support in this from Iran; meanwhile their leaders are being feted in Washington, where Adil Abd al-Mahdi has just been visiting." The committee's defenders claim that it is simply enforcing the law. Finally, the editor of the Saudi al-Sharq al-Awsat complains that Iran's allies in Iraq are using their control of the mechanisms of Iraqi democracy to seize power for themselves on behalf of Iran -- and the similarity between the DeBaath "vetting" of candidates and Iran's Guardians Council's vettting of candidates has been noted.
This is a potential fiasco in the making, but shouldn't come as such a great shock even if it is unusually brazen. There's nothing new about the unresolved sectarian conflicts in Iraq, the ongoing failure to institutionalize Sunni integration into the Shia-dominated political system, the failure to implement political accommodation agreements, or the ways the institutional levers of the state were being used by "the powers that be" to maintain their dominance. The combination of improved security, the self-interest of a wide range of Iraqi groups and politicians, and the clear U.S. commitment to drawing down its military forces have generated some real positive progress but the unresolved institutional and political conflicts remain clearly evident. This current tempest increases the prospects that the March elections will not deliver the legitimacy or the resolution of deep underlying conflicts which so many people have counted upon --- which was the reason for my skepticism about pegging the U.S. drawdown to the elections in the first place.
It would be far better if Iraqis could reach agreement on issues like the election law and this current frenzy without intense American involvement. But since the U.S. did decide to peg its military drawdown to the election there's little choice now but for Biden and Hill and others to get as involved as they have been over the last few days to try to find a solution. But under no circumstances should this become an excuse to delay the military drawdown, which would simply remove the only incentive Iraqi politicians have to make political accommodations, infuriate Iraqi public opinion, and trap the U.S. there indefinitely. There's no contradiction between insisting on maintaining a clear and firm commitment to military drawdown and calling for close attention to Iraqi politics. Indeed, more attention to politics and less focus on the military dimension is exactly what has been called for all along -- and hopefully this crisis will be worked out and the right lessons learned on all sides.
The military surge reduced violence, but it did not succeed
When will Iraq hawks finally admit that the surge did not achieve its objective, which was political reconciliation.
BTW, "indefatigable Norwegian" is almost redundant.
Is it actually possible to withdraw all the troops we promised between the election and August?
Worse yet the Accountability and Justice Commission may not be over with banning as its been reporting that it wants to ban hundreds more. (See: http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/01/continuing-saga-of-candidate-banning-in.html)
What's sad is that no one is standing up to this chicanery as the Commission doesn't even have legal standing.
That it is really high time, the various Iraqi politicians should shift, from the mode of persecuting each other; conversely persecuting the Iraqi people, to the mode of affecting a real reconciliation between the Iraqi people.
It is becoming rather obvious to everyone, that the overwheliming pajority of those politicians, still fan the flames of sectarianism and discord just in order, to keep some chance alive to saty on the Iraqi political spectrum. Do they or have they ever represented any interest that serves the Iraqi people?. Absolutely not. They're ruthless and self-serving, while the Iraqi people are the cannonfodders of their cynicism.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Much though I admire the idea of reconciliation, Marc Lynch is well aware that this is not how political disputes are generally settled in that part of the world.
Typically, they are settled when one side wins and the other side loses. Because both sides are aware that losing will mean losing everything, squeamishness as to means is unusual.
I wonder if Amb. Hill is having success impressing on Maliki that allowing those Iraqi factions eager to have their country take orders from Iran's Republican Guard to exclude their adversaries from all power in Baghdad is likely to end up compromising his position. Given their record, it's not hard to imagine it doing much worse than that. Though Maliki is no dope, he may not be thinking that far ahead. However, this approach probably represents a better tack for the Americans than would complaints that bogus de-Baathification is hindering a "let-bygones-be-bygones" reconciliation. A settlement on that basis may seem natural to Americans, but it is unrealistic to expect of Arabs who have lived through Iraq's recent history.
Like any other people, Mr. Ms. Zathras.
The Arabs are like any other people, capable of differences as well as reconciliation. Iraqis are no different to other Arabs, as the modern history of the Arab world indicates, more often than not, Arab countries were pitted against each other and just as quickly, get reconciled with each other. Also, internally, many disputes which had started with civil wars and near civil wars, ended with one sort of reconciliation or another. The Iraqis have no choice but to affect a reconciliation between each other; that is if they want to have a single Iraq, otherwise, whether they get reconciled or not, remains academic.
khairi janbek.paris/france
The Iranian party among Iraq's Shiites appear to be in the process of exercising it now. The object is not to reconcile with their political opponents but to subjugate them.
In the abstract, of course, this is not the only choice open to them. The question for us is which choice it is most realistic to expect Iraqis to take. The observation that Arabs, and particularly Iraqi Arabs, are like any other people is an expression of sentiment, not a conclusion useful in this context.
The US does neither recognise the Commission nor its findings. Then of course it is in the interest of the USA, to pave a smooth path towards the Iraqi elections in March {I think}, and is undoubtedly in favour of easing the sectarian and religious tensions before the promised withdrawal from Iraq.
Therefore, I don't know the extent to which the Washington administration can be sentimental, but it better count on the ability of the Iraqi people to reach some can of reconciliation in the near future. I suppose like any other people in the world.
khairi janbek.paris/france
and compensate them for their pain and suffering. Hilarious.
It's true that some Iraqi officials are calling for heavy U.S. involvement, but wouldn't it be better for us to just let the Iraqis sort things out on their own? Sure, this whole "crisis" is ruining the election's legitimacy, but how does it look to the Iraqi street when VP Biden shows up and starts pushing for a solution that fits better with U.S. plans? Unlike what all the Western media is writing about, this is not a clear cut Sunni v. Shia issue. These are the kinds of complexities that cannot be solved by people who don't completely understand them and who don't have a vested interest in them.
Biden is, in fact, heading to Baghdad within the next day or so. :-/
There will be no peace in Iraq till Iran is downsized in Baghdad, and that cannot be accomplished without the help of experienced Iraqi 'Arab' technocrats/military officers, a majority falling in the Baathist category. Thus, this was simply a pre-emptive strike by Iran, which I see the US has quite successfully played to its own benefit, unless ofcourse they lose Ayad Allawi.
Now since KSA has begun providing support for the Izzet Al-Doori Baathists, I believe we should be looking at a serious change very soon.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE