Is He Joining Us?

Or are we just getting annexed to Mr. Badger, willy-nilly?

Iraqi positions on the Democrats' "withdrawal" initiative An Al-Hayat reporter prepared a round-up of comments by people from some of the main political groups in Iraq, on the Democrats' passage of the bill that would tie war-funding to the announcement of a schedule for withdrawal. (This assumes "withdrawal" means what it says. Critiquing that is another question entirely).[A] What this comes down to is that spokesmen for the Maliki administration, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the main Kurdish coalition in parliament, all think the bill is a bad idea, and mostly for the same reason, namely, that US "withdrawal" should be tied to the ability of the Iraqi forces to take over all security responsibilities, and should not be scheduled independently of that. In various ways, these groups all warn about chaos if that factor is ignored. On the other side of the question is the Sadrist spokesman: "Nasr al-Saadi, deputy for the Sadrist block, said: 'The occupation forces are the root cause of all of the security and political problems from which the country is suffering. ...The American administration controls the decisions of the Iraqi government, and consequently the latter lacks autonomy and desicion-making power. Once the occupation withdraws from the country, the government will be able to extend its control over the Iraqi scene. . . . Some have the impression that the American administration is incapable of shutting down the sources of terrorism and rooting it out, and what this leads to is the attrition of all the economic, material and human resources of the country. We support that [withdrawal-timetable] bill completely, and its implementation at the earliest possible time.'" And the journalist notes the Sadrists aren't the only group supporting the withdrawal idea. The issue of American withdrawal from Iraq is a core demand of the main armed resistance groups, which have made [withdrawal] a condition to their entering into any negotiations with the American forces that would involve disarming and entering in to the political process. So those are the two poles of the argument: Maliki-SCIRI-Kurds against withdrawal because the Iraqi forces aren't ready, with the Sadrists and the main resistance groups in favor of withdrawal which they see, from their different perspectives, as a precondition for normalization. The remarks of a representative of the main Sunni parliamentary bloc and also Allawi's Iraqi List, are ambiguous, and talk around the question of withdrawal. Here is the Iraqi Accord Front person: "Deputy Hussein al-Faluji from the Iraqi Accord Front said "we support any measure from any party that promotes national reconciliation....What we're interested in is the stability of the country and the solution of problems, starting with security. ...This latest bill shows that the Americans have admitted that the occupation of Iraq was a big mistake. ...We will be preparing demands on the US for compensation for all who suffered damage in the occupation, [and this will involve] over three trillion dollars in damages...[B] The Allawi person, for his part, stressed that you have to understand this latest bill as part of a political struggle in Washington in which the paramount interest of each of the parties is to make the other look bad.[C] As I noted above, the assumption in this collection of reactions is that the bill really does refer to a "withdrawal" plain and simple. Once the Iraqi parties study the fine print and realize that what the Democrats are intent on defeating is the Republicans, not the Iraq-control project, the configuration among Iraqi parties could be different.[D] For instance, if it became clear that the Americans could in effect garrison Iraq and protect some some of status quo via mega-bases over or under the horizon, or whatever the expression is, or with special forces, or what have you, then it stands to reason that the status quo parties could well support it.[E] But that is another question. The point about today's piece is that the opponents of even talking about withdrawal at this point are the Maliki administration backed by SCIRI and the Kurds, with the "yes to withdrawal" position represented by the Sadrists and important parts of the Sunni resistance. posted by badger at 7:10 AM

Alliances, alliances, Mr. Bones! And to hear Mr. Badger talking less unreasonably for once!!

Let's review the bidding, sir: in Massachusetts, where we have the honour to be citizens, we are Democrats in America. Had we the misfortune to be neo-subjects of the extremist GOP in the former "Iraq," we should be some sort of fellow travelers, at least, with the Sadr Tendency. It is nice, but not at all dispositive, to find that M. Nasr Sa‘dí -- plus Mr. Badger to boot! -- seem to find that combination plausible.

So far, so good, but then comes "the 'yes to [genuine] withdrawal' position represented by the Sadrists and important parts of the Sunni resistance." It is not as if we have any antecedent objection to the political stance taken by "important parts of the Sunni resistance," Mr. Bones, but when Mr. Badger lumps us in with them unilaterally and preëmptively, well, I dunno, sir. At the same time, he seems to be trying to disenlump us from Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi on the home front, and that's a tricky business that not to be cheaply cartoonized as well. We are, of course, only fellow-traveling donkeys the same as most other registered donkeys are. Like Will Rogers, we don't really hold with organized politics, we're only Democrats.

Out there in one Crawford-conquered boondock of the world, the Sadr Tendency appears to hold promise, political disorganizationwise: nowadays you rarely get fifty words past the first mention of it in the invasion-language MSM than you run into "rogue elements" of it that the "firebrand cleric" does not seem to quite altogether control. Appearances have been known to deceive at times, though, Mr. Bones, and I fear this present is likely to prove one such time. Anyway, it is rather the theoretical policy than the practical fragmentation of the Sadriyya that we vicariously endorse -- if we wanted fragmentation as such, we should look rather Sunniwards.

So, then, what's the Sadrist policy? "Once the occupation withdraws from the country, the government will be able to extend its control over the Iraqi scene," says quasideputy al-Sa‘dí. There is a touch of Dr. Pangloss in that estimate, perhaps, but it does hit the right nail on the head. All the champions of responsible nonwithdrawal take for granted that poor M. al-Málikí's really existing quasigovernment wouldn't last a week if the Crawfordites ever just simply marched back home where they belong. All conventional wisdom thinks that, even, not just the aggression hawks, but Ivory Tower planmonger doves as well. Most of Ms. Sapientia Conventionalis's devotees don't have anything very serious against the existing quasigovernment, or wouldn't if they could disentangle themselves from the delusion that it is all about sponsoring Twelver death squads. The number of folks who would ever actually lift a finger, or throw a bomb, to get rid of poor M. al-Málikí is really rather small, Mr. Bones, if we exclude the extremist Republicans themselves. Unfortunately for Mr. Badger's volunteer match-making efforts, however, most of the quasigovernment's real enemies might easily be described as "important parts of the Sunni resistance."

Even more unfortunately for poor M. al-Málikí, however, scarcely anybody is prepared to lift fingers (or throw bombs) in defense of him, rabid Crawfordites once again excepted. Nevertheless, his position is much stronger than Ms. Sappy appreciates, because his bitter enemies are so feeble that his lack of strong and loyal friends becomes comparatively unimportant. And poor M. al-Málikí has, or may come to have, many wishy-washy slightly helpful -- maybe -- quasifriends in all sorts of places, at Qom and Tehran, at a future de-Crawfordated Washington, at Tel Aviv, at Brussels, at Turtle Bay. The "international community" is never going to actually lift a finger for him, but winking and nodding count for something too, do they not, Mr. Bones, at least at the margin and on occasion?

Meanwhile, here is Quasideputy al-Sa‘dí with much more immediate succour: 'The occupation forces are the root cause of all of the security and political problems from which the country is suffering. ...The American administration controls the decisions of the Iraqi government, and consequently the latter lacks autonomy and decision-making power. Once the occupation withdraws from the country, the government will be able to extend its control over the Iraqi scene. . . . Some have the impression that the American administration is incapable of shutting down the sources of terrorism and rooting it out, and what this leads to is the attrition of all the economic, material and human resources of the country. We support that [withdrawal-timetable] bill completely, and its implementation at the earliest possible time."

That is to say, the quasigovernment need not just slit its throat out of sheer self-disgust about its own quasi-ness, only because it was installed under the yoke of Crawford, it may yet hope to evolve into a genuine and legitimate State, rather than being instantly cast into the dustbin as soon as Iraq becomes a nation once again. This ought to be good news for poor M. al-Málikí, and it is certainly a handsome gesture from the Sadr Tendency, immediately after the sacking of their ministers.

So perhaps there is hope for us all, Mr. Bones?

_____
[A] And who cares that the Boy-'n'-Party crew will veto and sustain, respectively, so it won't happen anyway, tra-la-la?

[B] Another Dream Palace™ courtier is M. Husayn al-Fallújí. Down at the ranch, I doubt that neo-subjects who send in three trillion dollar bills will be considered very ambiguous. What's H. F. going to do, hold the GOP extremists hostage in "Iraq" until they pay his ransom?

[C] Does "the Allawi person" mean, rather disrespectfully, the former George Washington of Peaceful Freedumbia himself personally, or only some spokesman for the rootless cosmopolitan community? Not that it matters.

[D] Isn't that what Dr. ‘Alláwí, or his mouthpiece, just said? Naturally the sectarians of secularism are likely to understand Crawfordology, and mainstream USA politics also, far better their less expensively educated fellow indigs. They cannot be in favour of anything but a responsible nonwithdrawal, I shouldn't think, although that is perhaps only a matter of preferring the frying pan to the fire. The militant Republican invaders could have installed them in power four years ago, but somehow the Bushies unaccountably failed to do that, and the original mistake is not likely to be corrected at this late date.

Their shouldabeen patrons have let the rootless cosmopolitan gang down badly, yet to whom can the latter turn now that would not be even worse than the idiot GOP? Perchance to poor M. al-Málikí, who has indeed make noises about replacing the Sadr Tendency ministers with "technocrats" -- that being another codeword for the RC faction? Ah, well, poor M. al-Málikí is good at making noises, but when it comes to making changes, perhaps one may say without giving offense that he takes festina lente as his watchword? In any case, the president of the council of quasiministers answers to Crawford TX first and foremost, and the cowpokers have already decided against efficaciously empowering "secularism" in their neo-liberated colony. At the moment the paleface patrons are all agog to provide Affirmative Action for those pitiably unfortunate and oppressed Sunni Arabs of neo-Iraq -- and then after a sufficient dose of that, "national reconciliation" will spontaneously break out, &c. &c. don't you know? Why hand out plums and cherries to "Allawi persons" who are nationally reconciled already, and in any case have no viable alternative to hoping that "Iraq" remains a GOP neo-colony indefinitely. (No collective and political alternative, that is. As individuals, they can always fly back to London.)

[E] Not support it simpliciter, however, but only secundum quid and when they are quite sure none of those pesky street Arabs can overhear matters can be frankly discussed in Arab Palace circles alone. The idea of some future "Iraq" that thinks about having lots of Crawfordite troops based even in out-of-sight places the same way the Bundesrepublik Deutschland thought about hosting Uncle Sam's military after 1949 is ridiculous. That tomfoolery is only the Dream Palace™ of the Weekly Standard neo-cons, so to speak.