John McCain is again calling for more troops in Iraq, a full division in fact. I have to think his heart is in the right place, and his courage and commitment are certainly beyond question. And I've absolutely no position or expertise of my own to offer on whether he's right or wrong. But John McCain was at the bottom of his class at West Point, and John Abizaid was at the top of his. Furthermore, if, as some have claimed, the general staff think something other than what they're saying publicly and are being squelched by the administration there'd surely be some way for them to leak their true views. For now I'm willing to endorse what Abizaid and the rest of the general staff advise.
But regarding the other issue raised in another WaPo article on the state of the Iraqi state, I'm a good deal less sanguine.
The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future, especially selecting a committee to write a new constitution, the officials added. "We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as a legislative or governing body, and we need to get moving," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They just don't make decisions when they need to."Ambassador Robert Blackwill, the new National Security Council official overseeing Iraq's political transition, begins an unannounced trip this weekend to Iraq to meet with Iraqi politicians to drive home that point. He is also discussing U.S. options with L. Paul Bremer, civilian administrator of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, U.S. officials said.
The United States is even considering a French proposal, earlier rejected, to create an interim Iraqi leadership that would emulate the Afghanistan model, according to U.S. and French officials. During the debate before the new United Nations resolution on postwar Iraq was passed Oct. 17, France and other Security Council members had proposed holding a national conference -- like the Afghan loya jirga -- to select a provisional government that would have the rights of sovereignty.
If we're seriously considering a French proposal things must be looking pretty dire. But, I need to hear more arguments, and see more information. The difference between folks like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and these Iraqi intellectuals and theorists on the Governing Council, is that the former group started with a decisive action that put their own and their famililies' lives and futures on the line. And even with that irrevocable commitment the state itself took over twenty years to emerge in a final, workable, form. So should we be more patient?
If you look at the concerns that underly both of these articles what they amount to is a fear that there's now a "hurry up" attitude about things that might be compelling us take ill-advised actions. I think, in that sense at least, the insurgents have been rather successful. And since their whole strategy is driven by the US election schedule, I'd expect things to simply get worse rather than better. To the extent that our strategy is being driven by that cycle, we're playing directly into their hands.
I still kind of like the idea of an Iraqi referendum. It would not only put things on an Iraqi schedule, but would compel the Governing Council to put down their gavels and earn their legitimacy. As my brother-in-law likes to say: "No guts, no glory."
Posted by Demosophist at November 9, 2003 01:26 PM | TrackBackMcCain has the luxury of not having to worry about the rotation schedules, or else hasn't thought it through. From Abizaid's point of view, the exhaustion potential of a heavier rotation schedule probably looms a lot higher than from the elevation of a seat in the Senate.
McCain was a Navy man, he didn't attend West Point. According to his bio, he graduated from Annapolis. Looks like fifth from the bottom of his class, though, so you've got that right.
The issue I have with this "loya jirga" horseswallop is that it's the sort of third-rate flailing that screams "State Department". "Hey, it sort of worked for a fourth-world nowhere-to-go-but-up nation like Afghanistan, let's try it in Iraq. They're all wogs, aren't they?" Bah!
They have their money, they have a year. Now's the time to hold to the course.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt to start building that Peacemaking Corps. Rescind some tax cuts to fund it, y'know. Show some long-term seriousness.
Posted by: Mitch H. at November 10, 2003 05:55 PMOops, I forgot about the Navy connection. Should have remembered because of that huge carrier fire he was in. Still, he graduated at the bottom of his class (though not dead last, apparently). Class rank isn't always the best indicator of eventual competence, because Clark was at the top of his, but there is enough of a correlation between class rank and later competence that I take what McCain says in this area with a grain of salt. Come to think of it, class rank probably is the best early indicator of competence. He's wrong about compaign finance too, and that's an area where I do have some expertise. And, of course, he made some critical mistakes in his nominaton contest against Bush that didn't demonstrate and ability to strategize very well.
I'm afraid I have no idea what a "loya jirga horseswallop" means. Must be a technical term. Yeah, I have friends in the state department, and they generally don't know what they're talking about when it comes to this stuff. Impossible to discuss it with them, too.
I agree about the "Peacemaking Corps," which is a sort of "gender neutral" name for it. We're going to be doing this stuff for awhile so me might as well institutionalize the expertise rather that try to build from scratch every time. I suppose the reason he's dragging his feet is that it puts this whole debate out in the public domain in a way that might be uncomfortable running up to an election. But his speach put it out in the open, so the public who buy that argument would probably now just see it as follow-through. And he's never going to get the folks who don't buy the argument anyway.
Posted by: Scott (to Mitch) at November 11, 2003 10:24 AMThe "loya jirga" was the political shorthand they used to get Karzai a sovereign figleaf. It wasn't particularly democratic, but since "loya jirga" was a traditional Afghani concept (sort of like an early medieval parliament, best I can figure it), it provided some legitimacy, in a paternalistic, tribal sort of way. If you squint really, really hard, the Governing Council is similar in conception, but it's much smaller than a "loya jirga" would be, and it didn't go away after anointing our hypothetical figurehead/strongman. There's no Iraqi tradition of "loya jirga", so you can't use it to bootstrap legitimacy for the resulting government. The Iraqis are also likely to be greatly offended if we explicitly try to use an Afghani medieval formulation in the Mesopotamian cradle of civilization.
A constitutional convention doesn't have to be democratically composed - the American convention certainly wasn't - but it ought to be roughly representative. The important bit is the ratification structure, which needs to be local, and based on whatever federal arrangements the Iraqis want to rely on. It's a problem that the provinces are administrative, and not self-constituted. I still hope for a "United States of Mesopotamia", but I'm less sanguine than I was a few months ago.
Still, nevertheless, if the Governing Council isn't capable of calling a constitutional convention on deadline, I certainly hope that the Coalition has a backup plan. Like, for instance, calling its own, open convention. Somebody should be translating and publishing the Federalist Papers in one or more of the Iraqi papers. Right now.
Posted by: Mitch H. at November 11, 2003 04:04 PM