Needlenose

Chalabi scheming
paying lip service to elections

pointless moralizing about alternativesThat’s the question Matthew Yglesias and David Adesnik each ask today, and one that I left unanswered in my Friday post on the rapidly shifting balance of power in Iraq.

As I suggested then, we don’t know — and probably can’t know — exactly what type of government the Grand Ayatollah foresees for Iraq. It’s even possible that he doesn’t know himself. Sistani, after all, is not a lifelong politician; he’s a religious scholar who has a history of avoiding political disputes. It’s just that his high clerical status has put him in a position where people are looking to him for guidance at an obviously key moment in Iraq’s history, so he’s issuing judgments to shape the broad direction of events.

Even if you don’t want to give Sistani the benefit of that innocent interpretation, it should be clear that part of his virtually unchallenged authority stems from his above-the-fray stance. Issuing detailed position papers and getting involved in minor partisan squabbling and horse-trading would only damage his reputation. So it’s to his advantage to keep his cards close to his vest, remaining silent whenever possible except for the occasional non-negotiable proclamation.

Whether it was consciously crafted or not, this strategy has worked wonderfully for Sistani so far, and given its success there’s no reason to think he won’t stick with it. The Shiite clerics have kept their message simple — when the U.S. invaded and promised democracy, they thought, “Okay, we’ll hold them to that promise.” That gave them a rhetorical hammer to use against the Americans, and when the pressure of the ongoing guerrilla war forced the U.S. to accelerate its transition plans, the Shiites gained an anvil as well in the form of the June 30, 2004 deadline for giving up sovereignty.

So now, whatever cajoling or negotiating ploys the U.S. tries to use, all Sistani has to do is hammer away. Any “compromise” we try to send his way can be rejected with a simple, “No, thank you. Elections, please. You did promise us democracy, right?” If this was coming from Bush, his cheerleaders in the press and on the Internet would be calling it “moral clarity.”

Similarly, there’s no incentive for Sistani to muddle this message with details about what might happen after the democratic elections he’s insisting on. The New York Times today suggests a moderate, tolerant philosophy will prevail, but leaves plenty of room for doubt:

However they are chosen, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish delegates will have to balance the conservatism of the Shiites with the relative liberalism of Sunnis and Kurds. Critical questions include the rights of women; whether senior clerics can overrule laws passed by an elected parliament; and how closely Iraqi law will follow the Koranic Sharia law.

“We totally allow women to go and work,” Sheik Ali al-Najafi, the son of and spokesman for Bashir al-Najafi, one of the grand ayatollahs, said in an interview last month. “But to work in jobs that respect their dignity.”

The Shiite ayatollahs say they want any constitution to be based closely on Islamic law, while still respecting individual and minority rights. What that means in practice is less clear, and may not be entirely to the liking of the United States.

Ayatollah Sistani has said [the] constitution should guarantee individual liberties as long as they are consistent “with the religious facts and the social values of the Iraqi people.” At the same time, he said elected leaders, not clerics, should have the final authority to make laws in a democratic Iraq. “The authority will be for the people who will get the majority of votes,” he said in response to questions last month.

Once again, Sistani has found a stance that works well from both an idealistic and a cynical standpoint — he doesn’t have to commit to specific policies now, since all those decisions will be made later by whoever gets elected. (An implied point here is that it’s none of the United States’ business, since the Americans will be out of the picture by then.)

Also, as I’ve said before, Sistani and his allies have the classic pre-election option of not acknowledging any extremist intentions that might interfere with the speedy transfer of power. So, between this coyness and their lack of any track record in running the government, it’s impossible to know what Sistani really wants. All we do know is that whatever it is, he’s almost certain to get it.

Joshua Marshall has made something of a cottage industry out of blaming Vice President Dick Cheney for almost every mistake the Orwell Bush administration makes (in other words, for nearly everything they do). He wrote an epic Washington Monthly article on the subject at the beginning of this year, repeated the theme in a recent weekly column for The Hill, and brought it up again on his personal site this week.

Not that I have a problem with his opinion — I’ve come to agree with it. But his doggedness in repeating it is a sign that it’s been slow to be adopted by the world in general.

Interestingly, though, a post by Atrios today somewhat accidentally reveals that someone was making much the same argument about Cheney’s mental ineptitude three years ago, before the 2000 election. In discussing a separate point, Atrios quotes an article from the tastefully named Suck.com by Chris Bray (under the pseudonym Ambrose Beers):

But that wasn’t the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being “as bad as it could possibly be… But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn’t die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney’s staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait.”

Shades of Cheney visiting CIA analysts at their desks to pressure them into exaggerating claims about Iraq’s nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction”! But I guess people were even less willing to buy this possibility back then. He acted like such an assertive, sure-handed figure, you know . . .

If nothing else, give the U.S. occupation of Iraq credit for determinedly optimistic PR:

TIKRIT, Iraq – In a tightly guarded ceremony, the governor of Saddam Hussein’s home province declared Saturday that the region was open for business, and thanked foreign businessmen who attended a gathering wearing flak jackets and helmets.

The visitors were invited to Salahuddin province by U.S. military and Iraqi officials under tight security to attend the opening of a newly refurbished building that will serve as a business center for potential investors.

. . . The new business center, which was repaired and furnished with $180,000 in U.S. aid, is located near a police station fortified with sandbags and concrete barriers to prevent suicide bombers from crashing through. Nearby, a building once used by Saddam’s army lies in ruins, its walls blasted by U.S. air strikes.

. . . Despite the obvious dangers, some of the visitors appeared to be bullish. “Now is a good time because there is not too many people entering the market,” said Andreas Mohair, general manager of a Kuwait-based transport and warehousing company.

Unfortunately, the local guerrillas didn’t seem willing to cooperate with the good news being announced, as they ambushed and killed 2 Japanese diplomats who hopefully weren’t on their way to the ceremony:

Takashima said that the car in which the two Japanese were traveling had been identified as a black, four-wheel-drive armored car, Lebanon registered.

“That identification resembles (a vehicle) of the Japanese embassy in Baghdad,” he said, adding that the embassy was collecting further information and that the bodies of the two Japanese were now in a hospital in Tikrit.

“Unfortunately, it is night right now and because the area of Tikrit is not safe, they cannot move at the moment. As soon as the sun rises this morning, the Japanese embassy will dispatch someone to Tikrit,” he added.

The message of progress took further damage south of Baghdad:

Attackers ambushed a team of Spanish intelligence officers on a highway south of Baghdad on Saturday, killing seven agents and wounding one, Spanish Defense Minister Federico Trillo said.

Television footage showed a small group of youths gathered after the attack, chanting slogans in support of Saddam Hussein and kicking the bodies.

. . . Footage shot by Sky News shortly after the attack showed a crowd of about a dozen men gathered around the bodies, chanting: “We sacrifice our souls and blood for you, oh Saddam.” One young man could be seen planting his foot on one of the bodies while another kicked it.

The cameraman who shot the footage, Adam Murch, said he could see two destroyed vehicles – one still burning – and four bodies on the road. He described the crowd as jubilant . . .

This is far from the kind of post I’d like to put up on a relaxing holiday weekend. But genuine good news seems hard to find.

Just to follow up on the previous post, when I say that the U.S. has backed itself into an unwinnable argument with Ayatollah Sistani, I should add that our futile position is the direct result of failing to build credibility with the Iraqi people in the immediate wake of conquering the country. The perception we established then of being in Iraq to serve our purposes instead of theirs lingers in the reaction to Bush’s visit yesterday, where it was a common refrain:

“He came for only two hours. He didn’t see how the Iraqis are living and suffering,” said Fatima Star, 38, a housewife. “He doesn’t care about the Iraqi people. He only cares about his troops.”

“He wants to gain political favor from people in the United States before the elections,” said Mathil Aziz, 26, a teacher. “He cares more about his own personal interest than the Iraqi people.”

. . . When he heard the news, Khatam Sadun, 35, was reminded of all his problems since U.S. troops occupied Baghdad. The former Iraqi army sergeant lost his job when the U.S.-led coalition disbanded Iraq’s army. Today he’s unemployed. He hasn’t had electricity in his home for two days.

“Bush’s visit to Iraq was a big illusion,” he said, sitting at an outdoor cafe with his wife. “No Iraqi should welcome him because there’s no improvement in our society. Whether he came or not, we’re still in a bad situation.”

“He came to encourage his army. Not us,” said Ali Mohammed, 40, who sells electronic goods.

A separate article from the Associated Press finds the same thing:

“He visited Iraq for the sake of the Americans, not the Iraqis. He didn’t come to see how we are doing,” Muzher Abd Hanush, 54, said in his barbershop. “To come, say hello and leave – what good does that do?”

. . . “If he takes care of Iraq, he will be welcomed here. If not – whether he’s here or in the White House – he is of no use to us,” said Fadel Hadi, 59, playing dominoes at a teahouse. “If his visit brings us some good, he will be welcome every day.”

Ahmed Kheiri, 24, saw the visit as a campaign tactic.

“He came for the sake of the elections,” Kheiri said. “He never thought of the Iraqi people. He doesn’t care about us. It was a personal visit for his own sake.”

Bush’s trip may feel good to his cheerleaders over here, but over there, it has just underlined the separation between what America cares about and what Iraqis care about. They’ve written us off.

Los Angeles Times
Cole on “Islamist Trojan horse”
NYT Wed. update — Sistani says plan misrepresented to him at first
How close is the resemblance? We don’t know yet.

When last we left the adventures of =http://www.sistani.org/html/engGrand Ayatollah Ali Sistani[/url] and his single-handed confounding of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, there was some conflicting spin about how strongly opposed he was to the new American plan to transfer power to a not-quite-democratic transitional government before having full elections.

This morning’s Washington Post contains a tidbit that bodes poorly for Dubya, Bremer, and their pals:

A senior Shiite politician who met Sistani on Wednesday evening said the grand ayatollah made clear that he wanted members of a provisional government to be chosen through direct elections, not caucuses. The politician said Sistani would issue a religious edict in the coming days that would articulate his views.

A “religious edict” means another fatwa — the last one of which undermined the previous U.S. game plan in a single stroke. And don’t forget, Sistani didn’t have to back down an inch once he issued the fatwa; he simply declared what he would accept, then waited for the Americans to cave in.

The New York Times adopts a different tone, citing U.S. officials as believing a compromise could be reached, but then again they were singing the same off-key tune a week ago, when they were telling reporters that Sistani would not object at all to the new transition plan. (Was it me who said two weeks ago that the U.S. would continue “to overestimate their ability to shape events”? Why, yes, I believe it was.)

As I suggested back when the Bushites announced their new plan, they’ve put the U.S. entirely on the wrong side of this situation from an Iraqi political standpoint. Not only does Sistani have the home-field advantage, he’s got the greater moral authority of arguing for pure democracy in contrast to the byzantine solutions the Americans are pushing. As a result, this is an argument that the U.S. cannot hope to win.

In fact, the only leverage the U.S. has left is the Sunni-led guerrilla resistance — specifically, the hope that the Shiite leaders still don’t want any part of that action, and would rather keep the Americans around to fight the insurgents. If that’s the case, the U.S. can hope to win some concessions on the transfer of power. But if Sistani isn’t afraid of a civil war, then the next fatwa he issues could essentially end the game for the Americans.

“Is it just jet lag, or has he fallen off the wagon again?” wonders a worried Jerry Bremer.

Bush left Baghdad after just a few hours, his typical practice for eluding capture, intelligence sources said.

From the “Dissociated Press,” also known as Counterpunch:

New Bush Tape Raises Fears of Attacks

A tape today surfaced in U.S. media outlets of someone purporting to be George W. Bush at a U.S. military base in Baghdad.

Intelligence analysts around the world are studying the videotapes. “It certainly looked and sounded like him, but we get so few glimpses at Bush in real-life situations that it is hard to tell,” said one operative from a Western intelligence agency.

. . . The tape shows the man claiming to be Bush praising U.S. attacks in Iraq. “We will stay until the job is done,” he threatened.

. . . While the quality of the tape was not poor, the alleged Bush did appear tired in portions of it, prompting speculation that he is on the run.

The man claiming to be Bush said: “We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.”

Analysts pointed out that given the ongoing nature of the Iraqi resistance since “the end of major combat operations,” that comment could have been recorded anytime in the past six months.

. . . Members of the Iraqi Governing Council . . . said they had met with a man identified as Bush and were delaying comment until Paul Bremer was available to tell them what their comments would be.

. . . Private Charles Sanders, who has been stationed in Iraq since the invasion said: “I was supposed to be back home by now. It was really getting depressing, but this is great. Sure, I don’t get to look into the eyes of my little girl, or hold my wife tenderly in my arms, but the president served me turkey!”

. . . When asked whether she was certain the president had gone to Iraq, Laura Bush said she hadn’t noticed her husband had left the Crawford ranch. “I assumed he was out clearing brush,” the First Lady said.

Apparently, the hamster that powers our hosting company’s servers gets Thanksgiving off.

 
I guess we have no monopoly on absurd action figures. But do the Hussein & Bin Laden figures come with the action phallus?

TPM on INC-Warrick squabble
Calpundit on NYT article, ChalabiIt seems that just about the time I posted this morning anticipating further countermoves by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani regarding the U.S. plan for transitional government in Iraq, a press conference in Baghdad was announcing the first such move:

The nation’s most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, made public today his opposition to a new American plan for indirect elections of an Iraqi government, dealing a possibly fatal blow to the United States initiative to turn power over more quickly to Iraqis.

Spokesmen for Mr. Sistani, who exercises strong influence over Iraq’s majority Shiites, said he was insisting that the election planned for next June must be a direct, popular ballot — not the indirect caucus election called for in the already-troubled American plan. He is also insisting that any new Iraqi government have a more overtly Islamic character, aides said today.

With what seems to be rapidly growing immodesty, I’ll note that this is exactly the kind of development I predicted two weeks ago, in analyzing the U.S. plan as incompatible with Sistani’s goals. However, I’ll also note that the Washington Post report on the press conference held by Abdul Aziz Hakim, a Shiite member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, does not have the same tone of absolute rejection.

Unfortunately, the difference seems to be that the New York Times reporters apparently spoke to anonymous “aides” who conveyed a harder line. Stay tuned, I suppose — this jockeying over the transitional government will, I think, be very relevant to how things eventually turn out in Iraq.