It took eight months from the last Iraqi national election before the Iraqi parliament could form a government. Most of that time, the various parties refused to speak to one another, even as the country backslid into violence. In a culture where the power/challenge dialectic runs from bedroom to boardroom, from playground to parliament, the Iranian-backed party of Nouri al-Maliki was daggers drawn with a chiefly Sunni nationalist party led by the secular Shi’ite and former interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi.
As incumbents, al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party had the most to lose from Allawi’s al-Iraqiya, which garnered more seats than did Dawa, but too few to form a government. This tension left Massoud Barzani, president of Iraqi Kurdistan, in the position of kingmaker – something to which both Arab parties took eight months to accustom themselves. From the WaPo’s David Ignatius:
The American role here was a strange mix of action and inaction: Wary of slipping back into occupying Iraq, the U.S. never declared its own candidate for prime minister — which basically opened the way for Maliki. That had the weird consequence of putting Washington and Tehran on the same side.
The saving grace in the U.S. strategy was our “rope-a-dope” approach of delaying approval of Maliki unless he agreed to take into his government his main rival, former prime minister Ayad Allawi, whose party actually got more votes in last March’s election. The Iranians flailed away for months, hoping to pummel Allawi into submission, but thanks to U.S. support (backed by our most solid ally in Iraq, Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani) the Iranians had to settle for a coalition that included Allawi.
It was telling that the final meeting Wednesday in Maliki’s office to sign off on the deal had four players: Maliki, Allawi, Barzani and U.S. Ambassador Jim Jeffries.
The deal nearly fell apart yesterday, with the Iraqiya party staging a walkout after lodging complaints of bad faith:
The moment of high drama came when members of the Iraqiya bloc – which, by a slim margin, won more seats in Iraq’s 325-member parliament than any other bloc – walked out of the session to protest what they called duplicitous tactics by political rivals and broken promises to roll back a controversial law that they feel unfairly targeted their members.
“They have to know that they cannot run the parliament the way they want,” said Falah al-Naqib, a legislator from Iraqiya. He called the walkout a strong and important message of Iraqiya’s power. “There is no trust. The political process is very fragile. You can see that there are major differences. They should at least respect their promises.”
Whether such a government in such a culture can long endure is very much open to question. A question that the Iraqi people themselves will have to answer, and which answer they will have to live with, or die by. It’s hard to be optimistic, frankly.
But this is a land of least worst, a fact perfectly reflected in the parliamentary result.
It is also a land where you cannot buy loyalty -it can only be rented.
Not just like two Scorpions in a bottle, but THREE (at least) Not a pretty picture. I’m afraid the entire ME basically runs on the “There can be only one!” theory..
Though that “one” cannot be the “Jooos..” Virgil. One must always remember that caveat when speaking of the ME.
Flipping ME, wish we could have left it as part of the British Empire (sorry, forgot that the BE is history now). Amazing how much power that Island had until 1918 or so. Been downhill ever since for the Brits, and the tussle that ended in ’45 probably finished any realistic hope for recovery.
Of course, now that we have given the Palestinian’s another $150 Million that we don’t have, and that will go to corrupt pols, all should be better. Right?
If democracy fails in Iraq, how can it possibly work in Afghanistan with a mosaic of ethnic and religious groups unused to a central government where no group has a majority. Pashtuns,Tajiks, Uzbeks,Turkmen, Kyrgyz to name a few.
Until they believe there’s a reason to subordinate their local interests for the common good the outcome is in doubt.
If it fails,,,,It’s over in the region for a long, long, time. Fiscal trouble and all.
I just finished a course on the history of Iraq, and was amazed to learn the more recent history. The last 100 years or so have been a constant battle between forces, with short periods of stability among the long protracted periods of open conflict. Even under the iron fist of Hussein, the Kurds tried several times to revolt and use military force against a superior army.
My point is that the last year’s violence is a historic low in terms of the usual amount of armed conflict. The parliament may not have been getting much done, but the very fact that they have been hurling insults at each other rather than Molotov cocktails is a significant improvement in the long view of Iraqi history.
And you also have to keep in mind that it took our own country over a decade to sort out how the government would work-after we kicked the British out.
2 major elections with (relatively) little bloodshed and no Coup d’ etat? That could be construed as a positive sign, eh? I’m a pretty nuts & bolts guy so this stuff could be way over my head but what percentage of countries have gone through what Iraq has this decade and still be somewhat united in a somewhat democratic process? There is hope, no?
There is hope…….until the US departs, which it will at some point in the furture. Our presence is the only thing keeping the factions from throwing those Molotov cocktails at each other.
I fear that once we leave, it will only be a matter of months before one of the strongmen decides he’s got a chance to take over Sadam’s position and starts the civil war.
Fear you are right Zip. Given the history of the ME, I have little hope things will be any different when we leave. I look for them to be firmly in Iran’s orbit soon after we leave. Same with AFG.
Why do we have to leave? 65 years later and we’re still firmly embedded in Germany like a tick. Given the relative importance of the ME compared to Europe we’d be better off leaving the latter and negotiating long-term basing with the Iraqis.
The way things are shaping up economically, we won’t have two nickles to rub together and we’ll have to bring our people home.
The advantage of basing in Europe is logistical. We draw from the local economy a lot. Such is not possible in Iraq, nor is it likely in the future. Germany, England and Italy have the same basic type of people we are and they aren’t hardship posts. The ME will always be.
I think you’re being a little hasty in your assessment of the ME. Sure, Germany today isn’t a hardship detail, and the local economy can provide support for our troops, but what was it like in 1946?
We agree that Muslim culture needs to change, but I think the best way to do that is to demonstrate to as many Muslims as possible the success that comes from a democratic, pluralistic society. If we simply wash our hand of them they’ll continue to orbit around varying flavors of fanaticism until someone gathers enough resources to strike at us again. We can no more hide behind our ocean ramparts than Constantine XI could hide behind his stone ones.
In addition to QM’s thoughts, the Germans stopped trying to kill us.
We will always be the unwelcome Infidel in the Muslim Lands -Islam being the religion of peace and all.
Some links to good articles on the ME at Totten’s site
http://bit.ly/9MP1Gg.
Greetings:
As Fouad Ajami has pointed out, these are the lands of “I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; my cousin, my brother and I against the stranger”. Nothing is permanent; the sands are always shifting.
I read elsewhere that our President Obama tried to strong arm Iraq’s Kurdish President out of the deal. And the Kurds are the ones who seem to like us the most, if at all.
While our President was doing his G20 thing in Seoul, I just kept telling myself that it took South Korea more than 30 years to get really squared away democracy-wise. Iraq, most assuredly and in spite of all its oil resources, will be an even longer row to hoe.
Europe and Northeast Asia were able to get squared away because of their religious antecedents allowed it to happen. While there is some factionalism, it is no where near as bad as the ME where cousin marriage is the rule to keep power within the local clan and tribe. It has taken some kind of strongman to be able to keep the place in line.
The foundation of cousin marriage goes back millennia. We see it Genesis when Abraham sends one of his servants back to Babylonia for a bride for Isaac. Without a complete change in the culture, you won’t see anything like stability in the ME. Allegiances to clan and tribe are far too strong to allow solid, stable nation states.