Can't Tell the Players WITH a Scorecard Posted by David Shorr

Courtesy of Ilan, we have Tony Cordesman's reminder that the fighting in Iraq is not what it seems. The central-government-versus-renegade-militias narrative doesn't fit neatly. Excellent point. Cluing into the power struggle dynamics is indeed critical to understanding what's going on.

But here's another reminder. Isn't the fact that the Center v. Militias story line doesn't fit itself highly significant? I don't usually go in for simple binary good guy / bad guy breakdowns, but isn't this a situation where it should actually be appropriate? If a governing authority is legitimate, then the government should have a legal monopoly on force. And if Iraq's rulers are one more set of contestants for power rather than truly being at the helm of the state, can I ask what the hell we're doing there?

Comments

[Don Bacon]

"What the hell we're doing there" is just keeping the pot stirred and the dollars flowing using "woo-hah" fired-up US soldiers who are "protecting America's freedoms" by fighting, killing and dying on behalf of an Iran-allied Iraqi government which is threatened by renegade political foes just prior to provincial elections (October). "Democracy" comes at a cost, but there are no costs without benefits from just keeping the pot stirred and the dollars flowing, the protests from surrender monkeys notwithstanding.

[signSansSignified]

There you go again, asking logical questions. How unpatriotic. How cowardly. How downright treasonous. Real men don’t ask questions—they act. Just like to The Decider. And Mussolini, come to think of it. Never mind. Everyone rise to salute the flag.

[David Shorr]

And so we have my personal favorite theory of Bush foreign policy -- which we shall call the Suskind Theory, in honor of the author of The One Percent Doctrine. I always thought "we're history's actors" (from the same quote as 'reality-based community') had the most explanatory power of all. They're resolute, decisive, morally clear, and ready to do what needs to be done. Messy unintended consequences are distractions from the geostrategic, historic stage on which these statesmen (men with one exception) act -- such details are morally relativist 'nuances' with which pointy heads amuse themselves.

[seth edenbaum]

"If a governing authority is legitimate, then the government should have a legal monopoly on force."
So if the other guys are gonna clean up in the elections, you attack. That's what you call a monopoly on force.
Just brilliant.

[s.e]

"And if Iraq's rulers are one more set of contestants for power rather than truly being at the helm of the state, can I ask what the hell we're doing there?"
To have a new base of operations in the middle east.

We're not leaving.

[Jay C]

..."the fighting in Iraq is not what it seems. The central-government-versus-renegade-militias narrative doesn't fit neatly."

Of course not: except that that hasn't stopped the Administration, or its media enablers, or its cheerleading section in the blogosphere from doing exactly that. Framing the current strife in Iraq as a simple Good-v-Evil fight may be overly simplistic, and largely incorrect: but as long as the current criminalistical regime is in power (in Washington, that is) that's all we're going to get.

Yep, they're "history's actors" all right: it's just too bad that the show they're putting on is a bloodstained mix of tragedy and buffoonery. And they don't care in the least about bad reviews.

[Don Bacon]

“The United States, of course, will provide them help if they ask for it and if they need it,” Bush said.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49405

Peter Osborne: "Already at the Basra air base, I can reveal, the British subsidiary of U.S. construction giant KBR is building four huge dining facilities - known to the American army as DFACs. These are capable of feeding 4,000 men and suggest that the U.S. Army is contemplating a massive deployment to southern Iraq - including a major presence inside Basra itself."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=548593&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382

Basra anchors the south of Iraq and the US military main supply route from Kuwait. It also happens to be the Iraqi gateway to the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan, which was the scene of heavy fighting 25 years ago when Iraq invaded Iran (with US assistance).

[c.l. ball]

Let's be careful where we go with this, and let's get our Weber right: it is a "successful monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force" that makes a state, and it is precisely the failure of the Baghdad government to enforce that monopoly that allows for civil war. The legitimacy of a government, for Weber, is based on either tradition, charisma, or law. Iraq is still in the grip of charismatic authority -- "the elected war lord, the plebiscitarian ruler, the great demagogue, or the political party leader."

Of course Iraq is violent -- it is engaging in state-building. There was every reason to believe it would be violent (and this was why almost every political scientist and sociologist believed that post-invasion Iraq would be a disaster in the making even if the initial victory was swift).

This was why US unilateralists opposed 1990s peace-keeping: state-building and nation-building are cruel and messy.

• "[Bosnia's] rulers [were] one more set of contestants for power rather than truly being at the helm of the state";
• "[Haiti's] rulers are one more set of contestants for power rather than truly being at the helm of the state";
• "[Somalia'] rulers are one more set of contestants for power rather than truly being at the helm of the state".

Let's not through babies out with the bathwater.

[Don Bacon]

Max Weber's thesis that physical force makes a state, just like Mao's "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun," has been thoroughly disproven by nationalists all over the world and is currently being re-disproven by Muqtadr Sadr's followers in Iraq. People power, not physical force, is the essence of a democracy, and democracy is the purported US goal in Iraq.

The US has frequently allied with anti-democratic forces in its own perceived national interest and is doing so again in Iraq, even if it means defending a puppet "government" aligned with its arch-enemy Iran. Sadr has the allegiance of the people against the Iranian-allied Islamic prelates and the merchant class, that's what this present conflict is about.

Obviously "reconciliation" was not a viable option for retaining a US presence in Iraq, so it has been discarded for conflict instead. Reconciliation in Iraq was a principal goal of the surge. Why has its demise not been decried by the victory-in-Iraq crowd? My answer: Their definition of victory is the continued US subjugation of a divided Iraqi people, and reconciliation was never really an option. So much for democracy.

[David Shorr]

I don't think that's their definition of victory. Their real preference would have been to be victorious in 2003 and long since out of there by now. Their definition of victory is to avoid domestic and international political embarassment -- in other words, avoiding defeat or any appearance thereof. All they've been doing is doubling down, and down, and down on their original bet of a big tough demonstration effect of American strength and righteousness.