Leaving Iraq
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Pointing out that Iraq is at present not very democratic, that Freedom House presently ranks it as unfree or that Transparency International ranked Iraq as the fourth most corrupt country in the world – these things could easily be turned on their head as a reason to stay in the country for an even longer stretch until we’ve brought it up to our standard. ~Greg Scoblete
Ideally, we would all agree on settling for an extremely watered-down definition of success, use this as a pretext for leaving the country fairly quickly, and write off the entire thing as a disaster that should never be repeated. Ideally, we would ignore the resulting cacophony of voices braying about the “betrayal” of the Iraqis and the “abandonment” of people who do not want us in their country. As Greg likes to remind us, however, we do not live in an ideal world, and a few people are already making the argument for keeping sizeable numbers of soldiers in Iraq beyond the negotiated SOFA withdrawal date next year.
Ricks makes a more straightforward argument for stability, which necessitates a prolonged U.S. presence, and Beinart holds out the prospect of remaining longer to keep Iraqi democracy from imploding. One could say that these are very realistic, sober-minded assessments of the situation. They do not partake of any of the triumphalist silliness we have been seeing recently. Unfortunately, they are effectively aiding the triumphalists who treat Iraq’s democracy as the sole rationale for a U.S. presence in Iraq. For his part, Greg thinks that Ricks’ argument will prevail. It will prevail “not because it’s terribly persuasive on the merits, but because it operates within the conventional wisdom about how the U.S. should interface in the Middle East.”
Perversely, the loudest voices declaring victory make it that much harder politically for the administration to abide by the agreement already reached with Iraq’s government. If there is nothing else to show for all of the cost of the war, Iraq’s democracy, such as it is, becomes that much more important as a symbol, and it becomes that much harder to leave to its own fate. If it deeply corrupt, fractious, dysfunctional and shot through with sectarian abuses of power, it will not be worth saving, but it will become all the more politically imperative that we try to keep it from fully collapsing into the sectarian majoritarian tyranny that it is already becoming or the military authoritarian state that it may yet become.
Therefore, all of us who want the U.S. out of Iraq need to emphasize that the Iraqi government is not just “democracy with Iraqi characteristics,” but that it is an abusive, illiberal, corrupt government that is not going to be substantially improved with time. Given the state’s gigantic role in the Iraqi economy and its role as the chief employer, Iraq’s politics will be dominated by divvying up public sector jobs to members of the ruling coalition parties and excluding the members of opposition parties. That will make the incentive for vote-rigging and fraud even greater, and the use of party militias for political violence cannot be far behind. Iraq’s enormous dependence on energy for what revenues it does have will have much the same effect that the “resource curse” has on other developing nations, which will be to enrich the state, crowd out private enterprise and investment and reinforce the public’s dependence on government largesse. This dependence will already be considerable on account of mass unemployment. Whether or not Iraqis go through the process of choosing the people who will preside over all this, the structural political and economic problems Iraq has are not going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
Remaining longer will simply reinforce the dysfunctional habits that are already practiced in Iraqi politics. Departing on schedule might hasten the end of Iraq’s democratic government and usher in a new authoritarian government, but for all of the reasons we have discussed this would not be much of a change and it would not be much a loss. The most frustrating part of all this is that this was equally true five years ago, which was when we should have withdrawn when conditions were far more favorable.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Newark, NJ: Washington DC and Trenton NJ over the course of 50 or so years have implemented every solution the bureaucratic imagination could contrive to take this city off life support. Though a few public and philanthropic success stories give the appearance of progress, the prospect of a sustaining social and economic infrastructure for this city is well beyond the horizon. Between 1970 and 2006 2 mayors reigned; one was indicted for corruption related charges and acquitted, the other similarly indicted, is in jail. Newark, NJ, USA. Corruption, not tolerated, demanded.
Iraq. How long?
Its a compelling argument, but I still think Iraq is appreciably better off now than under Saddam. The existence of an authoritarian government that used a large army to massacre Kurds and Shiites en masse and impose a debilitating terror on everyone is not comparable to the absence of such things or to the speculation of such things to come.
Iraq has seen the election of competing parties, it has seen parties grow and die off. The Army has not been used as a tool of massacre. “Natural resource curse” has not occurred because the competition between political forces has kept oil companies from investing; that competition could lead to a compromise solution just as likely as it leads to a single abusive winner. The rapidly evolving political environment means that an “abusive, illiberal, corrupt” government is not established. An uneasy truce, or stasis is a also good bet. Our country lived its first 70 years under a tense, uneasy truce, with a senator nearly murdered in chamber, Federal soldiers killing whiskey makers, and atrocities in the territories.
Your scenario, and my scenario, are both plausible, and neither is the same thing as the actual existence of a murdering thugocracy.
You don’t need the argument that Iraq is in the same place now (or might be in the future) as under Saddam to be right that the U.S. should not have invaded and, second, should not keep occupying.
Mr. Larison’s article describes exactly the problems we are facing in Iraq. As Mr. Larison is a follower of The Economist he is no doubt aware of their latest issue March 6-12 in which there are two articles on Iraq regarding the country’s future prospects.
Iraq’s leaders, according to The Economist article, “…trust no one, perpetuating a system not just Machiavellian but outright Hobbesisan. Assassination is still the mostl likely cause of death in Iraqi politics.”
On one hand, we cannot totally withdraw from a country that could easily tilt right back into a Saddam Hussein-like dictatorship but we cannot afford to allow Iran a bigger footprint than they already have.
One big problem underscored in both Economist articles is corruption on a massive scale. Unemployment is officially at 45-50% but in some parts it is 80%. Three in five jobs are held by those working for the government.
The Kurdish north which to my knowledge has around 60,000 well-armed militias, the Peshmerga, are demanding more control over the northern oil fields at Kirkuk. Sectarian dissent stll runs deep and could well boil over once again, especially with an overbearing Shiite regime that is reverting to more forceful measures to control Sunnis whose representation in the al-Maliki government is slowly being purged.
This is a Pandora’s Box that still has untold demons flying out of it. Iraq’s fragile democracy may even dissolve completely once the greedy and corrupt government decides that sharing the oil wealth for the good of the country is not a priority. They have as an example the crumbling middle class in the United States where giant corporations have an even greater grip on our country’s wealth than at any time in history. “See?” say Iraq’s oil barons, “this is how it works.”
Add to this the fact that as the result of the invasion and the resulting massacres, 10-15% of the population has fled, no doubt disproportionately the most educated and entrepreneurial.
The Freedom House rating is six in both categories – the same as Iran. I find some dark humor there, as many rave about Iraqi freedom even as they rant about Iranian oppression.