Tag: Iraq
Beyond DADT and New START
As New START heads for ratification and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell gets signed, I am feeling the need to explain why I’ve devoted so little time to both, even though my Twitter feed talks about little else.
In my way of thinking, both New START and DADT are peripheral to the main war and peace issues of our time. Even though New START was bought with a giant increase in funding for modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons, far more than even proponents of modernization envisaged at the beginning of the process, it can be argued that without the treaty efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime through measures like a cut-off in production of fissile material would be harder. It can also be argued that eliminating DADT will grow the pool of competent people interested in entering the U.S. military and eliminate a hypocritical restriction unworthy of a country dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal.
But these are indirect arguments, secondary effects that do not deal directly with the main war and peace issues of our day. People are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia–if peacebuilding efforts are not handled well more will die. Iran poses a serious challenge to American goals in the Middle East, with consequences for friends and allies as well as ourselves. The United States faces difficult choices: are we right to devote so many troops and so much money to Iraq and Afghanistan, or should we be paying more attention to Yemen and Somalia, or Iran? Will our beefed up diplomatic efforts in Sudan avoid catastrophe there after the January 9 referendum on independence for the South? There are real trade-offs among the conflict issues of our day, with life and death consequences for real people.
Let me be clear: I support repeal of DADT as well as ratification of New START. These are good things that respectively improve America’s record of consistency with its own ideals and increase the prospects for controlling proliferation of nuclear weapons. But they are mainly about us: our foolish discrimination against people who want to serve the nation, our nuclear weapons and their modernization.
The Administration should not rest on these laurels, important and deserved as they are. There is a dangerous world beyond DADT and New START that needs American attention.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Maliki’s men’s club
As Reidar Visser says, Iraqiyya (Iyad Allawi’s coalition) did better than expected in today’s division of the second Maliki government ministries, but of course he bemoans the size and all too obvious divvying up of the ministries according to political affiliation rather than competence. I am less concerned about that, because governments in a democratic system had better reflect political weight and also because some manifestly competent people are entering the government: Salih Mutlaq (deputy prime minister), Rafi Eisawi (finance), Muhammed Allawi (communications) are the ones I know best.
The fact that the sectarian-based ISCI (the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq) and Moqtada al Sadr’s people did relatively poorly might also bode well, if not for the possibility that they will be compensated with positions in the all-important national security structure, where no permanent ministers were named today. It would be best to withhold final judgment until the ministers of defense, interior, the state secretary for national security and others are announced. The picture may then look different.
The lack of women in the cabinet Reidar suggests is not something to worry about, as there will be many in parliament who will eventually rise to more important roles commensurate with their contributions. I’m surprised a Norwegian can still say such things.
Let’s be clear: there are many competent women in Iraq, certainly more competent than some of the hacks appointed and approved today (no, I’m not going to name names). The lack of women in the cabinet is a reflection of their marginalization in Iraqi politics, which is largely a late-night men’s club. Breaking the glass ceiling is no less important in Iraq than in the U.S. or Norway: it would make a real difference to more than half the population, which suffers the many indignities of all too frequent sexual violence, widowhood and poverty. Maliki would do well to name one or more women to the national security ministries, thus ensuring himself a place in the annals of Iraqi history (and a lot of votes in the next election).
The Kurds held on to the Foreign Ministry today, with Hoshyar Zebari continuing in a national role he has played well. Tariq al Hashemi and Adel Abdul Mehdi got nothing and will presumably try to hold on to their “vice presidencies,” which have lost any semblance of power under the constitution, as has the presidency. Allawi is presumably slated for the chairmanship of the still to be created National Council for Security Policy, or whatever they will call it.
Overall, it seems to me that this government is leaning in the direction of marginally more competence, less sectarianism and more Iraqi nationalism, with some obvious individual exceptions. Not a bad reflection of the spirit of the election results, despite the lack of women and minorities. Hats off to Maliki, if he continues in the same overall direction in naming people to the remaining empty slots, and adds some women and minorities to boot.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The scruffily bearded guy is back on stage
The scruffily bearded guy is on stage again and appears to be getting ready to sing, so the opera buffa, “Iraqiya Sconfitta” is entering its final act. Like the rest of the plot, this act promises to be a bit ragged, with only some of the ministers named and others held over in caretaker roles, a procedure that sounds like a novelty to me. Why, however, the New York Times claims
For the first time in Iraq’s recent history the proposed government represents all main ethnic and sectarian factions, with participation from parties supported by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds
is a mystery: the author must have slept through the last seven years of admittedly difficult to follow acts, since all those groups have been represented in the various incarnations of Iraqi governments since 2003.
So it looks like a big, if not exactly a grand, coalition, with power-sharing at the heart of it despite Reidar Visser’s well-articulated objections. Alas, poor Reidar, Iraq is more infected with sectarian and ethnic sentiment than you would like, but it is nevertheless good to see the prospect of a new government forming, now that some of Iraqiya’s principal spear carriers have been liberated from the dark prison of de-Ba’athification.
I know, and appreciate, two of the three (Salih al Mutlaq and Zafir al Ani)–neither strikes me as a threat to the democratic regime in Iraq, even if their rather virulent public anti-Americanism is tempered only by whispered entreaties for the United States to fix Iraq before leaving. If Salih becomes Foreign Minister, as is rumored, we are guaranteed a more interesting and amusing time at international events than is common these days. I remember asking him a year ago whether he could envisage joining a Maliki government, because a member of his coterie had told me “absolutely not!” Salih said nothing but raised an eyebrow in a signal of possibility that was worthy of Groucho Marx.
As I have noted previously, the Ashura holy day passed relatively quietly, which is certainly a good omen. If Maliki can get his new government delivered to parliament by Christmas, that would be even better. When it comes to current wars, Iraq is looking like something much closer to success than Afghanistan, even if it is difficult to keep any significant number of American troops in Iraq past 2011. Americans will certainly be glad to welcome them home.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The good news from Iraq
I am not sure which is the better indicator: the arrest of extremists in advance of the (mostly) Shia holy day of Ashura and the relative quiet yesterday and today, or the Economist’s report that traffic accidents are up and the authorities are again issuing drivers’ licenses in Baghdad.
These non-events signal that things are improving in Iraq and that the Iraqi security forces are beginning to be capable of protecting the citizenry. Another good indicator: complaints about corruption are on the rise (but see this critique of Transparency International’s rating of Iraq before reaching conclusions about how it ranks overall). Corruption is not something you worry about when mass murder is occurring.
Of course the week was not entirely peaceful, and tomorrow there could be another horrific event. But give credit where it is due–my hat is off to Prime Minister Maliki, Interior Minister Bolani and the others responsible for security, as well as to ordinary Iraqis for their long suffering and fortitude. Ashura has been a particularly bad moment for violence in Iraq since 2004. To pass the week without the kind of multiple, politically significant attacks that Al Qaeda likes to direct against Shia worshippers is good news in my book.
Iyad Allawi has agreed to join the governing coalition if there is genuine power-sharing. Now if Prime Minister Maliki can name a government and get it approved in parliament by Christmas eve, when his 30 days runs out, that would be the icing on the cake.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Iraq’s security, now and future, in the balance
Asharq Alawsat reminds us that the important Ashura holy day, which for Shia Muslims commemorates the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali at the battle of Karbala in 680, occurs this week (starting Wednesday evening through Thursday afternoon). The holiday is often marked by security problems in Iraq as pilgrims converge on Karbala (in the millions) and on Shia sites throughout the country. Jerry Bremer interrupted a meeting with my colleagues and me during Ashura in March 2004 when one of the first suicide bombings in Baghdad produced a loud detonation audible in his office.
This year for the first time Iraqis will be unequivocally in charge of security arrangements throughout the country during Ashura. If the Iraqis are able to control the situation effectively, it will mark an important step forward. If they fail, it will irritate inter-sectarian relations and complicate the government formation process, which is struggling to make its Christmas eve deadline.
In the meanwhile, the Americans seem to be dropping their studied indifference and have begun, according to David Ignatius, pressing the Iraqis (Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen was in Baghdad yesterday) to sign up to a longer-term strategic relationship with the United States, one that would presumably allow U.S. troops in some number to remain past the current end 2011 deadline to help train and support the Iraqi security forces. This, too, could complicate the government formation process, since the Sadrists–a vital part of Maliki’s proposed coalition–have vigorously opposed the U.S. military presence and will have a hard time approving an agreement to have it remain.
The Sadrists changed their minds on supporting Maliki, but that decision was precipitated by a change of heart in Tehran. It is hard to see how Tehran is going to want the Americans to remain in Iraq, but it is possible that the Sadrists will bend for the sake of gaining a strong position in the new government. And the Sadrists I’ve talked with want the Americans to fix Iraq, by adequately arming security forces not unfriendly to them, before they head for the exits.
Ironically, if Ashura passes relatively peacefully, the Iraqis may see less need for a continued American presence. If however pilgrims are attacked as in the past, they may see more need for the foreigners.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Democracy in the balance? Iraq’s next government
Please see Event writeups or the Washington Institute website http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3280
RSS - Posts
