Maliki Speaks Truth (and Truthiness) to Power
July 28th, 2006 | by Jersey McJones |An old friend returns to BIO this week, to lay it out like only he can. We’re delighted to yield the stage to the inimitable Jersey McJones.
The Maliki address to the Congress went off on Wednesday despite some calls for Speaker Hastert to withdraw the invitation after the Iraqi Prime Minister was quoted as saying of the current Lebanon crisis, “The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure… I condemn these aggressions… We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.” There was a private apology from a spokesman, though, which was apparently good enough, and so Rahm Emanuel, the consummate New Democrat, who’s like Bill Clinton with a chastity belt, failed to score hawk-points with his efforts to expose hypocrisy in the GOP leadership. In reality, there’s no hypocrisy here. After all, Illinois Republican Henry Hyde summed up the Maliki comments as, “the statement of an amateur politician… What he said I think was not carefully thought out, though it was a window, I suppose, to how some of these Arab leaders feel.” Sound familiar?
There was the expected and usual suppliant fealty to the American hegemon in Maliki’s address; “we are building the new Iraq on the foundation of democracy,… our belief in the rights of every individual,… so that future Iraqi generations can live in peace, prosperity and hope. Iraqis have tasted freedom, and we will defend it absolutely… I believe these human rights are not an artifact construct reserved for the few; they are the divine entitlement for all. And it is on this unwavering belief that we are determined to build our nation, a land whose people are free, whose air is liberty, and where the rule of law is supreme.” Replace “Iraq” and “Iraqis” with “America” and “Americans” and this could well have been part of a Bush State of the Union address. Nothing to see here, folks.
Then there was the expected and usual fear-mongering and ”truthiness,” as a certain Mr. Colbert would say, we all have come to know and love; “Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq… The war on terror is a real war against those who wish to burn out the flame of freedom…,” capped off by, “The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.” It’s all or nothing, baby! And, of course, “Thousands of lives were tragically lost in September 11th, where — when these imposters of Islam reared their ugly head. Thousands more continue to die in Iraq today at the hands of the same terrorists who show complete disregard for human life.” The “same” terrorists? Again, sound familiar?
And yes, for more truthiness, Maliki said to applause, “The other impediment to Iraq’s stability are the armed militias. I have on many occasions stated my determination to disband all militias, without exception,” except, of course, for the Mahdi Army, according to that bastion of Liberal Elitism, the National Review. Maqtada Al-Sadr isn’t going anywhere but up in Maliki’s Iraq, an unfortunate side effect of Maliki’s, “Democracy over dictatorship. Federalism over a centralist state,” as he said in the address. But are Federalism and Democracy, at least as we think of those concepts, realistic in post-war (if there ever is a “post”-war) Iraq? Perhaps, but lessons need be learned.
There were three very pointed and earnest pieces of advice, or shall we say warnings, Prime Minister Maliki offered the Congress on Wednesday. The first was that Iraq should “reestablish a state monopoly on arms, and to guarantee citizens security so that they do not need others to provide it.” The second was that “Much of the budget (the U.S.) had allocated for Iraq’s reconstruction ended up paying for security firms and foreign companies, whose operating costs were vast. Instead there needs to be a greater reliance on Iraqis and Iraqi companies, with foreign aid and assistance to help us rebuild Iraq.” The third was a direct warning, let there be no doubt. He said, “For decades we struggled alone for our freedom. In 1991, when Iraqis tried to capitalize on the regime’s momentary weakness and rose up, we were alone again. The people of Iraq will not forget your continued support as we establish a secure, liberal democracy. Let 1991 never be repeated, for history will be more unforgiving.”
To the first point brings us to the primary reason for the trouble we’ve had in Iraq since the invasion—the Rumsfeld Doctrine, otherwise known as “doing it half-assed.” We went in with too few troops, too many unaccountable contractors, and too little planning. The Powell Doctrine, on the other hand, would have insisted on an overwhelming use of force and the complete disarmament of the Iraqi population—door to door, if need be—with a full entry and a full exit planned all the way. We all know what happened to him. And we all know what happened after the invasion. Rummy called the ex-Baathists “Dead Enders” and sent them home packing enough arms to carry on an insurgency forever. Maliki may be a “Federalist” but he’s not stupid. Disarmament is the only way for democracy to survive in Iraq. Sorry, gun nuts.
To the second point, if ever there was proof that “privatization” of vital public and military institutions is a guarantee of civil failure, it is to be found today’s Iraq. The Marine Corps Times reports this month that unemployment in Iraq is the main impetus for the growth and spread of militias in the country. Joshua Holland, over at Alternet, has a piece out today that gets right to the problem: “Common sense should have dictated that, after the destruction of its infrastructure and the dismantling of its (brutal but stable) government, Iraq didn’t need to become a laboratory for neoliberal economics. It needed jobs and basics like electricity, water and sewage systems, and it needed them quickly. That meant local firms, local workers and small, local projects — which make less juicy targets for saboteurs — to rebuild the country’s public infrastructure. Development experts call that “local ownership,” and consider it crucially important for good outcomes.” Those firms could have done it cheaper and added skilled workers to the Iraqi workforce as well—workers rather than snipers. But the Bremer Doctrine was to cede the infrastructural contracts to the multinationals, abandoning the displaced Iraqi workers, let alone paving the way for the tremendous waste, fraud and abuse we’ve seen to date. Iraqis should rebuild Iraq.
The third and final point of truth from Prime Minister Al-Maliki was a stern word of warning that neither I, nor anyone else who is smart and honest, should pretend to disagree with: we’re stuck there now. We’d better make the best of it by doing the right thing by the Iraqi people, lest we may as well just put Saddam right back in his palaces. Because as things stand now, if I, or anyone else who is smart and honest, was to be asked, “Are we better off without Saddam today?” the answer would be no.
Crossposted at Jersey McJones
[tag]Al-Maliki, Rumsfeld, Powell, Iraq[/tag]
9 Responses to “Maliki Speaks Truth (and Truthiness) to Power”
By REB 84 on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
I am presently reading one of the most insightful books regarding the state of the world today, “The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America’s Power and Purpose” by: General Tony Zinni. By removing Saddam, the U.S. popped the cort on centuries old tribal rivalries. Essentially there is no such thing as an Iraqi, let alone a patriotic Iraqi. Instead, there are tribes and religious identities. This is how the battles are being raged. Unless the Bush administration wakes up and admits the reality of the situation, we will continue fighting a bullshit propaganda war on terror.
Face the facts: Iraq is an artificial entity created by the British Colonial Machine. If there is to be peace, we need to recognize the long history and extremely complex culture of the region. This is not simple. All Malaki is doing is feeding the rad-cons what they want to hear to get what he wants, Shiite control.
By Dusty on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
I have read that the boyz in the parliment are carving up Iraq as we speak in the backrooms. They know its not going to work. The history of the region shows us that. It reminds me of when Russia went democractic..sorta..and carved up their regions. You can’t ignore the history or your doomed to repeat the mistakes.
Great post..thanks for putting it up!
By Jersey McJones on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Thank Dusty - and thanks TeamBIO for putting it up!
I heard the Zinni interview on NPR the other day, Reb. He makes some excellent points. When I look at Iraq, I think of old Yugoslavia. The only time that country had true and lasting piece was during the reign of Tito. Now, Tito was a communist (sort of) and a strongman, and there were atrocities on his watch, but he was the only instrument of peace - the answer to the Eastern Question - to be had. Now, the Soviets did sort of install him, but within a coule of years they regretted it. Tito was not a Soviet puppet. We could very well see a strongman rise in Iraq and support him only to have him turn on us like Tito did to the USSR. But at least there would be peace. Afterall - do WE have the best interests of Iraq at heart? Of course not. We rarely do when it comes to these far flung expeditions. Just ask the entirety of Latin America! Iraq would be better off with a nationalistically loyal strongman than a US installed oligarchical/federalist regime. Just ask Vlad Putin! Bush did - and boy did he ever get an answer! ;)
Iraq needs a very strong central government with a decent strongman at the center - a man who wants to leave his stamp on history and not just on stamps. Neoliberal, laizzez-faire federalism WILL fail in Iraq (and most anywhere else, eventually). The trouble may be tribalism, as Zinni says, or religion, per Sam Harrris, or or foreign intervention, says too many people to mention, but the solution was already in place when we invaded. Saddam, however, was no Tito. He did not have the best interests of Iraq at heart. What we’ve needed from the very beginning was a Tito - a disgruntled military man with a brain. We could have accomplished that with a few well-placed bribes among his generals. That’s the way we used to do these things before the neo-cons emerged from under their oily rocks.
But no. We invaded. We did it half-assed (and in Afghanistan too). We forced upon them an unworkable political system. And now we see the consequences. And the really, really sad part - the only thing that could keep Iraq together is oil and when that runs out, no one outside of Iraq will care what happens to those poor people - those people who reside at the cradle of civilization. So much for CIVIL-ization.
JMJ
By And Another Thing on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Reb84 makes a good point about Iraq in that there is nothing simple. As long as Washington insists that it IS simple there will be no resolution.
Some very good thought JMJ…allow me what I hope is not a digression. A friend of mine served 3 tours in Vietnam as a Green Beret medic. He said that his impression of the Vietnamese he knew was of a simple farmer who raised his rice and kids, and died, and the whole process repeated itself or thousands of years. This farmer didn’t care about the difference between democracy and communism or anything else. He just wanted to live his life as he knew it.
In other words, the Best and Brightest at the time ignored such analysis…what would a U.S. Army sargeant know about such things? And so, it went on and on. As will be the case in Iraq. There are so many parallels between Iraq and Vietnam that it bothers me greatly. 9/11 was the Tonkin Gulf of this decade…an incident that led to the uquestioned expansion of a president to conduct a war. And the results are the same.
Mr. Malaki can issue all the warnings he wants, but he must beware. When it suits the interests of the U.S. government, he will be tossed aside along with his country.
Great post…sorry my comments don’t rise to the level of your article.
By ken grandlund on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
The whole “let Iraqi’s rebuild Iraq” message is one I’ve been touting since last fall at least. Nice to hear some confirmation of what to me was a Common Sense proposition all along, for just the reasons mentioned here.
And while I still believe we have an obligation to fix what we’ve broken, I don’t necessarily believe that we need to keep sacrificing our troops to do so. My thoughts can be found here, and they remain essentially the same as when I initially wrote them.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Thanks AAT - and no, you’re post is quite thought-provoking indeed.
I think what you are pointing up applies well to the Kurds and most of the southern Shi-a. It’s like that scene from Catch 22 when Art Garfunkel asks the Italian brothel owner how he feels about the war and the owner says (I paraphrase, “When Mussilini came, we waved his flag and cheered. When Hitler came, we waved his flag and cheered. When the Americans came, we waved their flag and cheered. And when you’re all gone - we’ll still be here, fucking in this whorehouse.” People, for the most part, are not ideologues, just regular schmucks trying to put a little bread and wine on the table and get a few kicks.
On the other hand, there are people, ideologues or not, who are dependent on ideologies in order to get that bread and kicks. In Iraq we made the oft-made mistake that the Baathists were some disiplined cult and so we dispersed them and then piled on egregious insult upon insult. In reality, they were people who were dependent on the Baathist regime, which in turn was dependent on Baathist ideology. Whatever came next had to include these people lest they lash out. Sure enough - they lashed out.
In Vietnam there was no real “north” and “south.” Just people who wanted peace and stability in order to live their simple lives after years of war (the French, the Japanese, the French again, the US, and then China after us!). Though communism appealed to the broad masses, peace and nationalism were the real goals. As I said, this applies probably to about half the Iraqis. I wish it were more. If it were more, then Bush’s dream of a peaceful, West-friendly, Middle East would be more likely to come true. Look at what Vietnam did after the wars - they cleaned up the whole region! Who do you think finally got rid of the Khmer Rouge (hint - it sure as hell wasn’t us!)?
Thanks for the comment!
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
I agree Ken. We certainly don’t want to “stay the course,” after all! When I say that we’re stuck with this, I mean that we need to do something - and something drastically different. Perhaps a new congress will step in and force some changes in strategy…
JMJ
By Dusty on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
The history of the region dictates nationalized regions, I don’t care what anyone says. They can have their parliment, but they have to nationalize the regions..these folks are rabid about that fact. I have no idea what they will do about Baghdad, its got all of the religions living inside the city limits.
They need a united states approach. regions=states..a little self rule goes along way to getting along.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Dusty, the US model is not apropos. Think of all the differences. For one thing, Iraq is small. Separating regions makes logistics tedious and expensive. Logistics includes the movement of petrodollars too, ya’ know. For another, the sectarian and tribal differences are vast. Americans are a bunch of international castaways. Iraqis or that disparate bunch of people, as you may rightly say, have been there for time immemorial. Their individual conditions as related to the state are far apart from those of early or modern Americans. There is two things that tie them, though – oil and water. The Sunnis have the water, the bread, and the Shi-as and Kurds have the oil, the butter. So I share your hope for a successful federalism. Though I fear the inherent lack of central accountability will be a downfall.
JMJ