Your Morning Reading

05.08.2008

I'm a few days late to this, but if you haven't already read Michael Gordon's stunningly good New York Times Magazine article on our (aborted, at the behest of Maliki) attempt to foster a Shiite awakening in Iraq, you should. The piece is too deeply reported to summarize here, but these grafs offer a pretty good takeaway:

“The most prominent dividing line in Iraqi politics now is between the ‘powers that be’ and the ‘powers that aren’t,’ ” Sam Parker, an Arabic speaker who works for the United States Institute of Peace, a policy center in Washington, told me recently. “The ‘powers that be’ spent much of the 1980s and 1990s in open opposition to Saddam. Nearly all of these leaders spent substantial time outside of Iraq. They have well-organized parties but lack a strong social base and have an outsize degree of influence in the national and provincial governments. Because of their disproportionate dominance of the political process, they only stand to lose by any movement toward political openness.
“The ‘powers that aren’t,’ ” Parker added, “are fragmented and weak. What they want is in.”
Where does the U.S. stand? “They seem to be working hard for provincial elections,” Parker said, “which would make the system more inclusive and give the ‘powers that aren’t’ and the popular forces they represent an opportunity for a share of the power. But at the same time, the United States’ main priority appears to be buttressing the state security apparatus that belongs to the ‘powers that be.’ ”
In an ideal world the two policy imperatives would be balanced. The politics of inclusiveness would lay the foundation for the long-term stability of the country, while improvements in Maliki’s capacity to govern would lead to a state that could supplant the Hobbesian state of nature that has typified Iraq — and make it easier for the United States to reduce forces. Iraq, however, is far from an ideal world, and Maliki’s growing confidence in his own power leaves the U.S. steadily less able to shape events.

As they say, read the whole thing.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:12 AM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

raylward said:

Anyone reading this long article (as I did Saturday night) and then the short conclusion must come away convinced that the body of the article and the conclusion were written by different authors or at significantly different times. Throughout the article Gordon quotes Lemons, Gildroy, and Moulton on all the progress that has been made in Iraq since Patraeus took command, but then in the conclusion this: “I am still trying to figure out the lesson,” he [Lemons] said. “Maybe the lesson is there are limits to what we can and cannot do in Iraq. I’ve tried separating myself from our work with the Sahawa” — Awakening — “and I can’t. I can’t ever face the tribes I worked with again because I broke a lot of promises. Those promises don’t mean much to anyone outside Diwaniya or to an overall strategy for this war, but I thought these were the promises my own government had sent me year after year to pursue. So while I would deploy again for my Marines and my Iraqi Army comrades, I don’t want to go to Iraq again if this is the way we do business.” And this: Gildroy, who is once again a civilian and who left Diwaniya vowing never to return, says she still believes Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy is producing results. “This war is critical to our national-security interests and has had an impact on Al Qaeda. I know we are creating a buffer zone,” she said. “We will not create a well-functioning democracy in Iraq, but we need to leave the region and Iraq in a stronger position than we went in both for their own security and to avoid another terrorist attack on America. I would do whatever General Petraeus asked or needed. I trust him and his character with my life.” And finally this: “Together with some brave young Polish and Iraqi soldiers, we did a lot to improve life in Diwaniya,” he [Moulton] said. “I can’t deny that. People were afraid to leave their houses when we arrived. Iraqis were crying when we left. But so much of what we did fell apart so quickly. It shows how fragile everything is today in Iraq. For all that we put into it, not least of all a year of our lives, I don’t know if any of it will last.”

August 5, 2008 11:30 AM

ZACummings said:

Having just read the full article, I was reminded of the phrase "Journalism is the first draft of history." This is a well-researched, well-written, well-balanced piece by Michael Gordon. He should be proud.

raylward - I think the point of the article was to show that a lot of progress was made_when everyone worked toward the common good_but quickly descended into "the Hobbesian state of nature" when the powerful (Maliki, Supreme Council) realized they were powerful and wanted to keep it that way.

So if it looks like Michael Gordon is trying to have it both ways it's because the people he was writing about DID want to have it both ways.

August 5, 2008 12:22 PM