Maliki and Obama
A few sketchy thoughts. At the risk of stating the obvious, Maliki has every reason to believe that Obama will be the next president. If I were him, I would actively and forcefully intervene on Obama’s behalf — as he has. Why? McCain is stuck with Maliki: Maliki is the immovable object. A President McCain is committed to achieving a stable outcome in Iraq, and that will depend on close cooperation with Baghdad. Moreover, McCain’s political coalition is broadly comfortable with U.S. involvement in Iraq at a somewhat reduced rate of casualties. Obama’s coalition, in contrast, contains a large, vocal segment that adamantly supports rapid withdrawal. They believe that Obama won’t sell them out on the issue.
But if you believe that Colin Kahl is carefully signaling foreign policy elites, and I do, the debate between McCain and Obama over Iraq is increasingly about 80,000 vs. 50,000, not 180,000 vs. 0. Given that Maliki has to demonstrate his nationalist bona fides, an Obama victory is a better-than-acceptable outcome from his perspective. And by building trust with the Obama camp, he can restrain any impulse on Obama’s part to push for rapid withdrawal. We have every reason to believe that the partisan temperature of the Iraq debate will sharply decrease if Obama wins. Assuming Obama doesn’t win a landslide — he won’t — Democrats will be disciplined, including the MoveOn Democrats Chris Hayes profiled. Why? Because they want to win, and they’ll be more exercised by the Kulturkampf that an Obama victory will likely set off.
Briefly, my guess is that a McCain victory will see a very active effort to accommodate Democrats. But not just Democratic moderates — look to Schwarzenegger for a preview. That won’t defang the Democrats, and I’m not even sure it’s wise. But McCain will be very keen to build as much support as possible for his Iraq strategy, even if it involves a series of Nixon-to-China moves elsewhere in the world. Note that Obama and the Bush White House are now on the same page with regards to Iran.
By the way: what’s happening in the Golan Heights? Is it possible that Bush’s bull-in-china-shop act will leave Obama or McCain with a weirdly favorable geopolitical climate. (I say, tentatively, yes.) Ross has feared that Bush will be remembered as a pretty decent president simply because time heals all wounds. I have to say, I feel like post-2006 Bush has been a different animal. Not that anyone is America, apart from a doughty 25 percent of the voting public, can stand the man.
Of course, the Iran situation is totally unknowable: all of this goes out the window if there is an Israeli strike. An Israeli strike that precedes Obama’s inauguration will probably lead to an entrenched U.S. presence in Iraq and a dramatic renewal of high-intensity conflict there. Wow. That would be really, really horrible. I hope I’m wrong.
First, while I find insights into the internal political machinations of Iraq interesting, from an American perspective they are entirely besides the point— if this isn’t a straightforwardly imperial venture, the only thing that matters is the will of Iraq’s government and Iraq’s people.
Secondly, this: Briefly, my guess is that a McCain victory will see a very active effort to accommodate Democrats.
Well, I certainly hope so. But a friend of mine who graduated college in fall 2000 told me a story about the aftermath of the 2000 election. He was a political science major, and a Democrat. All of his professors were telling him that he should go to Washington to look for a job, because seeing how hotly contested the election had been, the Republicans would be reaching out to Democrats and moderates to build a mandate. And what happened? Bush put together the most reactionary cabinet in modern American history. I think many Republicans assume McCain’s would be a one term administration, and would want to wring out as much conservative governance as possible. Of course, the seemingly inevitable large Democratic majority in Congress would make that difficult, so the main action would probably be in the area that the president has the most control in— foreign policy and military affairs.
— Freddie · Jul 26, 12:57 AM · #
Or alternatively, the reason Maliki said is that its an extremely popular position among the Iraqi populace. That’s something Iraq war supporters have studiously been ignoring.
How do you stay in a country that overwhelmingly wants you to leave? Why would you want to stay? This is particularly telling since that was precisely McCain’s position not too long ago.
— Joseph · Jul 26, 03:07 AM · #
“Assuming Obama doesn’t win a landslide — he won’t — ….”
As I have mentioned in the past, you think way too much of McCain. He’s a really terrible campaigner. His speeches are insanely bad. He’s said all kinds of ridiculous things because he has staked out contradictory positions pandering to his base and becasue he doesn’t really know much about anything—which is par for the course for most senators. His economic proposals are absurd (extend the tax cuts AND balance the budget). He’s on the record supporting the Bush plan for social security reform, which effectivly ended the Bush presidency as anything but an obstructionist force. He’s a big hawk when everyone is tired of war. He loses to Obama on the economy in a year when the economy is a huge issue. He owns 14 houses, spends 2 million a year on servants, and his kids have allowances of $50k a month (something like that). He’s already gone shrilly negative and it’s only July. Not a good sign. It shows a lack of imagination.
Add to that the structural situation which almost totally favors democrats and Obama’s fundraising, organizational skills, and ability to learn from his mistakes.
Then consider the fact that we haven’t even had the conventions yet. For the vast majority of the public the elections don’t start until after the convention. The public hasn’t seen them on the same stage together, they haven’t seen them in the debates. The contrast between the two of them is going to be painful. It’s going to be some old guy whose said all kinds of goofy things to get hit over the head with vrs a young smart (albeit, black) guy. It’s going to be Mr. Wilson vrs Dennis the Menace.
I don’t know if it will be a landslide but McCain will be, at the very least, soundly beaten. I know you favor republicans, but wake up and smell the belgian wafffles, my friend.
— cw · Jul 26, 06:03 AM · #
Didn’t I read somewhere that the same polls that say Iraqis want us out also say that they only want us out when they feel the security of the country is ready for it? Doesn’t that square with the clarification Maliki’s aide made after the Spiegel story ran?
It’s too late for me to find this stuff, but Google is your friend!
— Blar · Jul 26, 06:20 AM · #
Freddie: “. . . from an American perspective they are entirely besides the point— if this isn’t a straightforwardly imperial venture, the only thing that matters is the will of Iraq’s government and Iraq’s people.“
This certainly isn’t a “straightforwardly imperial venture”; at most it’s a quasi-imperial project, or, to put it differently, an aggressive liberal intervention.
However, the consequent — “the only thing that matters…” — is invalid by definition, per your qualifier “from an American perspective.” From an American perspective, the only thing that matters is what’s good for Americans.
I would’ve thought that was obvious.
— JA · Jul 26, 03:54 PM · #
The difficulty with Iran is that, unlike a pure authoritarian regime “Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” al-Gaddafi or “I’m so ronery” Kim Jong-il, the people of Iran retain a modicum of power through their ability to voice extreme displeasure with outcomes of policy.
That wouldn’t be a problem if we were discussing political esoteria; but we’re not. In Iran the nuclear issue is a serious, popular, hot-button political topic; it has a nationalistic fervor behind it, and speaks to the pride of the Persian people. Because of this, we can’t simply bribe the Mullahs like we did the North Koreans. In North Korea, the political survival of Kim depends on his lieutenants and henchman riding the gravy train. In Iran, where politics are vastly more Kremlin-like in complexity and viscosity, political survival depends on more than graft and grease (though it depends on those too).
Thus, we’re faced with a true “thread the needle” situation. How do we get the Iranian leadership to sell out without appearing to sell out? How do we get them to lose this issue while making it appear to their people that they won? In what way can we frame an acceptable outcome (for us) that is also an acceptable outcome for them?
I’m not sure we can. And I don’t think the Iranians are sure they can, either. Not good, that.
— JA · Jul 26, 04:16 PM · #
From an American perspective, the only thing that matters is what’s good for Americans.
Uh, you want to talk about contradictions? You say that our military occupation of a foreign country isn’t an imperialist venture, despite the fact that many are now saying we should remain an occupier against the wishes of the Iraqis, and yet you affirm that the only thing that should matter to an American is what is good for America?
Countries and their actions have moral content and moral character. By your construction, if it was a net benefit to the United States to nuke an innocent country, we should do that. You cannot under any circumstances assert that you are a supporter of morality or democracy and aver that countries have no responsibility beyond their own self-interest. You can’t.
It remains unclear to me— and Reihan has consistently avoided this question— why a culturally and geographically remote country like the United States has any right to invade Iraq and remake it however the US sees fit, and yet Iran— who share a border with Iraq— are wrong to “meddle in Iraqi affairs”. Thinking that is an elementary failure of both morality and simple intellectual comprehensibility.
— Freddie · Jul 26, 04:35 PM · #
By your construction, if it was a net benefit to the United States to nuke an innocent country, we should do that.
Luckily, it wouldn’t be a net benefit.
However, what if it was vital for America to nuke a country, innocent or otherwise? Would you push the button? Or would you martyr our nation-state for the sake of your (intuitive, pre-rational, highly idiosyncratic) morality?
If you choose the latter, perhaps a little more self-knowledge is in order; self-understanding is a great tonic for the kind of unsupported, unreflective, unbecoming moral narcissism currently pandemic in the West.
— JA · Jul 26, 05:25 PM · #
It remains unclear to me— and Reihan has consistently avoided this question— why a culturally and geographically remote country like the United States has any right to invade Iraq and remake it however the US sees fit
If you’re speaking about an international legal right, then you’re talking about Resolution 678, which authorized force to “uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions [662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677] and to restore international peace and security in the area”; Resolution 687 (the conditional ceasefire, which Saddam violated); Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” (he didn’t, material breach, etc.); Resolution 1483, which recognized US and UK as occupying powers holding “legitimate authority in Iraq under international law”; and finally Resolutions 1723 and 1790 extending the mandate for Multinational Force Iraq. Also check out the several ways a country abdicates its rights of sovereignty.
Or perhaps you’re talking about a legal right flowing from US law? If so, you should check the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, which found that Saddam 1) had committed various and significant violations of International Law; 2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and 3) had further ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. This act established “regime change in Iraq” as a Policy of the United States, and also called for real efforts to support a transition to democracy. It passed 360-38 in the House, and by unanimous consent in the Senate.
Of course, you also have the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which, as its title ever so subtly suggests, was an authorization for use of military force against Iraq. It passed the House by a margin of 296-133, and the Senate by 77-23. And you have all the other appropriation bills signed into law by Congress since then. So there’s that.
But perhaps you’re speaking of natural rights — as in what-the-Allah gives us the right to do anything to anybody? If so, I can’t help you there. That subject is a wee bit, ah, tangled, and has more than a whiff of Pleasant Fiction about it.
— JA · Jul 26, 05:52 PM · #
Oh, and surely you aren’t suggesting that something as arbitrary as geographical and cultural proximity establishes or nullifies a right to invade and remake a people. That would be a decidedly weird thing to argue, no?
Surely our rights, insofar as they exist, are not contingent on such insignificant variables. Surely you can’t mean that.
(/surely).
— JA · Jul 26, 06:03 PM · #
. . . yet you affirm that the only thing that should matter to an American is what is good for America?
I do so affirm!
(With the caveat that I also care about what’s good for Numero Uno.)
— JA · Jul 26, 06:12 PM · #
You know Freddie (and this will be my last post unless you respond), I can’t for the life of me understand why you push back so hard against the idea that what should matter for Americans is what’s good for America. Shouldn’t you simply embrace this axiom, and instead devote your energies to defining what is in fact good for America?
— JA · Jul 26, 06:21 PM · #
Dude, JA, it’s creepy when somebody posts every ten minutes.
Freddie, look, there’s been torture and rights violations and all kinds of things and naturally as a result a lot of us on the left are inclined to indulge in wet dreams about what will or won’t happen. But this idea that somehow the sovereign Iraqi government is going to stand up at some point, tap its watch and say, you got 12 months left, America, and a President Bush or McCain would resist that and thereby somehow show the whole world that this is about wanting to build some kind of Empire complete with Death Stars and neato crowns, is lunacy. It’s not going to happen in practice so hypothesizing about how it’ll play it out is pointless.
The reason it’s not going to happen is that as far as I can tell, the Iraqi Army brass are pretty solidly against a very precipitous and very thorough American pullout. And leaving aside the issue of what Americans want (I mean, JA’s point that Americans should want what’s good for Americans is obvious, but it’s not unreasonable to say that supporting the wishes of a soveign Iraqi government that wants us out is real good for Americans), what matters from an Iraqi perspective — from the perspective of any weak third-world government — isn’t, sadly, the wishes of its government and people. It’s the wishes of it’s government, people, and military (and, during the Cold War at least, of its great power patron). Maliki isn’t going to be screaming for a rapid and total pullout: fundamentally Iraq doesn’t want it.
— Sanjay · Jul 27, 12:55 AM · #
“. . yet you affirm that the only thing that should matter to an American is what is good for America?”
“I do so affirm! (With the caveat that I also care about what’s good for Numero Uno.)”
____________________________
Fascinating philosophy. The Nazis, of course, were very big on it (although they were less enthusiastic than JA about that Numero Uno Matters Most stuff).
JA really shouldn’t talk quite so openly about it, however; it’s not the sort of thing that is going to encourage other nations to cooperate with us. Including the two we’re occupying at the moment.
— Bruce Moomaw · Jul 27, 10:31 AM · #
Dude, JA, it’s creepy when somebody posts every ten minutes.
Dude, Sanjay, boo.
— JA · Jul 27, 01:52 PM · #
Bruce: Fascinating philosophy. The Nazis, of course, were very big on it.
Yes, I agree. The Nazis forever tarnished the idea of citizenship. Not to mention knee-high leather men’s wear (which is the real shame as far as I’m concerned).
— JA · Jul 27, 02:05 PM · #