Iraq's Cosmetic Election -Daniel Pipes
"It takes a cynical mind not to share in the achievement of Iraq's national elections." So writes the Wall Street Journal editorial board. I'm no cynic, but my mood about Iraq could variously be described as depressed, despairing, despondent, dejected, pessimistic, melancholic, and gloomy.
That's because the Iraqi regime (along with those of Afghanistan, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority) is a kept institution that cannot survive without constant American support. As long as Washington pumps money and sacrifices lives to maintain the Baghdad government, the latter can hobble along. Remove those props and Iranian-backed Islamists soon take over.
Tehran has aspired to seize effective control of Iraq since the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. With many levers at hand, from mosques to schools to militias to politicians, the Iranian despots are well placed to inherit the country.
The end of U.S. backing looms. Indeed, Barack Obama responded to the well-run elections by declaring a hope that U.S. troops can leave Iraq months earlier than planned.
As the American era closes, the Iranian one opens. In a year or two, the current elections will be looked back on as a cosmetic episode that somehow deceived otherwise savvy observers.
[National Review Online]
*
"It takes a cynical mind not to share in the achievement of Iraq's national elections." So writes the Wall Street Journal editorial board. I'm no cynic, but my mood about Iraq could variously be described as depressed, despairing, despondent, dejected, pessimistic, melancholic, and gloomy.
That's because the Iraqi regime (along with those of Afghanistan, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority) is a kept institution that cannot survive without constant American support. As long as Washington pumps money and sacrifices lives to maintain the Baghdad government, the latter can hobble along. Remove those props and Iranian-backed Islamists soon take over.
Tehran has aspired to seize effective control of Iraq since the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. With many levers at hand, from mosques to schools to militias to politicians, the Iranian despots are well placed to inherit the country.
The end of U.S. backing looms. Indeed, Barack Obama responded to the well-run elections by declaring a hope that U.S. troops can leave Iraq months earlier than planned.
As the American era closes, the Iranian one opens. In a year or two, the current elections will be looked back on as a cosmetic episode that somehow deceived otherwise savvy observers.
[National Review Online]
*
4 comments:
This is a possibility that overshadows Iraq. Very little to be done at this point. As I have mentioned here at this fine blog many times, one of the risks of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was bringing instability to the region. He was very invested in a weak Iran. Not to say he was a great or benevelent leader, but that was the Iraqis problem. This is just another way that the W. Bush adminsitration policies in the MidEast have led to an empowered Iran. As we consider options for dealing with iran, we'd best keep the lessons learned in Iraq, and remember that there is not even a pretense that the Iranians would welcome any of our actions.
There are some options:
* instead of leaving a weak democracy to be overrun my Iran, put in place an Iraqi strongman, with strong Western leanings
* don't leave
* pull out of the cities, but leave forces within pouncing range.
* while striking Iran's nuke capacity, weaken their missile, Naval and Air Force capacity
Bruce
You bring up bvery interesting ideas. I do not think most are workable for the US bnow, though.
1) We had an Iraqi strongman, and while his leanings shifted away from the West, they were always securely anti-Iran. There is no reason to believe we would pick a better person, andonce in power they inevitably seem to hate the hand that helped them.
2) Don;t leave? For what justification. Our soldiers should continue to die there for a situation we created that is too unstable to carry on the way we would like without constant support. We needed more calls to "not go in" but now---not leaving is not an option.
3)It is hard to make the case to attack Iran when we have shown we don;t know when there is a real threat, we don't know what our actions will cause and we cannot say we will leave a situation safer, better or more secure than when we start. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but much closer tor eality thanks to the poor US policies of the past. While there is no sense kicking a dead horse, or the ex-president he rode in, what the US has created is a situation we will now have to deal with. When the Iranian threat is verifiable beyond the possibility of intelligence foibles, we will have toa ct. Hopefully, Israel's safety will not have been breached by then.
One could justify staying in Iraq in some capacity [in the suburbs, for instance]. If Iran is indeed as troublesome as we think, our European allies are also in danger.
Preventing the growth of Iran as a regional nuclear power is quite a decent justification...no?
Post a Comment