Down near the bottom of his blog post today, Juan Cole wrote this:
- Al Franken had me on his radio show on Air America Tuesday and suggested that Congress and Bush could play bad cop, good cop with PM al-Maliki. As I understood the argument, he suggested that Congress cut off funding for the extra troops such that it would run out by the end of this summer. Bush could then tell al-Maliki that there has to be substantial progress on curbing militias and national conciliation by then, because Bush can’t guarantee a sustained US commitment now that his party has lost Congress. I told Al that his plan sounds good to me. I do think a lot of the problem here is that the top Shiite and Kurdish leadership doesn’t feel a need to compromise with the Sunni Arabs because they know if the latter make trouble, the US will deal with them. They might not be so cocky, and might compromise more readily, if they thought they’d have to fight them themselves.
Why do I find Juan’s position there so politically naive and so morally troubling??
Politically naive:
(1) Juan– and also his host there, Al Franken– both seem to have bought, hook, line, and sinker the whole (administration-propagated) narrative that portrays what is going on in Iraq as exclusively a power-play between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds– one in which the “poor beleaguered Americans” find themselves caught in the middle, earnestly and benevolently trying to establish the optimal “balance” among those wild and unpredictable local forces… (See my analysis of the manipulative and politically inspired roots of this narrative, here.)
(2) Juan also apparently believes that threatening to withhold US troops from Iraq is a threat that can force Maliki to comply with US wishes on the political front??? But as I noted here, that’s a totally non-credible threat. Maliki wants the US troops to leave. How come Juan doesn’t seem capable of factoring that into his calculus? It’s true that Maliki seems like a timorous, diffident political figure; and it’s quite probable that the US have given him all kinds of cash inducements while he’s been PM, to get him to stay “on the team” with their plans. But despite all such inducements he– and more importantly the political coalition of Daawa and Sadrists of which he’s a member– have all remained committed to a speedy and total US withdrawal from Iraq.
So all this business about “the top Shiite and Kurdish leadership … might not be so cocky, and might compromise more readily, if they thought they’d have to fight them themselves” bears what kind of relationship to political reality there in Iraq??
Morally troubling:
(1) So we have a large and well-grounded political movement in this country that’s getting closer and closer to (a) bringing the Bushites into some form of accountability re their handling of the war, and (b) forcing the administration to withdraw from Iraq completely…. And Juan– and apparently also Al Franken– wants to compromise and blunt this movement by having it enter into some form of intentional and neocolonialist coalition with Bush on his handling of Iraq?
(2) And to do this, moreover, by explicitly joining with the Bushites in the “divide and rule” game they’ve been playing inside Iraq since April 2003, whereby they try to dole out incentives and very lethal punishments in such a way that it divides the Iraqi groups against each other and deliberately attempts to suppress the (still existing) nationalist Iraqi movement whose major leitmotif is “end the occupation”??
(3) Just the bullying language Juan uses there is a giveaway… “Bush could tell Maliki…” “if they make trouble, the US will deal with them…” et., etc.
… Honestly, I can’t imagine how someone like Juan Cole , whose probity and good intentions I generally strongly admire, has gotten anywhere near expressing support of this “good cop/ bad cop” idea. We in the US who are deeply disquieted over the tragedy that our government’s actions have inflicted upon the people of Iraq should do our utmost to reverse the administration’s policies as fast as possible. That is, to lift the yoke of ill-considered occupation and brutal “counterinsurgency” off the Iraqis as soon as we can.
“Good cop/ bad cop” sounds like a recipe only for continued colonial-style manipulation of the Iraqis’ tragic fate by Americans.
And I can’t understand why Al Franken– whose reported credentials as a “leftist” are actually much stronger than Juan’s– would have any truck with it, either.
Very timely and absolutely right! It is Bush-administration policy with a veneer of crowd-pleasing bluster. As it happens, I posted my own look at the Cole method over here, taking the issue from a slightly different angle…
“Enough of the talk,” she added, noting that Americans were protecting Iraqi leaders and training Iraqi troops yet reaping no rewards. “Let’s just say, we’re not going to do that anymore.”She insisted that sectarian violence would continue in Iraq regardless of whether there were more or fewer troops, because the Iraqi government was not committed to the mission.
“They’re waiting us out,” she said on NBC’s “Today” show. “They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there’s no reason for the Sunni insurgency therefore to stop.”Senator Clinton also said on NBC that Congress had limited ability to block the president’s troop plan outright.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/17/news/web.0117hillcnd.php
The strange thing about Iraqi government, while Bush and his folks increase their pressures and words against Iran and Syria, Iraqi government sending Jalal Talabani to Damascus and other Iraqi official to Iran doing a new agreements and talks with both sides which looks odd.
Its either Iraqi government ignoring US orders (which I doubted it) or there are hidden talks between US and both sides, in support this, Iranians’ Foreign minister Larjani went to Saudis some news reported that he asked Studies to mediate the softening of Iran’s relation with US, this is before one day of Rice’s landing in Saudi to gain more support and aids for W. Bush new plane to make it looks for US oppositions that those in the region in favour of W. Bush’s new plan
As you point out in your link to Juan Cole’s website, Helena, the good professor specializes in Shiite issues and politics and we owe him a debt of gratitude for sharing his expertise in this area. Still, I don’t think he has much real confidence in the Shiites vis-a-vis the Sunni/Baathists who governed Iraq for so long and kept it un-fragmented until the series of American wars on Iraq — i.e., Gulf Battle, No-Fly-Zone/Sanctions/Inspections, and Invasion/Occupation — began in 1991-92. I can’t say that I blame him given the resiliency and effectiveness of the Sunni/Baathist “insurgency” under such a sustained and monumental onslaught to date. Take America’s military out of the territory and airspace of Iraq and I don’t think Professor Cole would give the Shiites much of a chance of holding their own by themselves. This frequently-hinted-at-although-never-openly-acknowledged lack of confidence in the Shiites, I believe, accounts for Professor Cole’s often childlike belief in the efficacy of America’s Air Force — at horrendous costs in Iraqi “collateral damage” — to keep the dispersed Sunni/Baathist professional army from reconstituting itself above the company level and reunifying the country under its auspices.
You are right and this is a very important issue: the problem is neither bad planning or incompetent execution but the entire history of intervention in Iraq. It is not just a matter of getting out but of learning that the road of imperialism leads to nothing but death and barbarism. There is no good way of dominating other people nor can it be done without ruining any prospects of improving life in america. Liberal imperialism is worse even than Bush’s sort of lynch mob brand because it sustains practices which are inconsistent with life and liberty. Imperialism is slavery with an ocean between the plantation and the palace, and what Franken et al are doing is joking about in the master’s kitchen.
“Juan…seem[s] to have bought, hook, line, and sinker the whole (administration-propagated) narrative…”
This is absolutely nothing new for Juan Cole, I am afraid. I noticed signs of that right from the beginning. Though his knowledge and information was certainly a world away from the mainstream media, his analysis sounded, more often than not, disturbingly like a near-verbatim repetition of the standard Bushite line. There were times I had trouble distinguishing between his analysis and the official press statements of the “coalition” (aka American) military spokesmen from the Green Zone.
As for naivete, he displayed that freely from the very beginning in his, albeit reluctant, support for the invasion on the grounds that it would be “good for the Shi’ites” – nothing more than a particularly partisan twist on the “liberation” fantasy. (Predictably, it has not been “good for the Shi’ites”. It has been nothing but horrible for every segment of the Iraqi population.)
With all respect for Juan Cole, sometimes I can’t figure out how on earth he can know what he knows and still come to the conclusions he does.
“Take America’s military out of the territory and airspace of Iraq and I don’t think Professor Cole would give the Shiites much of a chance of holding their own by themselves.”
Michael, I wouldn’t either, if you take Iran out of the equation. But Iran is not out of the equation. That’s the basic problem Dick & W are grappling with. There is no group with (a) the strength to control the country, and (b) the inclination to sell out to US oil companies. So they have to fight everyone at once (the “kill ’em all” strategy). Of course, they don’t have the time, the resources, the support, or even – let me say it – the GUTS to pull that off. So it will end in disaster.
I’m glad people are starting to finally realize just how naive and unrealistic Juan Cole’s analyses are. He may be good at translating documents, but that’s about it. He’s very much an American apologist, and has been from the beginning. Certainly anyone who seriously believes the Israeli lobby has any great influence over the Americans is not dealing with the real world.
I maintain a pretty high opinion of Juan Cole, so perhaps I can provide another perspective.
The “Franken” proposal is mostly attractive in attempting to give political cover to getting troops out of Iraq. I wish I shared Helena’s belief that we are on the cusp of forcing Bush to bring the troops home. However, I’m more inclined to think he’s prepared to act completely unilaterally to increase and keep the troops there even at 20% approval. I do not have confidence that congress has the strength to play a high-stakes game of chicken and truly cut off funds (what if they voted to cut off funds and Bush didn’t withdraw the troops?).
The plan may still be naive (since I don’t think Bush is remotely inclined to get the troops out even with cover), but I think it’s actually less far-fetched than thinking Bush can be brought to heel by congress. And I forgive those desperately clutching at any straws that look reasonable that might end the carnage. Eventually the thought crosses your mind, “Ok, we’ll all pretend you won the war and are the greatest president evar. Can you please stop killing people now and bring home the troops?” The good cop/bad cop scenario seems to be a variant of plans that provide political cover (declare victory, or shift the blame to the Iraqis) and let the troops out.
As far as Cole himself, when I’ve found that I didn’t agree with a conclusion or questioned the angle he took on an issue, I’ve also noticed that he generates *huge* amounts of text every day. I generate much less text per day and I have plenty of trouble being consistently clear and concise. I learn tons from his blog, so I don’t sweat the occasional oddities so much (it reminds one to keep thinking for oneself and not blindly accept everything you read no matter where you read it).
He’s generally more willing than I would be to keep US troops in the Mideast theater. This puts him closer to the current administration than some. But he has consistently and publicly worried about a wider regional civil war, which would justify that approach. I’m slightly more hopeful that Iran/Saudi Arabia/Syria would *not* be drawn into a full-scale Iraq civil war. This may be naive on my part, but is why I would not keep troops “just over the horizon” just in case.
P.S. I don’t think Cole’s language was “bullying.” Bush certainly appears to be telling Maliki what to do currently — Bush is bullying, no question. The Franken/Cole idea seems to let Bush bully his way out of Iraq (with no real expectation or need that Maliki will listen to him). And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that the current Shiite government is counting on the US to use air power to destroy a hypothetical reconstituted tank division organized by Sunni’s to retake the government.