Missing the Point in Iraq

Michael Young | January 29, 2005

Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan are still going at each other over the real meaning of the Iraqi election on Sunday. In a way, however, I feel that the issue entirely missed by most U.S.-based pundits is that that they are focusing on how the election, particularly the participation level, will affect America's interests in Iraq.

Witness this typical question put to Sullivan by Christopher Matthews (as highlighted by Kaus):

MATTHEWS: [snip] Does they war in Iraq increase or decrease American power in pushing democracy in other countries? Nine of you say Iraq hurts, three say it helps the president's chances of achieving his goals in the world.

Andrew, you say it helps. A bloody war helps us sell...

SULLIVAN: Of course it helps. When we see, as we will, see ordinary Iraqis voting for the first time to forge their own destiny in the future, it's going to be an extraordinary moment.

Or:

MATTHEWS: But if you polled Iran, would it be hostile to America?

KLEIN: They're overwhelming faithful.

SULLIVAN: No, it would be overwhelmingly positive towards the United States...

MATTHEWS: Would it be?

SULLIVAN: ...and that's the other point about Iraqi democracy. The signal it will send to Iran, which is our real enemy right now, will be enormously helpful. I'm a--I'm a complete optimist about this. I think it'll--I think it'll work.

This focus on the U.S. seems to me basically irrelevant to gauging a successful election or not. The real issue is how the Iraqis, who don't give a damn about how the whole thing plays out in Kalamazoo, will interpret their election--I repeat, their election. How many Iraqis vote is far less important than the fact that a truly Iraqi parliament will emerge from the process to write a constitution (which will indeed spur the "insurgents" to escalate their bloodletting, since nothing worries them more than the threat of a potentially legitimate Iraqi--not U.S.-appointed--authority).

Yes, Sunni participation is an important issue, but not in the way people presume. If a post-election regime can shape a compromise system that gives all Iraqi communities a stake in the new political order, then two things may well happen: the aftereffects of a low participation level may soon be erased by the more urgent matter of communal compromise; and the fearful Sunnis may begin disagreeing with themselves over how to deal with the new authority. Already there are several reports of Sunni election boycotters who have made it clear they intend to negotiate with a new post-election parliament and regime. America, for them, is completely secondary at this stage.

I partly tried to make this argument in the Daily Star, here.

Comments

|1.29.05 @ 3:22PM|#

I mostly agree with this post: What really matters is how the election plays in Iraq, not how it plays in the US or Iran or anywhere else. But I do have to ask a question about:

...a truly Iraqi parliament will emerge from the process to write a constitution (which will indeed spur the "insurgents" to escalate their bloodletting, since nothing worries them more than the threat of a potentially legitimate Iraqi--not U.S.-appointed--authority).

Is there any positive development in the forseeable future that won't lead to more violence?

I think we need a better metric for success than an escalation in violence. I was thinking that fewer deaths might be a positive sign...

|1.29.05 @ 3:35PM|#

Turning Iraq into a democracy with a gun aimed at their head and our lips uttering "Make my day" is not a democracy.
Democracy comes from within.
Elections will change nothing there. There is no warm fuzzy feeling of a democracy when noone participates. The parties are not chosen by the people . Occupying powers are everywhere in the country.

Will the election change anything in Iraq ? You have to be kidding!

|1.29.05 @ 4:15PM|#

We'll all know so much more in 24 hours.

I've seen it observed that some Iraqis consider Sunni nonparticipation a loss not so much because of legitmacy, but because they're the people with bureacractic experience. Order might come faster if the former Assistant Deputy Minister of Local Permits was willing to get behind his old desk.

It is reasonable for Americans to assess events by effects of the US. But with that comes a temptation to further meddle if preferred results are not achieved by Iraqis acting in their own interest.

The only thing certain is that it would have been worse with Kerry as President. :-)

|1.29.05 @ 4:23PM|#

thoreau,

I think that the leader of the Shia majority that will win the election asking our government to leave their country as they did recently, and our government doing so, will reduce the violence. Note that the Sunni leaders have called for our government and its troops to depart as well.

|1.29.05 @ 4:23PM|#

and now a few comments from someone living in iraq
http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/1-28/viewpoint/editorials/iraqi.cfm

Semolina|1.29.05 @ 4:23PM|#

It's been pretty enjoyable watching Kaus go after Sullivan these past couple of months. I don't know what triggered it, exactly, but the whole "Excitable Andrew" thing has been funny -- and apt.

And now Sullivan has hit back with a jab of his own, mocking Kaus' inability to commit to a position and even calling him out for all the affectations that clutter his writing. (You mean this sort of thing? -- ed. Yeah, this sort of thing. The device was amusing the first couple of times, but now it's just a goofy gimmick. Even worse, though, has been watching other bloggers, like Glenn Reynolds, borrowing it for their own use.)

|1.29.05 @ 4:35PM|#

...make that "...leave their country as he did recently...

|1.29.05 @ 5:15PM|#

kuros:

Got any links to articles about Iraqi vegetarians or beekeepers?

Kevin

|1.29.05 @ 6:37PM|#

"Yes, Sunni participation is an important issue, but not in the way people presume. If a post-election regime can shape a compromise system that gives all Iraqi communities a stake in the new political order, then two things may well happen: the aftereffects of a low participation level may soon be erased by the more urgent matter of communal compromise; and the fearful Sunnis may begin disagreeing with themselves over how to deal with the new authority."

It seems to me that "stake" is the key word here. When you use the word "stake", what are you talking about?

...An electoral college a la the Three Fifths Compromise? Sunni Reservations like those for Native Americans? A guaranteed, one third of the seats in a bicameral congress? A governor with the power to veto federal legislation? The opportunity to vote for a representative to a meaningless debating society?

fyodor|1.29.05 @ 7:21PM|#

Maybe I'll sound like a conservative to say this, but of course we're looking at things from our own point of view, as humans generally do. The paradox here (as it often is) is that it's gotta work for them to work for us. Libertarianism is a little like zen buddhism: sometimes you've got to not care about getting what you want to get what you want.

|1.29.05 @ 7:46PM|#

fyodor: Or trust the actors and accept that whatever happens is best for all.

Ruthless|1.29.05 @ 8:01PM|#

"I think that the leader of the Shia majority that will win the election asking our government to leave their country as they did recently, and our government doing so, will reduce the violence. Note that the Sunni leaders have called for our government and its troops to depart as well."

Rick Barton,
You know how much Dubya's been paying US pundits to shill for his alleged policies?
That will turn out to be chump change compared to what he's paying key Iraqis to beg for the US to stay in Iraq.
(We must remain in Iraq as a staging area for the attack on Iran.)

|1.29.05 @ 8:19PM|#

Ruthless: There's probably more truth in your statement than I'm comfortable with. I'm really hoping the cultural/economic revolution comes before the US decides to invade. For the most jaded conspiracists, Iran figures to be a net importer of energy fairly soon, so the oil-for-blood exchange doesn't work as well as in Iraq.

fyodor|1.29.05 @ 8:59PM|#

Or trust the actors and accept that whatever happens is best for all.

Exactly! Well--within specified limits! :-) And know it's not always going to best for all every single time, but overall, in the long, yes it's most likely to be. That is, more likely than when you stick your finger in it!

|1.29.05 @ 11:36PM|#

Ruthless,

I know that the Shia leader had said that the US troops need to leave after the election and then later, he backed off that. So, it looks like you could be right.

|1.30.05 @ 2:00AM|#

Ruthless, I hope to God that you are wrong, but I'm terrified that you might be right.

Given how large the imperial compound...um, I mean, US embassy, will be, I somehow doubt that W is getting ready to let go.

|1.30.05 @ 2:48PM|#

The US will concern itself with the US, which is why democratic crusaderism is stupid. We may help the Iraqis but it will not be our guiding star in the long run. Let's leave and let the Iraqis figure it for themselves.

|1.30.05 @ 7:34PM|#

"Turning Iraq into a democracy with a gun aimed at their head and our lips uttering "Make my day" is not a democracy."

Syn seems to forget it was the terrorists who were holding the gun and just got the finger from 60-70% of the Iraqi population who literally risked their lives to vote.

This is an awsome day for freedom living people everywhere.