Lynch is puzzled by the emerging CW:
I’m a bit confused by the rapturous reception across the board of the Iraqi provincial elections. I’m as delighted as everyone that the Iraqi provincial elections went off without major violence. But as I’ve been warning for many long months now, the dangerous part of the provincial elections comes when those groups who expected to win find out they didn’t. Early signs are extremely concerning — Anbar is under curfew after threats of violence, Diyala’s outcome may signal a rapid escalation of Arab-Kurdish tensions, and that’s not even looking at Baghdad.
I must say I find the occurrence of relatively peaceful democratic elections in Iraq’s provinces to be enough to celebrate. But Marc is right about one thing. We’ve learned to be modest in our predictions about Iraq; and to notice when we are actually talking about our narcissistic American policy debates (some of which, like whether the invasion was a good idea, now moot), rather than the more complex, salient and constantly shifting terrain on the ground.
From all the reports I’ve read, two things stand out. The first is that this election was not about America or its role. Voters seemed genuinely to be expressing policy and political positions that were about the governance of Iraq, not the occupation of Iraq.
Iraqis are clearly and understandably eager to put the occupation behind them. It seems to me the West should take our cue from the Iraqis. There are purely pragmatic decisions to be made about how best to withdraw troops without prompting more chaos. It is silly to get too exercized about a withdrawal in 16 months or 18 months or two years. What is not silly is a clear determination to leave – and by leave, I mean leave – before the end of Obama’s first term. If the Iraqi government wants military assistance and support, fine. But the notion that Iraq should become a permanent outpost of the US military is one we should reject. Iraq has destroyed every foreign power trying to occupy, control or sit on it. And the US is not, despite neocon dreams, a colonial power in the classic sense.
The second thing that strikes me is a shift toward support for a strong national leader. Maliki’s success in bringing order to some cities and regions was clearly the basis for much of his support. Anti-Persian prejudice also played a part in the election, helping reassure those who worry about an extension of Iran. Iraq may be drifting back to a kinder, gentler form of nationalism (not hard after Saddam). But this, of course, will also revive sectarian conflict. This is a recurring pattern in Iraq’s brief history – authoritarian nationalism against sectarian regionalism. Best for the US to get out of its way as swiftly as possible.
Remember: before 2003, the US had never occupied Iraq. And yet now many see the enmeshment of the two countries as undoable. These occupations end up like government programs. They never end, generate their own reasons for continuing, and drain the tax payer for ever. But this occupation can end. The last American election, moreover, was a clear decision by the American people to end it. Obama deserves pragmatic lee-way in finding a way to end it responsibly. But the goal must be clear.
(Photo: A British soldier in 5 Rifles, an infrantry battalion who are currently on tour in Iraq, uses a fisherman to take him across a river as part of a counter insurgency patrol on Leaf Island an area south of Basra, on February 2, 2009 in Iraq. By Matt Cardy/Getty.)
The Dish 