As the American ruler of Iraq, Paul Bremer had the amazing knack of being able to pick the worst possible decision on every occasion[1]. From the dissolution of the Iraqi army to his refusal to hold elections in 2003, when there was some chance they could have worked, he did everything wrong he possibly could. Now he’s gone, and most of his policies have been abandoned, but he’s left one last gift, which may turn out to be the most poisonous of the lot.
When Bremer set up the electoral system for the elections that are supposed to be held in January, he went for a single nationwide electorate, rather than having representatives of provinces or individual constituencies[2].
In any case, what this means is that, to the extent that fighting depresses the turnout in Sunni areas, Sunnis get less seats. Being a minority, they’re bound to lose most of the power they’ve traditionally held in any case, but under Bremer’s rules, they could be excluded almost completely. By contrast, under a constituency system, provided some sort of ballot could be held, Sunni candidates would be elected from Sunni areas.
To address this problem, Juan Cole is suggesting an emergency intervention, setting aside 25 per cent of the seats for Sunni candidates. It’s probably about the best that can be done in the circumstances, but the outlook is not that good.
Meanwhile, the onset of civil war has been announced, not by leftist opponents of the war, but by arch-hawk Charles Krauthammer who complains (haven’t we heard this before) about the unreliability of our native allies
People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side is fighting it. The other side, the Shiites and the Kurds, are largely watching as their part of the fight is borne primarily by the United States.
I don’t recall Krauthammer mentioning civil war as part of the plan in 2003. But maybe this is one of those four-war things.
fn1. I don’t think this was simple stupidity. His orders were, as far as I can see, to establish a secular free-market democracy that would be a reliable ally of the US and Israel. Any halfway realistic policy would have required him to abandon these objectives, and settle for a moderately theocratic, semi-socialist and imperfectly democratic state, on the “Iran-lite” model, because that’s what a majority of Iraqis want. Instead, he followed the dream.
fn2. My guess is that his motive was to allow votes for Iraqi exiles who could be presumed to be more favorable to the occupation than the people who were actually experiencing it.
John Quiggin 
Yes. Bremer was the pointy end of the arrogant over-reach of neo-con policy in Iraq.
The single-constituency solution had its origins in the flowers and chocolates fantasies that drove American strategies for liberation of Iraq.
But I doubt that Juan Cole’s reserved seat solution would work. The US administration would likely stack the deck with Sunni secularists who have minimal credibility in the Sunni community. Worse, the Shia majority, now powerfully united behind Sistani on a single ticket, would likely reject any efforts by this group to prevent Islamicisation of the administration of Iraq. It would be a signal for Sistani to do what he has refused to do so far: unleash the enormous power of Shia militancy.
However, the neo cons weren’t completely naive. Acceptance of the permanent constitution is dependent not on majority acceptance of a single constituency, but on a majority of voters in a majority of “governates”: more or less mythical states. This bulwark against radicalism is thus almost identical to the referendum provisions of the Australian Constitution. (Is this our most valuable contribution to the Coalition of the Willing?)
The kicker is that once the Shia have taken control of the administration after the January 2005 elections they will be in a position to utterly dismantle US arrangements to derail popular sovereignty.
And my guess is that by the end of 2005 the Bush administration will accept virtually any illusion of success as a signal to withdraw from Iraq.
Sistani 1, Bush 0.
BTW Japanese oil interests have been playing a very subtle game sewing up concessions in Southern Iraq and also just across the border in Eastern Iran. This oil is probably going to flow not into the Arabian Gulf, but north through Russia to China, India and Japan.
China, Japan, Russia, India, Iran 1, US 0
If my memory (not quite as good as it used to be) serves me correctly, aren’t the elections in January only to elect a temporary parliament that will draft a new constitution, pending further elections at the end of 2005?
I assume that, either way, Sistani looks to have the upper hand and will have a lot of power in deciding the form Iraqi democracy will take. Fortunately, he seems to be set on allowing Sunnis and Kurds a certain amount of freedom and autonomy, and also on avoiding the mistakes made in both Turkey under Ataturk (too intent on removing religion from the state in too short a time frame, and heavy handed about it as well) and Iran (Ayatollahs becoming overtly politicised rather than being content to influence government behind the scenes). Whatever form of government emerges, if he has a strong hand in its development it shoud be an improvement on most of the rest of the Arab world, and certainly an improvement on the Baathist regime.
Krauthammer complains that the Shiites are happy watching the US and the Sunnis beat up on each other but no doubt he was similarly happy when the US watched and facilitated the Iran v Iraq dustup a while back.
I can’t remember the US crying rivers of tears over the million or so slaughtered in that war.
Sistani is certainly proving to be a seasoned player.
I really am beginning to wonder how the pullout strategy is going to come about. Preparations for a pull out shortly after the election do not seem to be happening. As William Lind says in this D-N-I.net article “Last Exit Before Gas”, the period after the election will be the last chance to pull out with any appearance of success. After that it will likely be all downhill and the Republicans will be unable to withdraw from Iraq without severe domestic political consquences. It may be that the Bush admin is so out of touch with reality that they really think the elections will fix everything.
I have been very impressed with the rhetoric that Sistani has been coming out with and I think it likely that Shiites under his influence would design a very good constitution that would in theory give the Sunni’s a fair deal.
The problem is that the election is also meant to legitimise the government and it will not be able to do that with Sunni’s if they are not convinced or able to participate. Without a legitimate government the insurgency will continue.
Katz,
“by the end of 2005 the Bush administration will accept virtually any illusion of success as a signal to withdraw from Iraq”
Pulling out has a lot of strategic implications. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, they had a large number of alternative places that were not too far away where they could maintain bases and troops to secure their interests in SE Asia.
Remember that one of the rationales for the war was to provide a better place for military bases than the increasingly less hospitable Saudi Arabia could provide. One of the attractions of Iraq was having bases located very close to so much of the world’s oil, ready to control it should the Saudi client regime fail and to keep pressure on Iran. Now all they are left with is Qatar, which is not really satisfactory.
The reality may be that they have no choice but to stay because the danger of Saudi Arabia’s oil falling into Islamic Fundamentalist hands is too great. Ideally I think they would like to concentrate all their troops in the permanent bases they are constructing in Iraq and the let the rest of the country go to hell. But they will only be able to keep the permanent bases while there is a friendly regime is in control in Baghdad, and the reality is that regime will not be there without active US military help.
I am not so sure that a pullout is inevitable or even likely.
SWIO,
It’s a tough call, I agree. The US clearly believes it has the most vital interests in the region.
But US bases in countries around the world today are justified in the eyes of a large majority of their host populations as protection against outside aggressors. The one place in the world where that idea couldn’t be sold was the Philippines where popular opposition successfully drove the US military presence out of the country. The US, I would venture to guess, is less popular in Iraq than in the Philippines.
Moreover, as far as the US was concerned, the Philippines were just a forward base for operations in the region. Conversely, the US presence in Iraq would be designed to impose compliance on the host population. These actions would inevitably put US personnel in harm’s way, with little prospect of pacification in the short, medium and perhaps long term. US voters would be unlikely to tolerate that state of affairs for very long.
As you remarked in an earlier post, perhaps the Bush Admin is living in a dream world and cannot perceive these dangers. If they are not deep in denial, surely they would perceive that the post-election period is the moment to edge towards the door and to maintain some shred of dignity while doing it.
Note, therefore that my point about a credible US exit strategy is based upon that most questionable quality — rationality in the Bush White House.
The Republicans have decided that the 2004-08 Presidential term will focus on domestic issues, principally fiscal reform (tax cutting for business and entitlement privatisation). This means that foreign issues must take a back seat.
Iraq is a money-pit and a vote-loser so the US admin wants out. A face-saving, disaster-avoiding exit strategy is therefore required.
The current line, as churned out by K-hammer, is that the US will set up democratic elections, give themselves an almighty pat on the back for forcing Arabs to be democrats and then bug out ASAP.
If an Iraqi civil war ensues then its all the Arabs fault. Or the media for sapping public will. Or the Democrats.
The US will have to keep a skeleton force in country to protect the seat of government and the oil wells. They will try to keep the numbers down to the low tens of thousands, to reduce costs in blood and treasure.
The rest of the Iraq will be ceded to tribal warlords and witchdoctors ala Afghanistan, Algeria and Somalia. These will have to be bought off by central government which will act as a kind of bagman for the US.
Any active terrorist havens will be given the Fallujah/Catharginan treatement.
Yeah,well the neocons plan is not going too well so far-disaster would be too kind an adjective.
Let’s hope that they have a plan B.
Jack Strocchi,
I think that is the most likely outcome, but I think they will try to leave a force in Iraq that could be brought up to strong offensive capability very quickly for control of oil fields in neighbouring countries. I’m not sure if they will be able to do that though.
Rare consensus here.
“These [atavistic authority figures mentioned by Jack] will have to be bought off by central government which will act as a kind of bagman for the US. ”
There can be no stable government in Iraq without the participation of the Shia coalition so ably assembled by Sistani. It’s arguable that the Shia would be quite unwilling to act as US proxies or “bagman”.
“I think that is the most likely outcome, but I think they will try to leave a force in Iraq that could be brought up to strong offensive capability very quickly for control of oil fields in neighbouring countries. I’m not sure if they will be able to do that though.”
If the US wants to play this game in the region, they’ll need to play the British game of the 1920s and impose some sort of Sunni-dominated regime on Iraq.
As SWIO correctly supposes, the Shia won’t roll over again, especially now they can rely on the regime and people of Iran for moral and more tangible support.
On Iraq
Whilst Dubya is off entertaining the troops in California, a job traditionally reserved for likes of Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears, the CIA are warning that the situation in Iraq is worse than everyone thinks.