Obviously, I think that it is an enormously good thing that the US is - reportedly - abandoning the caucus plan for the Iraqi transition. I've written repeatedly about what a bad idea this was, and I'm very relieved that the Bush administration has come around and agreed.
But what should replace it? I've also argued that nothing which empowers the Governing Council is a good idea, and I won't rehearse those arguments again. Everyone seems to be converging on Ali Sistani's position that direct elections are the only route to democratic legitimacy - a case which just should not have been so hard a sell to the United States. But Kofi Annan now seems likely to agree (if he hasn't already) that elections before June 30 would be impossible (don't get me started on how, as I wrote last week, the impossibility of elections by that date could have been overcome if we hadn't wasted the last few months arguing the point).
The June 30 deadline is the most obvious way to overcome the deadlock. Rather than calling early elections which might fail, empowering a corrupt and unpopular council, or struggling to form another new interim government, why not just move the deadline back a few months? If accompanied by clear and visible moves to prepare for the elections, this shouldn't provoke too many fears. Everyone in the Arab media, at least, and evidently most people in Iraq, believe that the June 30 deadline serves the political interests of the Bush administration rather than the interests of Iraq. I'm actually not so sure that the deadline is good for Bush - he might get to declare "mission accomplished" again, but if things go to hell the next day then it could hurt him badly. Successful, peaceful elections in October would actually seem to be more likely to stick in the memory of voters and rebound to Bush's advantage. Far be it from me to hope for anything that helps Bush's re-election, but my main concern here is Iraq's future, which is very much in the balance. If a naked appeal to Bush's electoral interests is the only way to get him to do the right thing - push back the deadline a few months and begin immediate preparations for real democratic elections - then I'm not above it!
I think we have to conclude that the most economical explanation for Administration behavior is that it still wants to control the outcome. From that perspective, the flaw in your proposal is that it involves a direct transition from CPA rule to direct elections - precisely the risk the US seeks to avoid.
Transferring "sovereignty" to an unelected transitional government, with at least a six-month interval before elections, gives the Bush administration one last chance to shape post-Saddam Iraq to our liking. - or, at a minimum, to secure permanent basing rights from a 100% legitimate, fully independent Iraqi government.
And don't count Chalabi out just yet, either. Look at Jim Hoagland in the WPost today (he has a long record of channeling Dick Cheney's thinking). Highlights:
"Respect the Iraqi Council"
...An Egyptian or Saudi dissident tempted to take the chance of supporting Bush's vision will draw little comfort or encouragement from the treatment of Iraqi risk-takers, who are being told they are not ready to hold elections or exercise independent leadership.
...The problems began in the crucial opening phase of occupation, when the administration suddenly tossed out plans for installing an Iraqi coalition of leaders that had been carefully assembled over months of deliberation.
...A core group of Iraqi leaders, most of whom fought Saddam Hussein from exile or from the Kurdish regions protected by U.S. air power after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, has asserted itself over the past decade. Its members have shown that they can work together and promote democratic values.
...Moreover, to bypass this leadership group would undermine the historical legitimacy of the genuine Iraqi resistance, which Bush launched the March invasion to support. To expand the council's membership in a continuing, cosmetic pursuit of a mathematical balance of "representation" is a pointless, debilitating exercise at this late date.
...Any Iraqi who agrees with democratic values cannot possibly be an authentic Arab leader, this argument goes. Chalabi, who was educated in the United States and who relentlessly lobbied Democratic and Republican administrations to intervene in Iraq, is a lightning rod for such guilt by association.
...Who should organize Iraq's election? The answer lies in plain sight -- for those with eyes to see. Let the council be the council and get on with its work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60959-2004Feb21.html
Posted by: Dave L | February 22, 2004 at 09:26 AM