Christopher Dickey reports that Ahmed Chalabi continues to gain power despite everything. I've often described Chalabi as unpopular, with no chance of winning a real election. Dickey writes: "These days, when the U.S.-run administration in Baghdad takes confidential polls to gauge public support for its hand-picked Iraqi Governing Council, Chalabi's approval ratings are "the most negative by far" among the 25 members, says an official who's perused the results. "The numbers I've seen run around 60 percent negative to 30 percent positive.""
And yet, Dickey writes, "So you might think Chalabi is discredited and finished. But then you'd be wrong—very wrong. On the contrary, the former exile leader has insinuated himself into several of the most powerful positions inside occupied Iraq."
This echoes what I've been saying for a while. Chalabi's goal is personal power in Iraq, and everything he does should be interpreted in that light. When he urged democratic elections, it was primarily to throw a spanner into the works of the scheduled transition - on the quite likely correct assumption that this would strengthen the claim of the appointed Council to "temporary" sovereign authority. Once in "temporary" authority, it would be far easier to rig an electoral system to keep power, to use the authority to distribute patronage to win opportunistic support, and to have a role shaping basic laws (as in the lead role granted the council in drafting - or at least ratifying - the basic law just signed).
There is also, of course, Chalabi's pivotal role in providing the well-coached defectors who offered the false intel which justified the invasion of Iraq. He is unapologetic, even if he went on 60 Minutes vowing to "clear his name" (good luck). You might actually be surprised that I don't actually hold this against Chalabi, per se. He's an exile who wanted a war, and he got what he wanted - why should he apologize? It's the Americans who used him, or allowed themselves to be used, which should be held accountable.
In general, the rule "if Chalabi's for it, oppose it" serves as a good guideline. I'm not at all surprised that the American transition plans are falling prey to Chalabi's machinations... disappointed, but not surprised. What a shame it would be if the grand democratic transformation promised by the Bush administration turned into a transfer of power to someone like Chalabi.
UPDATE: looks like Fred Kaplan had the same thought.
What a shame it would be if...the Bush administration turned into a transfer of power to someone like Chalabi.
You were expecting the ﻛþάŋîﻛђ †nQÙ١sîτį♂ń
erm, democracy?
How else are they going to ensure that the new Iraqi political regime does not stray outside the parameters the US has set down?
a) A loyal secret police
b) A 3,000-man American embassy
c) Reconstruction parceled out to the right people.
d) US interests favored
e) Strategic encirclement of Iran and Palestine-Lebanon-Syria
f) Directly control production and marketing of Iraq's oil, reducing dependence on Saudi Arabia
Posted by: paper_tigress | March 09, 2004 at 09:00 PM
Nah, I wasn't expecting much. But it's still a shame.
Posted by: the aardvark | March 10, 2004 at 07:01 AM
I had some similar musings about Chalabi on my site just over a month ago.
It's just a question of how long Sistani will stand for his nonsense.
Posted by: Swopa | March 10, 2004 at 08:54 PM
Ooops, link got erased. Here it is unadorned:
http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P841_0_1_0_C
Posted by: Swopa | March 10, 2004 at 08:55 PM