just wondering

Al-Quds al-Arabi leads with Baghdad surrendering to civil war today, as fighting raged despite a curfew, with Iraq's government standing by helplessly and the US forces (according to al-Quds) just watching.  On the Shia side, Muqtada al-Sadr's movement threatened to withdraw from the government if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki went ahead with plans to meet George Bush in Amman (this was soon modified to threatening to "suspend participation" in the government - though what that would mean in the event of a showdown is unclear).  On the Sunni side, Association of Muslim Scholars head Harith al-Dhari, seemingly energized and enraged by the government's "investigation warrant", has been touring Arab capitals demanding that Arab governments withdraw recognition from an "evil" and "sectarian" Iraqi government.   Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi blamed Maliki for the course of events, complaining that Sunni politicians have had no role in forming national policy. And the house of Adnan Dulaimi came under armed attack, shortly after I saw him railing against the Shia leadership in an open Parliament session on al-Jazeera.  And violence on the ground seems to be spinning out of control, with tit-for-tat killings and threatening SMS messages (per the Post) and mounting despair.   It all feels like a tipping point:  Iraqis seem to be preparing for the worst, while speculation is mounting that if Maliki goes to Amman (and how could he refuse?) then his government might fall in his absence. 

So, I was just wondering.  Most of the American policy community is eagerly awaiting the Baker- Hamilton Report, which will supposedly urge intense talks with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran (Syria already sent its Foreign Minister to Baghdad without waiting for an invitation, while Jalal Talabani is already heading over to Tehran to chat).  The rest is trying to drum up support against Iran (including, evidently, Cheney in Saudi Arabia and Bush, who allegedly plans to use the Amman meeting to warn Maliki of his "concerns about rising Iranian influence in Iraq"), despite the seeming contradiction in the two moves.  All of it proceeding as if achieving an American policy consensus on what to do at some point in the future is what really matters right now.

But Iraq and its neighbors and its various competing factions are not sitting around waiting for Washington to make up its mind - things are happening on the ground, quickly.   Does the US have any particular plans in the event that Maliki's government actually falls, this week or in a few weeks?   I mean, it probably won't, things will probably sputter on, but what if it does?  What if the government collapses, removing even the fig leaf of the idea that the political process could somehow get Baghdad's civil war under control?  Or perhaps it's better not to think about such things...

Comments

[Anthony Eden]

what does the Aardvark think he's doing!? plans? that's reality-based thinking! such an approach would likely lead to the conclusion that Iraq is lost and America's moment in the Middle East is at an end. Iraq is the American Suez, but without a friendly great power to take over a regional role. It was US policy from the start to install a weak state and reject nation-state building as an "old school" approach. most state building efforts have only led to sectarianization and political fragmentation. lebanon is having enough trouble establishing a new balance of forces, can any one think through the calculus of what a inclusive balance of forces would look like in Iraq? Maybe the govt wont fall, simply because it doesn't really matter much, its fine cover for the expansion of sadrist power and target for the sunni insurgency while not forcing the kurds to make any compromises. sorry for the rant.

[Vladimir]

American policy is bedevilled by the seperation of policy from fact. The Iraqi "government" is an amalgamation of ethnic and sectarian based parties with competeing interests united momentarily out of convenience. The US is the major or perhaps only force in Iraqi that is still committed in a meaningful way to an "Iraqi" identity. The sheer complexity of the challenges makes the military mission difficult if not untenable. Politically and militarily it makes sense to simply the battlefield by backing the majority Shia Arab, Kurdish majority but this would essentially over time bring the US in conflict with Sunni Arab allies in the region so is politically a non starter. A shift to the Sunni side while in the country would be a military disaster as the Shia with Iranian support would be even more of a challenge than the Sunnis in Anbar province. In short the US can only announce a desire to withdraw asap and hope that all parties play along in the near term to create the conditions under which such a withdrawl could be managed. Once outside clearly the question becomes how to manage the ensuing civil war , which would mean supporting the Sunni side while setting the destruction of Al qaida in Iraq as the price for support.

[Nur al-Cubicle]

Just why is Bush is Amman? Can't he talk to al-Maliki on a secured military phone? I wonder if there are secret talks with Syria going on. Does he want to look into the soul of Assad? BTW, Condi's No. 1 man on Iraq, Philip Zelikow, quit.

[The Lounsbury]

Bush may be in Amman because at some point when one wants to "do a deal" one wants to be in the same room. Phone calls do not cut it. That is why business travel exists. No deal done over the phone is worth anything.

Or in the case of sending a message, person to person is always better when crisis comes.

[Badger]

Azzaman says Bush is going to Amman with a package of pro-Sunni measures; King Abdullah even wants to involve al-Dhari in the process; Olmert is making nice to the Palestinians. In other words, Bush is trying to marshal the "alliance of moderates" (Sunni regimes plus Israel) ahead of an attack on Iran, says Atwan. Anyone else find this persuasive ?

[Nur al-Cubicle]

Josh Landis supports the Badger view above:

"In declaring the cease-fire, Israel and the US are hoping to shore up support from their friends in order to better avoid negotiating with their enemies: Syria and Iran. Thus it is significant that both Jordan and Egypt are insisting on wider negotiations, despite Washington's efforts to draft them into a Shiite-Sunni war."

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

[Nur al-Cubicle]

Josh Landis supports the Badger view above:

"In declaring the cease-fire, Israel and the US are hoping to shore up support from their friends in order to better avoid negotiating with their enemies: Syria and Iran. Thus it is significant that both Jordan and Egypt are insisting on wider negotiations, despite Washington's efforts to draft them into a Shiite-Sunni war."

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

[Nur al-Cubicle]

Josh Landis supports the Badger view above:

"In declaring the cease-fire, Israel and the US are hoping to shore up support from their friends in order to better avoid negotiating with their enemies: Syria and Iran. Thus it is significant that both Jordan and Egypt are insisting on wider negotiations, despite Washington's efforts to draft them into a Shiite-Sunni war."

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

[jonst]

I'm with A. Eden.......

>>>. Does the US have any particular plans in the event that Maliki's government actually falls, this week or in a few weeks?<<<<

You should sooner ask if the US has any plan, period.

[Klaus]

Two questions: Is it conceivable that Muqtada could take power in Shia Iraq, through absorbing or crushing the Shia militias opposed, and if so, how will Iran look at this? I gather Muqtada is not too fond of Iran.