Sunni bloc withdrawal

The Sunni al-Tawafuq bloc has reportedly followed through on its threat to quit the Maliki government (but not withdraw from Parliament).   They've threatened to withdraw so many times that it's tempting to wait and see if they really do it, but after the bitter arguments over the last week it would be hard for them to back down without completely losing credibility so they probably will. It won't cause Maliki's government to fall, since he doesn't need their votes.  But it does matter, for two reasons.

First, the internal Sunni dimension.  Sunni political parties which entered the political process have become increasingly desperate to show any fruits from their participation. They have been accused by their constituents of offering a Sunni fig leaf to a Shia sectarian government, of pursuing personal interests over national or Sunni interests, and of being played for suckers.  The Iraqi Islamic Party of Tareq al-Hashemi used to be considered the representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, but now the insurgent group Hamas Iraq clearly claims that mantle (you can see it in how they are featured in the Ikhwan websites and forums).  Even the much-hyped American Sunni tribal strategy can be seen as an end-run around the national Sunni political parties, working directly with tribal leaders at the local level rather than dealing with the politicians.   Finally, the Sunni political parties are deeply threatened by the moves by the nationalist-oriented insurgency groups into the public political realm:  the insurgency's claim to be the only authentic representatives of the Sunni community directly threatens the relevance of these political parties.  Desperate to demonstrate their relevance, the Sunni bloc seems to have decided upon last week's direct challenge:  either they would emerge with some clear gains to push back against these various political threats, or else they would pull out and reposition themselves as a political opposition.  Neither is likely to work, but they don't have many cards to play. 

Second, for the United States it is a blunt indicator that the "surge" has failed.  War supporters want us to focus on the tactical level, which is what the shifts in Sunni strategy really amounts to (even if, as I've been arguing, those shifts are being consistently misinterpreted).  But these tactical military indicators were never supposed to be the point.  Back when the new policy was announced, administration officials and top military leaders clearly recognized the priority of the political process: the point of the surge was to create a secure space to allow the chance for political reconciliation.  General Petraeus used to be very clear about the fact that his military strategy had to be in the service of a national political strategy (though his more recent argument that the initiative had passed to the local level offered an implicitly damning assessment which should have received more critical attention). Admiral Mike Mullen, in his confirmation hearings yesterday, clearly affirmed that this still applied, saying that "there is no purely military solution in Iraq" and that without political reconciliation "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

The point is that the Bush administration itself argues that its new strategy should be judged by the political process, not at the military level.  By its own standards it has clearly failed.   It has long been clear that the Iraqi political process wasn't just not moving forward but was actually deteriorating. The Sunni bloc's withdrawal from the Maliki government - to say nothing of the cavalier response to its demands from Iraqi government spokesmen - just puts a capstone on this long-manifest reality. (It's worth asking how the US could possibly have so little influence over Maliki's government, which listens to all these American demands and appeals for political reconciliation but does nothing - could it be that Bush's refusal to consider a withdrawal leaves the US with no leverage or credibility?  At any rate, the Tawafuq bloc carefully left its options open to return to the government if its demands are met - perhaps this would be a good time to test some leverage?)

Switching the focus back to tactical military developments may allow administration defenders to put forward signs of 'progress' - however ephemeral, dubious, or beside the point  - but serious people shouldn't join in this shell game.   The administration and its supporters sold the surge on the premise that it would pay its dividends at the level of national Iraqi politics.  It hasn't.   The Sunnis have left the government, none of the political benchmarks have been met, and they won't be since the Parliament has adjourned until September.  No honest report from Ambassador Crocker - who is an honest man and a very good diplomat - will be able to portray any progress, or prospects for progress, on the national political front.

(note to Washington Monthly readers:  Kevin linked to and quoted from this post while I was still re-editing it... that almost never happens, but this time it did.  His quote is accurate;   I'm not going to change it back to the way it was, but wanted to acknowledge the change.)

Comments

[Andrew]

Mark,

I appreciate your reporting and analysis. You write "Switching the focus back to tactical military developments may allow administration defenders to put forward signs of 'progress' - however ephemeral, dubious, or beside the point - but serious people shouldn't join in this shell game. The administration and its supporters sold the surge on the premise that it would pay its dividends at the level of national Iraqi politics. It hasn't."

One very painful, and in my experience (I'm 48), unique aspect of watching this Administration at work is that one simply has to suspend the assumption that they act in good faith. Whether or not one agrees with one's political opponents, most politicians take care to preserve the idea that they act in good faith. There is the occasional dirty deed, but by and large governments act in ways that reflect honorable attempts to deal with the true circumstances.

This Administration has demonstrated conclusively that there is nothing it will not say, or do, for political expediency. It's actually fascinating watching other institutions - Congress, the media, the military - come to terms, or not, with this aspect of our politics. It's almost like a suspension of the law of gravity - people have no experience of working in a weightless environment. Having to deal with people at the top of the government of the world's most powerful nation who refuse to act in good faith is a profoundly unnerving experience.

[Patrick]

Marc~

The fact that al-Tawafuq withdrew during the summer recess shows that this is not a serious gambit on their part. This is the equivalent of Ferris skipping school in mid-August: Mr. Rooney isn't around to care. There is too much at stake for al-Tawafuq, personally as much as politically (from my understanding, the lives of MPs in Iraq is pretty posh), for this to be a permanent withdrawal. I wouldn't be surprised if they convince al-Maliki to make some sort of face-saving gesture during the August recess so that they can come back to work at the end of the month. I especially imagine this to be the case, given the amount of American pressure on both sides to play ball.

I agree with your comments on the tactical gains of the surge, which might be why the president name checks General Petraeus FAR MORE often than Ryan Crocker. General Petraeus' side of the equation is showing progress (albeit in baby steps), today's bombings notwithstanding. Petraeus could give a mostly honest assessment, saying that Iraq is safer today than it was in January. However, if Crocker were forced to give an honest strategic assessment, there is no way he could, in good faith, give such a rosy opinion. I imagine we'll hear less and less from our Arabist friend and more and more from our soldier.

[Ben P]

Patrick I disagree - I think its more serious than that. They've left the cabinet for good - as Sadr did. They're not quitting Parliament, so they can keep the foot in the door they need to keep.

Besides, their basic demands are things Maliki cannot and will not grant them, for both ideological and practical reasons.

Summer recess or no, the "Parliament" is basically non-functioning anyway, so your Ferris Bueller analogy is not apt. It implies that their actually IS a time when school is in session for real, which isn't the case here.

As to security, I agree Petraeus has stopped the bleeding. But even here, I think his progress has been overrated in some quarters. The death squads are still pretty much rampant in Baghdad, leaving there 20-25 daily victims. Ethnic cleansing continues. Even in Anbar, where tthe much touted turn-around began last year, there were still over 400 attacks on US troops in June. Admittedly, thats down from about 800 twelve months ago. But 400 is still a hell of a lot of attacks. Clearly, important insurgent groups - and not the ISI - maintain a significant base of support even in an area that is purpotedly the US's biggest recent success.

The situation is basically hopeless. I don't advocate an immediate or even timetabled withdrawal. But I think realism dictates that the reason we maintain the presence and resources we have in Iraq is to satisfy our president's delusions of grandeur and to prevent him facing the reality that he made a strategic blunder compounded by his and his close advisors ignorance and incompetence. There is NO WAY Iraq is worth 10% of the annual federal budget. To me, that is simply unacceptable and is grounds enough for Bush's impeachment (although I don't think this will happen, nor do I suggest the Democrats necessarily pursue such a course).

[Patrick]

Ben P~

You're right in saying that school is never in session, and hasn't been for a long time. But to use an aphorism from someone I distrust, you use the government you have, not the government you want.

The situation looks dire, and might be basically hopeless, as you say. That being said, as long as there are American Marines and soldiers on the ground, we owe it to them and ourselves to push this ineffectual government towards functional. I would love nothing more than for a withdrawal to begin soon, but, as you point out, it's not going to happen. In the meantime, the Americans need to lay all of due pressure on al-Maliki et al. to get some work done.

This means that we need to recognize the political stunt for what it is, pay lip-service to their demands, and get them back in the cabinet where they belong. Like you said, it's more than a long-shot, but it's the only one we got.

Pat