The American Spectator : Allawi's Lament

Text Size

Allawi's Lament

By Jed Babbin on 6.14.10 @ 6:09AM

He feels he, not Maliki, should be forming the new Iraqi government -- but does it matter?

Iraq's U.S.-induced experiment with democracy seems to be going quite well but for the fact that there's little security, stability, or democracy in Iraq. And, in the opinion of former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, it is failing in one key aspect, the peaceful transfer of power.

Allawi, leader of the Iraqiya List Party, apparently won the March election, achieving two more seats (91-89) than incumbent Nouri al-Maliki's party in the national parliamentary election. That result survived a recount which was confirmed by the Iraqi supreme court. And now, in a Friday op-ed in the Washington Post, Allawi condemns Maliki for continuing to try to form a minority government.

Allawi worries about Iran's influence on his nation and wants to use U.S. troops as a human hedge fund for Iraq's political future.

If this is Bush vs. Gore all over again, it's impossible to tell which is which. And, truthfully, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that Allawi's plea reveals the biggest mistakes George Bush made and which Barack Obama is compounding at terrible cost.

Allawi is right in accusing the Maliki government of failing to provide security, basic services, and job prospects. But he did no better when he was prime minister from 2004 to 2005. And on the claim that his 1% parliamentary majority (2 out of 180) entitles him to demand that Maliki surrender politically and help him form a government, he should seek counsel from Britain's David Cameron.

That part of Allawi's lament reveals a deeper problem that has plagued Iraq since the French and the Brits divvied up the remains of the Ottoman Empire: there is no nationalistic sense, no loyalty to an "Iraqi nation" that would cause Maliki to give up his ambitions, or Allawi to make sufficient compromises with Maliki to enable the government to function.

Each man stands on one side of a political divide that neither believes is worth crossing. As long as such divides remain, there cannot and will not be an independent Iraqi nation.

The Iraqi leaders -- Allawi and Maliki, as well as ranking Shiite clergyman Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose political power is enormous -- have not been forced to accept the responsibility of governing. The circumstance of our nation-building exercise allows them to pursue alternative futures for Iraq far different from those that democratic compromise would produce.

The mistaken choice of nation-building as a war strategy is founded on the weakest of premises: the incorrect definition of the enemy. On September 11, 2001 -- while the World Trade Center burned -- I wrote a piece that was published the following day in the Washington Times. In it, I said that the nations that sponsor terrorism are the real enemy and that they must be compelled to stop doing so with whatever force might be needed.

President Bush seemed to adopt that definition in his September 20, 2001 address to Congress, but quickly backed down from it. In January 2003, before the Iraq invasion, he adopted the nation-building strategy for Iraq, saying our goal there was an Iraq that could govern, sustain and defend itself and be an ally in what he called the "global war on terrorism."

On March 20, 2006, I wrote in Loose Canons that nation-building was a catastrophic mistake because it placed us on the strategic defensive, in a self-imposed quagmire that enabled the enemy -- the nations which sponsor Islamic terrorism -- to control the pace and direction of the war. And that if we were to pursue it -- instead of pursuing our real enemies, the nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism, we would have to occupy Iraq indefinitely with hundreds of thousands of troops and tens of thousands of bureaucrats to re-create colonial India of the British Raj.

Mr. Allawi implicitly -- and rather belatedly -- agrees. The rest of his article provides the few other elements necessary to complete it as the epitaph for the nation-builders:

Washington still has unrivaled leverage in Iraq, as well as a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people whom it freed from tyranny to do all it can to deliver sustainable peace and stability. Vice President Biden recently said that the United States was "going to be able to keep our commitment" to reduce troop levels in Iraq to 50,000 by this summer. While I have long supported the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Iraq cannot be allowed to revert to an unstable state of sectarian strife, dominated by regional influences.

Such an outcome would insult the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians whose lives were stolen in terrorist attacks and the thousands of U.S. soldiers who sacrificed their lives; it would also put at risk every U.S. and international policy priority in the region -- the planned troop withdrawals, nuclear containment, a stable energy supply, even the chances of success in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

It is essential to infer from Allawi's article that he -- and the Iraqis for whom he speaks -- would like the American occupation to continue indefinitely. But Mr. Allawi's statement that Iraq's security is a necessary predicate to the defeat of terrorism, containment of a nuclear Iran (if that were possible) and every other U.S. goal in the Middle East, is merely a restatement of President Bush's mistake in defining nation-building as a predicate to the defeat of terrorism.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 6.14.10 @ 7:17AM

I cannot say that I disagree with much of this article Mr. Babbin. The whole of Iran is in shambles and is willing to take down the entire middle East in it's apparent attempt of hegomony and the resources of all the States outside of it's borders. We have a very weak so-called president, an even weaker State Dept. run by his ideological counterpart, the great hildabeast of the West and this is suppose to be a suprise to who?
Time for playing nice with our enemies, and for that matter the enemies of this world, is over. I don't care if the other Nations don't like us, or do not agree with our sticks, they must fear us in order to play nice with all of the world. They only understand brute force as an alternative to chaos. The Iraqi gubmint is no different. What I fear is they donot understand fully what is going to happen to their neighbors, and maybe themselves, if they continue to try our patience with all of their " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. The American people one day are going to wake up and realize the Iraqi gubmint has played us for fools, obama is an idiot, and our safety is not assured without the full cooperation of all peace loving Nations to stand up to the evil that surrounds us all.
Playing politic's will only work for so long before the realization become apparent the need to turn their desert into one big glass parking lot will look better than the alternative, the loss of the civilized Nations.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.14.10 @ 8:34AM

We occupied West Germany for years and years. Many thought that the Germans would have to let a tainted generation die off before democracy could survive there. (Just a reminder)

Nevertheless, Agree with him or not, W deposed Saddam and gave a people a chance at a decent life. All Obama is going to do is let any chance for them just "slip-slide away".
Question:
Did Obama grow up Sunni.....or Shia? What were his two "daddies"?

Eisenhower| 6.14.10 @ 10:48PM

"All Obama is going to do is let any chance for them just "slip-slide away"."

I wasn't aware that it was the President of the United States of America's job to make sure that Iraqi democracy doesn't slip away. Benjamin Franklin once said that “We’ve given you a republic, if you can keep it.”, we can't be their Safety Net forever, they have to learn how to stand up on their own.

Something else to consider: "The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, "

This agreement was signed on November 17, 2008, the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed the agreement.

"The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq, two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament." - President George W. Bush

The fact is we were going to leave anyway. So what do you want President Obama to do exactly? Break our arrangement, overthrow the Iranian Friendly Shitte majority, and put the Sunnis back into Power? That would be counter-productive, not to mention there are too many other problems to deal with right now, without interfering in the affairs, of what should be an "Independent" Government. They have their freedom, now let them endeavor to keep it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Curly Smith| 6.14.10 @ 9:11AM

Nation-building only works when the interested parties realize that they'll get more loot from the built nations than the failed states. Consider the quintessential failed state - Palestine... the chaos may be bad for the people but it's very, very profitable for those causing the chaos.

We could send some advisors to the region to talk about how a free market economy increases wealth for all parties, how lower taxes raise government revenues, and that wealth does not exist in finite quantities but there are no such advisors in Washington, nor have there been for 20 years.

Alan Brooks| 6.14.10 @ 10:31AM

"Palestine... the chaos may be bad for the people but it's very, very profitable for those causing the chaos."

Blame it on the Jews-- they use the blood of Palestinian children to prepare their matzoh.

Ryan| 6.14.10 @ 12:57PM

How wealthy is the rest of the Muslim world? How much has been stolen from the regular people of Palestine by the PLO, Hamas, or Hezbollah?
Which side uses civilians as cover?

Ryan| 6.14.10 @ 12:59PM

It's hard to argue that ridding the world of Saddam was a bad idea; that being said, the people of Iraq need to finally take responsibility for themselves and learn that there are ways to govern peacefully and that compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing in government.

The US should pull back and protect the oil in Iraq, and let the rest have at each other.

Eisenhower| 6.14.10 @ 10:50PM

I couldn't agree more.

JP| 6.14.10 @ 3:23PM

It's all a matter of demographics. The Shiites are the majority (55%, followed by the Sunnis 35%, the Kurds 20%, Christians 5% and falling fast). The Shiites religiously are tied to Iran, while the Sunnis have ties to Syria and Jordan. The Kurds are surrounded by enemies. Most of the oil fields are in close proximity to the Kurds in the north.

When are out, look for the Turks to make a move against the Kurds. Iran will form an alliance with the Shiites, and all heck will break out. The only thing the unites these people is thier hatred of Isreal and the US. But even that is shallow compared to the hatred these people have for eachother.

maverick muse| 6.14.10 @ 5:05PM

After pocketing $1Billion, Allawi laments?

Allawi, aka Saddam without the mustache, tortured every bit as much as Hussein did, and oversaw the filching of $1BILLION US Tax Dollars meant to train Iraqi's own security forces. Of course he'd like the US to maintain his/Iraq's security perpetually; no skin off his nose that way.

Allawi and al-Maliki share Shia with Iran.

2002: Through an Iraqi officer linked with Allawi, the report claiming that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes is passed to British Intelligence.

"The Iraqi National List was represented in the coalition government led by Nouri al-Maliki, but Allawi himself did not take a Cabinet post. The party eventually boycotted the government in 2007. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/200.....ng-as.html In preparation for upcoming national elections, Allawi formed a new coalition with leading Shia politician Iskander Witwit (one of the leaders of the 1991 uprising against Saddam), Shia tribal Sheikh Hussein al-Shalan, the deputy Prime Minister Raffi al-Essawi, Sunni politician Saleh Mutlaq and Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi called the Iraqi National Movement." http://english.aljazeera.net/p.....65619.html In preparation for the next parliamentary elections that took place in Iraq in December 2005, Allawi formed an alliance between many groups, including secular Sunni and Shia groups and the Iraqi Communist Party under one electoral list (the Iraqi National List). While Allawi's CIA connections helped get him a seat on Bremer's Governing Council, in opinion polls, Allawi got some of the lowest scores among Iraq's emerging leaders.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
What couldn't with nine lives Allawi?

ATL Media| 6.14.10 @ 5:08PM

Good points JP.
The criminal enterprise that was Saddams' Iraq, is now a criminal enterprise of a "democratically" elected kleptocrats. Based on what they saw Haliburton, Parsons & others get away with, the current leadership is following in our footsteps.
O' & it only cost the US taxpayers 1/2 a trillion $
for this brilliant transformation
Heck of job Neo-con(victs)

Jeffry| 6.15.10 @ 4:46AM

President Obama has established Democracy in Iraq, something that Bush never could have done. Bush wanted the oil as everyone knows, but thankfully, we have President Obama who has a much cooler approach to Iraq, knowing that they need their oil in order to provide for democracy.

If the Jews had their way, Iraq would be under brutal Israeli occupation, like Palestine and there would be no free elections. Again, we can thank our President Obama for keeping the Jews in check. As long as President Obama is in the White House, Iraq will remain our friend, our only friend in the Middle East.

vmx| 6.16.10 @ 1:18AM

Israel has never attacked the US is good for business, whereas the arab nation are more trouble than they're worth. It's finally time to start playing by the same rules as the mullahs, team up with Israel and drive Islam into the sea.

Ryan| 6.15.10 @ 8:13AM

Under whose presidency were the first post-Saddam elections held in Iraq? What year?

Does Israel undergo random attacks against Palestinian civilians?

ccc| 6.16.10 @ 1:13AM

Allawi or Maliki , it doesn't make a difference. Iraq will collapse into chaos shortly after the US stopps pumping billions in aid and military into the country. 1, 5 or 20 years from now the end will be the same, but at least everyone had some fun.