You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Iraqi Leaders Lack Motive to Look Beyond Self-Interest
2007-10-25


Excerpted to remove NYT hand-wringing

There has been no equivalent surprise, though, in Iraqi politics, yet. If you see that — if you see Iraqi politicians surprising you by doing things they've never done before, like forging a self-sustaining political compromise and building the fabric of a unified country — then you can allow yourself some optimism.

So far, though, too many of Iraq's leaders continue to act their part — looking out for themselves, their clans, their hometowns, their militias and their sects, and using the Iraqi treasury and ministries as looting grounds for personal or sectarian gains. As a result, what you have today is more of a spotty truce, with U.S. soldiers still caught in the middle. That is a quiet strategy, not an exit strategy.

Study the travel itineraries of Iraq's principal factional leaders after the Petraeus hearings. Did they all rush to Baghdad to try to work out their differences? No. Many of them took off for abroad. As one U.S. official in Baghdad pointed out to me last week, "at no point" since the testimony by Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker "have you had the four key Iraqi leaders in the same country at the same time." They saw the hearings as buying them more time, and so they took it.

"We have created a real case of moral hazard in Iraq," said Marc Lynch, a Middle East specialist at George Washington University. "Because all the key players think the Americans are going to bail them out, they have no incentive to make any real concessions to one another." Indeed, I continue to believe that everyone has us where they want us in Iraq: We're holding up the floor for Iraqi politicians to do their endless tribal dance; we are bogged down and within missile range of Iran, so if we try to use any military force to disrupt Tehran's nuclear program we will pay a huge price; and as long as we are trapped in Iraq, we will never even think about promoting reform elsewhere in the Arab world.

There has been more local cross-sectarian dialogue lately, particularly between Shiite and Sunni elders. But that seems to be the limit of Iraqi politics. It still feels to me as if we've made Iraq just safe enough for its politicians to be obstinate, corrupt or reckless on our dime. Even the moderate Kurds must have developed some kind of death wish, allowing their radicals to simultaneously provoke both Turkey and Iran and risking the island of real decency the Kurds have built in the north.
Disregarding Friedman's pissing and moaning about the Iraqi quagmire, he does manage to highlight how Iraqi politicians are less than useless. We really need to consider forcibly disbanding their government and holding new elections. As Iraq's liberators, we have that right and it would send a clear moral signal to the MME (Muslim Middle East) that will will not tolerate the endless squabbling and corruption that passes for Arab "business as usual".
Posted by:Zenster

#14  TOPIX > GROONG ARMENIAN NEWS [USA] > Turkey's military operations inside Iraq agz the Kurds may "provoke" or initiate a wider regional conflict. Turkey's incursion is viewed as TEMPORARY at best unless Iraq's new Govt can formally, effectively control and nationalize the Iraqi Kurds. Iff not, risks only promo further instability and risk of inter-nation confrontation.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-25 23:37  

#13  Sounds like U.S. domestic politics to me.

Mebbe so, Pappy, but the big difference is that we aren't seeking to nuke the shit out of any non-believing nations whereby many of the Muslim majority countries would like nothing better. This lends a whole different sense of urgency to our own efforts and increases the need for these corrupt-as-shit-assholes to get off of the shari'a dime.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-25 22:00  

#12  Anyone who thinks that the current political climate is new hasn't read alot about the 1880'2 or Andrew Jackson's time.

For that matter, look into the U.S.political machines of the past 100+ years. Every ethnic group new to the U.S. quickly realizes that there's a nice little trough to feed and dispense favors from.

"Because all the key players think the Americans are going to bail them out, they have no incentive to make any real concessions to one another."

Sounds like U.S. domestic politics to me.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-10-25 21:32  

#11  Look at all the existing democracies. None of us are exactly paragons of cooperation. Anyone who thinks that the current political climate is new hasn't read alot about the 1880'2 or Andrew Jackson's time.

Democracy Is Hard
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2007-10-25 20:47  

#10  Intresting
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2007-10-25 20:46  

#9  Just testing
Posted by: g(r)om-jobar   2007-10-25 20:45  

#8  The author wants Iraqi leaders to *set aside* self-interest. That doesn't happen anywhere, except by people who *pretend* to set aside their self-interest, like Al Gore and his comrades, who only think of themselves.

Bravo, 'moose. You correctly isolated the "false premise" of Friedman's argument. Still, the fact remains that the vast majority of Iraqi politicians—as you duly note—mistakenly subscribe to the Zero-Sum Equation. They continue to seek out ways whereby others shall lose as they gain and for that, most of them need to die be ousted from office.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-25 20:43  

#7  And they ain't much for detecting where their self interest lays.
Posted by: gom-jobar   2007-10-25 20:43  

#6  So long as their "self-interest" is guided in whole or in part by Islam...
Posted by: Crusader   2007-10-25 17:51  

#5  Congressional Democratic Iraqi Leaders Lack Motive to Look Beyond Self-Interest

There, fixed it for you
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-10-25 17:43  

#4  His axiom is wrong. Think about it. The author wants Iraqi leaders to *set aside* self-interest. That doesn't happen anywhere, except by people who *pretend* to set aside their self-interest, like Al Gore and his comrades, who only think of themselves.

Instead, let me suggest that what Iraqi leaders *should* be doing is find a way to blend their self-interest into mutual interest, to profit everyone.

This is a big difference. What is more sensible, to invest $10k in your own investment in the hope of personally making $11k; or to invest $10k in a mutual fund in the hope of making $15k each for everyone in it? You are still all following your self-interest, but you are doing so as a group.

The same with Iraq. What the Iraqi leaders must be convinced of is that they will all prosper more if they hang together, than if try to get it all for themselves.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-10-25 16:45  

#3  Elections and our democratic process of representative government are not a panacea in getting generations of tribal loyalties, kinship, and cronyism out of ME governments. We are projecting our value system on theirs, and changing their values is a HUGE undertaking on our part, requiring literally decades of commitment by this country.

Of course, we in this country have some serious issues with our own system and people, so we mentors have some serious cleaning of cobwebs and homework to do, too.

It seems that our main national interest is to eliminate the Islamic threat. We have to do some serious internal soul searching before we decide commit to a complete overhaul of ME governments.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-10-25 15:59  

#2  Third world politicians acting like third world politicians. Who would have guessed.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-10-25 15:34  

#1  Sounds like U.S. politicians.
Posted by: DoDo   2007-10-25 14:48  

00:00