Reading the
advance coverage of President Bush's upcoming "summit meeting" with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki to discuss growing impatience with his government, I had to chuckle.
How fortunate al-Mailiki is that Bush has such a
loose grasp on the history of Vietnam. Bush probably doesn't know the late
Mr. Ngo Dinh Diem from a plate of moo goo gai pan. If he did, Bush might be tempted to do what JFK did 43 years ago and just have the guy bumped off. As Comrade Stalin was once reported to have uttered: "No person. No problem."
And while the historic circumstances do not completely converge, the parallels between Diem and al-Maliki are rather eerie. Back in 1963 we stood on the precipice of the freefall into Vietnam. We had a nice "emerging democracy" in South Vietnam if you will remember. Didn't matter if the government was dictatorial or corrupt; all that counted was that it was anti-communist. But lo and behold there was a rampant outbreak of what today we politely call "sectarian strife." In other words, we were bankrolling and defending an unpopular, unrepresentative South Vietnamese regime populated by a minority Catholic elite (and already mired in a civil war). Diem's sister-in-law
Madame Nhu, was making a spectacle of herself. Worse, Buddhist monks were setting themselves ablaze in front of TV cameras.
Just like Bush will do this week when he meets the Iraqi P.M. in Jordan, we urged President Diem to rein things in. More or less like asking a leopard to change it spots. When nothing really changed, the Kennedy White House simply had poor old President Diem assassinated. Then came LBJ, the Gulf of Tonkin and you can fast forward right to the Wall on the Mall.
So here we are once again supporting a sect-based regime locked in an endless war of insurgency. Yes, this time we're backing the formerly oppressed religious majority. And the other guys don't have to set themselves ablaze, because the militias that support our client regime are
setting them on fire first.
And, yes, Bush will impress upon al-Maliki how he must immediately turn things around... or else? Or else I don't know. I don't think Jim Baker is recommending we stuff al-Maliki into a trash bag and toss him into the Tigris. But what other leverage do we have unless we do what Bush won't do: threaten immediate withdrawal.
The discussions with al-Maliki are, in any case, a transparent charade. Al-Maliki can no more afford to break with the Shia militias than Diem could reel in the excesses of the Catholic minorities. What politician in his right mind
surrenders his power base? The pro-Iranian Shia militias constitute the very backbone of al-Mailiki's already anemic government. And the emergence of the militias (and the
escalation of civil war) can hardly be pinned on him.
The al-Maliki government is little more than a debating society, a small committee that sporadically meets inside the fortified walls of the Green Zone. It's the U.S. that has allegedly (and rather poorly) occupied Iraq for the last three years. We're the ones responsible for physical security. If the militias have blossomed -- as they have-- it has been under the umbrella of the occupation forces.
There's one wild divergence between the historic cases of Diem and al-Maliki. After the incorrigible Diem was disappeared from the scene, the succeeding Vietnamese governments were all completely compliant with the U.S. We're not going to have such accommodation in Iraq. And even if we do, look where that led us into Vietnam.
What the future holds for the war in Iraq can only be dark. I favor withdrawal of U.S. troops. But that is hardly a "solution." The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has unleashed a dynamic that now rages beyond our control. A bloodier civil war and the break-up of the nation state now seem inevitable, with us or without us. We can choose to get deeper enmeshed or to cut our losses. But in either case, the coming years can only bring a dizzying fight over the carcass of the failed Iraqi state; and that can be of solace to exactly nobody.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, November 26th, 2006 at 8:50 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
November 26th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Maliki’s motorcade was pelted with stones when he went to a Shi’ite neighborhood to attend funerals for the recent bombing victims. It’s his fault, cried the crowd.
Moqtada al Sadr blames the U.S. for this recent slaughter, for not offering effective protection, and calls for a pullout. And he says he’ll pull out of the government if Maliki meets Bush in Jordan. That meeting is still scheduled.
We should remember that Maliki really doesn’t have even the constituency that Diem had — Maliki was a compromise candidate disliked by virtually every party and faction in the Iraqi legislature. At best, he represents only a tiny patch of common ground in a country that hardly has any. He didn’t have many friends there to begin with, and he has even fewer now. I guess he’s got a friend in George, though. For a while longer.
How long can the Green Zone last? Mortar attacks on other targets are on the rise. How long before their sites are set for what little remains of the center? I read recently that the Pesh Merga might soon be defending the seat of government. I reckon it won’t be long before the Pesh Merga says, “Sure, we can hold out here–if we turn everything found within a half-mile radius of the Green Zone into a no-man’s-land. But if you really want us to shield you, let us do it in Kirkuk rather than Baghdad. It won’t *really* be an Iraqi government-in-exile. Just as Kurdistan is not *really* a sovereign nation.”
November 27th, 2006 at 7:27 am
The paucity of substantive reporting from Iraq makes it impossible to know what is really going on there – except for the carnage. Thank Allah for Al Jazeera. US MSM is in-bedded so we’ll never know what exactly happened to Al-Maliki…
Is the US making overtures to any of the militias? I’d be surprised if there isn’t a whole lotta dirty dealin’ goin on! Thank Allah, also, for the Freedom of Info Act – at least we’ll be able to sort it all out in a few decades.
Also, is there anyone out there that thinks the recent assasination in Lebanon may have been the handiwork of Mossad rather than Syria? The only proof I have to offer is the unanimity of MSM that it was the Syrians.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:03 am
“Also, is there anyone out there that thinks the recent assasination in Lebanon may have been the handiwork of Mossad rather than Syria?”
Well, the MSM always tells us we should look for the one who most benefits, so Mossad would fit the bill nicely by that criterion–for all political assassinations in Lebanon. Not saying they did it, just that they benefit.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Another parallel that is being advanced is that we may not even have the luxury of a phased withdrawal but may be forced to leave from the roof tops of the Green Zone by advancing mobs, angry at what has become of their country under our watch.
If there is any consolation, it is that this debacle will dampen any lingering American enthusiasm for similar foreign adventures… at least for the next 30 or 40 years.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:46 am
In terms of Gamayel, there is a great piece at Hufpo a few days ago by Mark Levine making the case for Israel being behind it. Funny thing is that the Gamayel family was Israel’s proxy twentyfive years ago, helping to implement the Sabra/Chatilla massacres.
On Maliki, I don’t disagree with Marc’s specifics, but think that context must be given…..Iraq is becoming close with Iran and Syria, both of whom I truly believe would do a better job in preventing a failed state on both of their borders. This can’t be making the US happy (they wanted to be Big Fish mediating negs themselvves) so Maliki’s manifold mistakes are being covered in Western Media far more than the deft diplomacy that may help lead to a withrdrawl. These militias that Marc alleges are a backbone to Maliki have recently taken to declaring war on the guy….
If one reads Patrick and Alexander Cockburn’s respectiv recent columns (however much you may dislake the latter) – as well as Tom Hayden’s recent reports, one may well surmise that he US is now backing “Al Qaida” or the Sunni “resistance” surreptitiously.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:02 am
The Diem analogy doesn’t fit. He was authoritarian, rather than democratic, but he had a real political base among the numerous Vietnamese Catholics. He was succeeded by generals who had little popular support and were much closer to puppets.
Maliki holds his position (I won’t say power) due to maneuvering in the elected but nonetheless artificial Parliament.
I see no signs that we understood Iraq today any better than did Gertrude Bell, who made the mistake of inventing it, with the acquiescence of Winston Churchill. However, as my mother used to tell me in pottery stores, “If you break it, you buy it.” We have done both.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
There is an even more ominous historical precedent and it isn’t 43 years old. Some of Al Sadr’s men took over Iraqi Broadcasting this weekend and called on Shia to kill all Sunni. Just before the genocide in Ruana a call to masacre went out over their state radio. We also know that Sadr has made it clear that Maliki should not go to Amman to meet with Bush.
Between Iraq and a hard place? (sorry!)
November 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
All this fuss over Iraq is unseemly for a hyperpower whose military might outshines the second rank of nations by the largest differential in the history of the world. We are in a global war against Islam. Iraq should be seen as a stepping-stone, not unlike Guadalcanal or Iwo Jima. The mopping-up afterwards should have all the resonance of a little light colonial policing, not its standing as The Issue as it seems to be.
We should be beefing up our forces there in preparation for calling on Iran to surrender, not drawing them down. In fact, we ought already to have acknowledged that a state of war exists between the US and every nation that supports terrorism (including our ‘buddies’ the Saudis, etc) and/or in which a substantial number of people were dancing in the streets after 9/11. Iraq was a wimpy little start, an attempt to be nicey-nice and spread ‘democracy’ (perish the thought we should actually do that; democracy is a horrible form of gov’t, a dictatorship of the majority; the Founders of the US preferred what we have: rule of law, a constitutional republic). A nice little sideshow, perhaps, but hardly the main event.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Doc –
Can I have a little bit of what you’re smoking?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I don’t mean to comment twice, but Doc here thinks the US is at war with a religion, with billions of people……
This is truly disturbign that some Americans – no doubt due to the hate speech that is a regular item on right wing blogs – think this way. Oh yeah, America, in its support for certain Latin American groups, supports terrorism against Cuba, etc. Does Cuba have the right to strike Miami?
November 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Yes, yes, we just think that way b/o the ‘right wing blogs’…and the smoking crater in NYC, various other attacks by Muslims, the comments of OBL and many another Islamic leader, the dancing in the Arab street after 9/11, the lack of vigorous (or even wimpy, for that matter) protest against the desire to impose sharia on the West on the part of ‘moderate’ Muslims (how do you know if a Muslim is moderate? He only wants to kill Jews).
You can wait until a major city is a glowing cinder; I’d prefer to prevent that. Unfortunately it appears that, altho’ the majority of the nation would probably not share your sentiments about commie Cuba, they’re not quite prepared to take the robust action needed to protect the US. Yet,
However, barring extreme events (which would probably serve to hasten the following rather than delay it), your sentiments are doomed to die out. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the parents’ worldview, ~80% of children will share it when they grow up. ‘Liberals’, ‘progressives’, etc are not reproducing very well. This is understandable: it’s tough to reproduce if you abort a fair number of your offspring, engage in a ‘same-sex’ relationship, or want to have a great career first and besides you think the world is over-populated so you only have 1 designer baby at 39. Meanwhile we rightwing bigoted neanderthals are reproducing nicely, thank you very much, and an increasing number of us have figured out that the only way the liberals have even maintained what influence they still have is because they very early took control of academia, including the gov’t schools. Therefore, we homeschool. My 3 teenage boys are at least as conservative as I am, if not more so (the little girl’s a bit too young to care, truthfully). The oldest is already in college and maintaining, if not intensifying, his conservative views. The next one is even more conservative and intends to be a Marine Recon. I figure I’ve got a pretty good shot at a fair number of grandchildren. So I’m pretty hopeful about the future.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
You can tell “Doc” is a parody from the absence of spelling mistakes and generally correct grammar.
But he/she does a nice job of showing up the similarities between the Islamic fundies and our own.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
O don’t you wish. No, sorry, /sarcasm off/ the whole time. You’d like to think we’re all uneducated schlubs, I’m sure, but some of us are a tad bit more enlightened. Bachelor’s and an M.D., myself.
Yeah, we ‘fundies’ are fond of sending our teenage girls and grandma’s off to blow up large groups of Muslims, aren’t we. OK, so /sarcasm on/ for that line…
November 27th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Yeah, we ‘fundies’ are fond of sending our teenage girls and grandma’s off to blow up large groups of Muslims, aren’t we.
Well, there’s an important moral distinction: when our fundies send women to blow up large groups of Muslims, they’re all of military age!
November 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Yeah, but ours typically don’t blow themselves up at the same time. So they get to come home and reproduce. Makes it easier to recruit. As Patton put it, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other b*****d die for his.” And this is war, folks. Lepanto, Vienna, and Tours all over again. Suit up, or shut up and get out of the way.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
It’s fascinating to watch a policy unravel in real time.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
When Doc finishs homeschooling his kids he might ask himself where all the troops and the funds are going to come from for his crusade. The last I heard our Chinese bankers were n ot keen on US Imperial ventures and its never nice to piss off the loan officer.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Grumpy Old Man said,
However, as my mother used to tell me in pottery stores, “If you break it, you buy it.†We have done both.
Could we retire the pottery barn metaphor for Iraq which I believe was said by Colin Powell. A country isn’t a piece of pottery. Yes, U.S. broke Iraq, but U.S. doesn’t own Iraq and has shown itself incapable of fixing even the simplest problems of Iraq.
As for Doc,
the U.S. has supported wars that smashed up Afghanistan, which is now a failed state; smashed up Iraq, which now has a civil war; given money to arm Israel to invade Lebanon twice, smashing up southern Lebanon; and given money to arm Israel to smash up the Palestinian economy. Now just couldn’t a wee bit of Muslim attitudes to the U.S. have to do with the U.S. smashing up four Muslim states? Just a teensy bit?
After all, if a Muslim state sponsored wars that smashed up the economies of Belgium, Italy, Spain, and , Norway, would Europeans be just a tiny bit upset?
November 27th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
jcummings;
“Funny thing that the Gameyal family was Israel’s proxy (perpetrating) Sabra/Chatilla…”
Gameyal was a Phalangist. The IDF invited them in the camp to execute a horrendous massacre. Based on that grim moment in history, I’d say ‘accomplices’ is a better description of the Phalanges-IDF relationship than ‘proxy’. I doubt the Israeli’s would hesitate for a minute to kill him if it served thier purpose.
Bill Bradley:
Fascinating indeed! The conservatives are starting to sound like the HAL 9000 computer crashing at the end of 2001:ASO.
Fascinating and frightening: all it would take is one more halfway successful Al Quedda terror attack in the US and all that jingoistic BS will ravel and reign again…
November 27th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Like every accused plagiarist who ever lived, I swear I didn’t know I was channeling old Colin. I think of “own” here not in the sense of “possess,” but in the sense of assumed responsibility. It could be that the best way to meet that responsibility is to let Iraq sink or swim.
Perhaps not.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Being intelligent, literate, educated, but also very socially conservative, and a fanatic — to the point of favoring extermination of perceived enemies over less violent means — is not exactly unknown. You can even be a doctor and be like that.
My current favorite example of the MD fanatic is Ayman al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s #2, and almost certainly the real brains behind the operation, at least on the propaganda side (which, as he pointed out in a letter to the Iraqi wing, was more than 50% of the war). He was an esteemed Cairo pediatrician before going underground. Zawahiri was radicalized in his teen years by the martyring of Sayyid Qutb, another socially very conservative man, and a very literate and intelligent one at that.
The impossibility of knowing everything probably troubles the intelligent and educated more than the dull and ignorant, who have little grasp of how much there is to know, and not as much of a basis for utopian visions. Religions and rigid ideologies satisfy the craving for touchstones, for definitive answers, for justifications. Even the intelligent and educated fall for them. And if there is some question those schools of thought cannot answer, the canon declares such knowledge beyond the reach of mortals–cold comfort, perhaps, but at least it’s comfort, isn’t it? You don’t have that answer, but you know, you are *certain*, that nobody else does either.
When even the intelligent and educated turn to any simplistic canon for all the answers, we can be sure that insanity is truly on the march. Because at the head of the parade are standard bearers that the mass of followers can look up to. Everybody wants their cherished ideas to bask in the glow of intellectual respectability. And what better easier way to make those ideas glitter in the light than to let someone else do the shining, rather than dig out the real truth on one’s one?
To be an intellectual torchbearer for ideologues, to whore out one’s mind for a questionable cause, can be a very committing position. I read a rather tortured essay by Daniel Ellsberg the other day, about whether he might have prevented tens of thousands of U.S. casualties in Vietnam if he had only gone public with the Pentagon Papers three or four years sooner. His tentative conclusion: Yes. And that leads to the question, Why didn’t he? His answer: fear of prison and disgrace.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:20 am
The Docs of this world can blather on all they want, but the idea that American military power is unlimited is being disproved right before our eyes every day. Only the delusional, such as our president, fail to see that. That is the world that his children and grandchildren will inherit and they will make the necessary adjustments just as we all will have to do.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Ed-
Proxy/Accomplice- six of one….though I know what you mean…and agree with the notion that Israel could and maybe did do this.
My point was more to demonstrate that Israel kills its proxies, like America and other proxy-users
November 28th, 2006 at 8:05 am
jcummings:
The Israeli’s have tried to deny culpability in the gruesome affair by claiming they didn’t know that the Phalangists were going to carry out massacre – they, of course, knew damn well what was going to happen.
Use of the term ‘proxy’ sort of diminishes the Israeli role in the war-crime.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Semantics. I am not at all trying to reduce Israel’s role…in fact, I hold Israel ultimately responsible. I’m sorry that your semantic rigidity prevents you from seeing that.
That said, you seem to remove all agency from the Phalange, who willingly, with Israelis, planned this mass murder.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:16 am
“could and maybe did do this” refers to the recent shooting of Gamayel, not Israel’s obvious Sabra Chatilla guilt
November 28th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Doc writes: “… barring extreme events (which would probably serve to hasten the following rather than delay it), your sentiments are doomed to die out. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the parents’ worldview, ~80% of children will share it when they grow up. ‘Liberals’, ‘progressives’, etc are not reproducing very well.”
Well, let’s do the math, shall we? Let’s say 70 million Americans match up closely with Doc’s bizarre ideology. And let’s say he’s correct in his perverse perception that we’re in a global war with Islam. There are about one billion muslims, and their population growth rate is considerably greater than that of those 70 million fast-breeder right-winger Americans. Liberals might die out, but in Doc’s twisted world, I guess we can only win the war on Islam by exterminating a lot of muslims. What a prospect: in the future, it will be arch-conservatives on both sides, dueling to the death. We’ll just have to nuke a lot of ‘em, that’ll show ‘em who’s boss! We have not yet begun to use our superior military might!
His appeal to population growth as the ultimate ideological defense reminds me somehow of Chairman Mao’s population policy: guarantee the survival of Chinese communism, even through a nuclear war, by encouraging everyone to have more kids. Fanatics always want to breed more fanatics, don’t they?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:44 am
broadcasting career…
Hi. Thanks for the good read….
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Longaberger Products…
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….