« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Crocker: Look Outside of Baghdad for Political Progress
For a taste of what's to come from the September Iraq update provided by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, take a look at what Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning. In video-conferenced testimony, the ambassador conceded that that Iraqi government is no "model of smoothly functioning efficiency" -- which, last week's benchmark report shows, is something of an understatement. Yet it's Crocker's job to prod the Iraqi government toward sectarian compromise and basic competence. What to do?
Crocker's answer: Look outside of Baghdad and to the provinces for the future of political compromise:
There's some rhetorical sleight of hand here. Crocker said that the decision among Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province to fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq alongside the U.S. meant that the Sunnis were allied with, "by extension, the Iraqi government." And there, that's not the case: the Anbar alliance against al-Qaeda is, by and large, opposed to the Maliki government, so much so that Prime Minister Maliki warned the U.S. against arming Sunni tribal fighters. (He had to take back his comments later.)
"Bottom-up" reconciliation, as Crocker would have it, would indeed be an encouraging sign in Iraq. But shifting away from al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't necessarily indicate anything of the sort. Anbar, for instance, isn't a mixed province: it's an overwhelmingly Sunni one. And what's more, given that new national elections in Iraq won't happen until 2009, even if "bottom-up" reconciliation was taking place, it doesn't have an obvious way of influencing Baghdad. Crocker wasn't prepared to claim that the national government is irrelevant. But focusing on provincial developments -- especially when they don't actually indicate that much about cross-sectarian politics -- contains that implication, at least if the effort is taken in good faith. If it isn't, however, then "bottom-up" reconciliation is a euphemism for shifting the goalposts.
Comments (11)
The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 1:26 PM:Well, looking at the Senate's recent all-nighter and Rep. Young's outburst last night, the U.S. Congress is no "model of smoothly functioning efficiency" either -- maybe that's why the Democratic-controlled Congress received the LOWEST APPROVAL RATING EVER since polling was instituted. I have no problem with U.S. troops staying in Iraq even if all their political compromises are not reached -- hint: neither does Hillary Clinton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?ex=1184385600&en=ff17fdd34c25173f&ei=5070
bobh wrote on July 19, 2007 1:27 PM:sweet....look where our troops ARENT in large numbers for any sign of progress....whoda thunkit?
Cali4nian wrote on July 19, 2007 1:44 PM:Look over here, it looks better. But don't look to Baghdad? Who do they think they're kidding? Besides Jake D, I mean. How many more have to die for this charade?
Grinner wrote on July 19, 2007 1:51 PM:There is a center page article in FT today by a retired US Colonel. He argues why training more Iraqi troops will actually increase violence.. as it has in Iraq and elsewhere, before. Counter intuitive but hard to argue against.
The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 2:13 PM:Ask Senator Clinton, Cali4nian ; )
Mike Conwell wrote on July 19, 2007 2:37 PM:For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.
Uncle_Meat wrote on July 19, 2007 3:28 PM:and we know where he works:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/17/9137/01266
Don't feed Jake the troll. He's paid to disagree with anything you say or argue.
The fact that he is here means we're getting closer to some targets.
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 5:45 PM:The Sunnis in Anbar are happy to take American guns to get rid of al Qaeda, at which point they will turn them on the U.S. and the Shiites.
I can't wait to hear what Crocker says then. He is, after all, an employee of the Bush/Cheney administration.
You don't need to be a weatherman...
Samsara wrote on July 19, 2007 10:03 PM:The battle in Iraq is not about fighting Al-Qaeda (they are growing strong in Pakistan) or spreading democracy (Ambassador Crocker suggests their elected government is irrelevant) or preventing genocide (we dealt with 400,000 deaths in Darfur without too much trauma) or even securing oil supplies. All these goals have proven to be mirages over the last four years. We continue to try and make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear in Iraq because Republican political fortunes demand it. Krauthammer even said it during on his weekly rant on Fox, only clear successes in Iraq can salvage the Republican 08 hopes. No cost in lives or treasure will be too high.
TEL wrote on July 19, 2007 11:28 PM:Good point Samsara. That is the only "framing" of this issue that makes sense of the Republicans backing every move Bush makes. And it has become painfully clear that winning elections has become the Republican party's raison d'etre, as they have deserted every issue they once claimed to stand for, including the issues that at one time would have made me vote for them.
TSUMBRA wrote on July 20, 2007 11:01 AM:"Baghdad-Near-the-Brazos"
www.ilovepoetry.com/viewpoem.asp?id=92830
A future Texas city?