Baghdad Apparently Has a New Mayor!

Matthew Yglesias writes:

TAPPED: August 2005 Archives: NICE MAYOR YOU HAVE THERE... It's a bit hard to know what to say about something like "Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia" except that it hardly bodes well. The obvious thing to say is that we wouldn't have these problems if the administration hadn't failed to complete -- or really even attempt -- the militia demobilization process. On the other hand, the administration had perfectly good reasons for not doing so, namely that we apparently wouldn't have been able to make it work without pouring far, far more troops into Iraq than we actually did.

And, again, they had perfectly good reasons for not putting 500,000 soldiers on the ground, namely that the soldiers didn't exist and the political will to find and deploy them certainly wouldn't have existed before the war. Which is a roundabout way of saying that the real mistake here was trying to do something that we lacked the capacity to do. The fact that Shiite militias are roughly speaking "on our side" in the new Iraq is the only thing that makes our position there tenable over the short term. If we added them to our enemies list along with the Sunni Arab insurgency, we'd be in a hopeless situation. But you can't build much of a liberal democracy in partnership with Islamist militias.

Ummm... Allies. Ummm... U.N. Security Council. The biggest reasons for diplomacy--for coalition building, and for seeking U.N. blessing--are two:

1. We are much, much more powerful and capable when we are leading a coalition that can put 500,000 Arabic-speaking military police on the ground.
2. States that fear that the U.S. is a loose cannon--unconstrained by the Security Council and the concordium mundi--work very hard to acquire nuclear weapons once David Frum has put them on The List.

Comments

[theCoach]

"The fact that Shiite militias are roughly speaking "on our side" in the new Iraq is the only thing that makes our position there tenable over the short term. If we added them to our enemies list along with the Sunni Arab insurgency, we'd be in a hopeless situation. But you can't build much of a liberal democracy in partnership with Islamist militias."

I just wanted to hilite those lines once again. In President Bush's defense, of course, is the fact that now there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[sglover]

I'm waiting for Bush shills to celebrate this development as a stirring endorsement of Second Amendment rights. REAL Americans should salute another impressive step in Iraq's rapid march toward the libertarian paradise!

[Kathleen]

and 3. succesful diplomacy and coalitions means we won't have to invade the 'next time' because (to the extent we are pursuing more international intervention) other governments will want to cooperate.

[Jean-Philippe Stijns]

Ummm... One reason I think the French and other useful Allies (Germany, Russia and China among many others) have not been convinced to come aboard is that the Bush Administration never really wanted to do what it would take to, including cutting a deal on how to share exploitation of Iraq's oil reserves. I mean if you want other nations to risk their soldiers' life, you should probably consider sharing the bounty too, right? And also make sure the way you go to war is at least semi-palatable to their electorates so that joining the Alliance does not amount to polotical suicide. Among other things, had this been done, France's muslims may have turned into the most effective weapon in the ground battle for Iraqis' hearts and minds... Ok, let me land back to reality now; my mind plays this kind of tricks on me when I need lunch...

[RT]

One of the minor details in the news story that's worth a more than passing mention is that the now ex-mayor of Baghdad was never elected. He was appointed by Paul Bremer, the NYTimes says, and reappointed by the national Iraqi government that we appointed a year ago.

I don't know if it would have made a difference in the end, but I can't help but think that, other than not disbanding the Iraqi army, our biggest mistake in the occupation phase was our failure to hold municipal elections promptly after winning the combat phase. Had we quickly held elections - first in small towns (May 2003), then in large towns and small cities (June 2003), then everywhere else including Baghdad (July 2003), and given the elected officials real authority and resources to solve their cities' own problems, I can't help but think a different arc might have been possible.

But Bush, Bremer & Co. had paternalistic visions of a right-wing economic paradise: a minimal public sector, a flat tax, no restrictions on foreign investment, etc., etc. (Remember that? Ain't it just hilarious, in retrospect?) And giving power to the locals would have mucked that up, big time. So of course Jay Garner, who was going to hold quick elections, found his term as proconsul to be a startlingly brief one. (Not that Garner was anything but a mixed blessing himself, but at least there were *some* areas where he had the right idea, unlike Bremer who was a *complete* idiot.)

[Keith Brown]

Somebody please enlighten me: How many additional troops, beyond US/British/Italian/Polish, have been supplied by UN allies in Afghanistan? I know there are some, but exactly how many?

How many additional troops did we get from France/Russia/China/Germany/Saudi Arabia in the 1st Gulf War? Would Saudi Arabia be so willing to pony anything up for this war, even with UN Approval?

Has the UN ever supplied half a million troops beyond US and British contributions? Which Arab (or French) countries would supply those Half a million troops to even a UN-approved invasion of another Arab nation?

I just suspect that Brad's falling for a bad "free lunch" argument, here, as if some other President besides Bush could have done a magic UN rain dance and made soliders fall from the sky to the tune of "It's Raining Men."

Bush is awful, but I think he could have been Gandhi and the UN could have given him a standing ovation and there still would have been no gushing fountain of troops forthcoming from France, China, Russia, Germany, or the Arab nations.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"We are much, much more powerful and capable when we are leading a coalition that can put 500,000 Arabic-speaking military police on the ground.

States that fear that the U.S. is a loose cannon--unconstrained by the Security Council and the concordium mundi--work very hard to acquire nuclear weapons once David Frum has put them on The List."

I'm perfectly willing to argue that Bush has done a poor job in the post-invasion realm, but neither of these are even remotely insightful or helpful. 500,000 Arabic speaking MPs? Who in the world are you talking about? The Iranian National Guard? Work very hard to acquire nuclear weaponse once David Frum has put them on the list? Huh? We all know that Iran and North Korea were put on the list because they were seeking nuclear weapons already. Right?

And I must echo the question about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is allegedly the clear case, right? That is the case that the whole international community agrees is clearly in need of action for the war on terror, right? Doesn't Afghanistan suggest that the available international troops are right about 15,000 total? That is somewhat less than 500,000 for Iraq.

And didn't we have to fight tooth and nail just to keep up sanction against Iraq in Jan 2002? At a time when the international community hadn't bothered with inspectors for four years? From where I sit the international community is perfectly happy to let North Korea get nuclear weapons, and wring their hands while Iran goes about doing the same.

Is that a problem to anyone over here?

[Salvadore Lee]

"1. We are much, much more powerful and capable when we are leading a coalition that can put 500,000 Arabic-speaking military police on the ground."

But there were not 500,000 troops worth of Arabic-speaking countries in early 2003 who agreed Saddam Hussein should be removed by force (were there 1 troops worth? probably not).

Diplomacy would not have meant to do the invasion right. Diplomacy would have meant no invasion.

[Salvadore Lee]

"And didn't we have to fight tooth and nail just to keep up sanction against Iraq in Jan 2002? At a time when the international community hadn't bothered with inspectors for four years? From where I sit the international community is perfectly happy to let North Korea get nuclear weapons, and wring their hands while Iran goes about doing the same.

"Is that a problem to anyone over here?"

In defense of Liberals over here:

We had an army in 2002 that could have deterred Iran. Now we do not.

In 2002 there was no plausible way for the US to become completely impotent in the face of Iran. In 2002 no expert would have thought it was possible for Iran to reach the position where it had literally nothing to fear from US forces in the region.

Now that Iran could cause the military defeat of the US in Iraq at will, the US is impotent. Bush has accomplished the impossible.

Is that a problem for anyone over there?

[AJ]

Read Juan Cole. The change of Mayors was determined in the election and should have been completely expected, even if we may regret the change.

[A_Liberal]

Keith - "How many additional troops did we get from France/Russia/China/Germany/Saudi Arabia in the 1st Gulf War?"

France supplied a light armored division. Syria supplied an armored division. Egypt supplied an armored division and a mechanized infantry division. Saudi Arabia supplied several heavy brigades. Japan and Germany wrote some multi-tens-of-billion dollar checks. This just goes to show that "...a decent respect for the opinions of mankind..." can pay off big.

But that sounds too much like Kerry's "global test" to be to the taste of this Administration.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

A_Liberal,

And in Afghanistan? Are we approaching 500,000 or having trouble breaking 25,000?

[Salvadore Lee]

Well, in Afghanistan, we have "enough" troops.

There are enough troops that despite vastly more US troops being in Iraq, Afghanistan has a stable, pro-US government that may well still be here five years from now.

Afghanistan as a test case is not as bad for liberals as you might think just looking at troop numbers.

Also, the fact that Afghanistan is a test case for diplomacy explains to some degree why Pakistan, Iran and Russia are less supportive of the anti-US forces in Afghanistan than some of Iraq's neighbors are in Iraq.

Not needing half a million troops is to some degree because of the diplomacy.

[Keith Brown]

"France supplied a light armored division. Syria supplied an armored division. Egypt supplied an armored division and a mechanized infantry division. Saudi Arabia supplied several heavy brigades. Japan and Germany wrote some multi-tens-of-billion dollar checks. This just goes to show that "...a decent respect for the opinions of mankind..." can pay off big."

UN-approved or not, Egypt, Syria, and the Saudis weren't going to contribute jack to any offensive invasion of Iraq. France, yeah, maybe (although that would be no slam dunk given their Muslim population). So that works out to one additional light armored division (which would be about how many soldiers?) and maybe some fat checks if we'd thrilled the UN. Certainly helpful, but a far cry from those half a million Arab-speaking soldiers others were talking about.

[christo]

Juan Cole's comment on the Baghdad mayor switch, it should have been expected:

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq won the provincial elections in Baghdad on Jan. 30, a fact that has been little noted in the Western press. They have now moved to depose the mayor of Baghdad and install their own man. Alaa al-Tamimi left quietly. That SCIRI and the Badr Organization (this militia ran as a political party) won the election in Baghdad province gives them the right to name the mayor. Some US reports are portraying this as a coup by a "Shiite militia", but the "coup" happened on Jan. 30 at the ballot box.

[Alex]

We could have had the 500,000 Arabic speaking troops if we had kept the Iraqi army in being and integrated the rank and file into our own divisions at the squad level. Google "KATUSA" for a howto from the Korean War. That and early elections, plus much less ideological bullshit, Ahmed Chalabi, "enduring bases", Hallibollocks, Viktor Bout, torture, silly new flags, missionaries - fill it in yourself.

[J Thomas]

"UN-approved or not, Egypt, Syria, and the Saudis weren't going to contribute jack to any offensive invasion of Iraq."

Egypt might have. We kind of have them over a barrel. If we offered them the right kind of bribes, and the right kind of threats, and if we'd actually made a case for the war that sounded OK. And egypt could supply half a million easily, particularly if we equipped them, supplied them, and fed them.

We wouldn't need them in the fighting much, we'd need them for the occupation. Half a million troops who speak the language would plausibly be a lot better at maintaining order than 150,000 troops who didn't.

On the other hand, there was the possibility that they'd do organised looting and maybe organised rape and be worse than useless.

But if they did keep order, even if they mildly discriminated against shias, then we'd have breathing room to do reconstruction and get a government set up, and functional iraqi police run by the iraqi government (or better yet, run by iraqi municipalities without direct control from the iraqi national government). As the iraqis get their police set up in each city etc we can pull out the foreign MPs -- which is a strong incentive for them to get peaceful and organised.

If our intention was to actually turn iraq into a democratic nation that ran itself, all this might take six months. The reconstruction might not be complete in that time but it would well over halfway complete and going faster each month.

But now, consider that it would be the Bush administration doing it. They didn't want egyptian troops, but if they had, what's the chance they could have gotten them with any good grace at all? Get a sullen egyptian government, and half a million sunni egyptians covertly or actively helping the insurgents, and later they go home and spread democracy in egypt....

We can imagine lots of plans that might have worked. But they'd only work for somebody competent. Not for the Bush administration.

[Keith Brown]

First, I'm not sure why Zathras' post was removed. It's a tad snarky, but removing it seems extreme. After years in the economic profession, Brad really should have a thicker skin.

JThomas, I think your belief that Egypt "could have supplied half a million guys, easily..." is rather, shall we say, faith-based.

Even in the 1st gulf War before, which was NOT an invasion of an Arab nation, Egypt supplied two divisions, which is not half a million guys. For an invasion of another Arab nation, UN-approved or not, Egypt would supply epsilon more than bupkis.

As for the idea of integrating Iraqi rank and file, maybe some sort of integration strategy was in order - I simply don't know.

For all we know, it may have been considered. But it doesn't strike me as obvious that that's a good idea. For one thing, it strikes me as far easier to identify Korean soldiers who wanted to protect their nation from invasion from the North than to identify former Iraqi soldiers who weren't still loyal to Saddam. It really doesn't take a whole lot of "moles" or just plain disloyal guys to torpedo a military/police organization.

Frankly, this entire line shows the problem with so many left-liberals. You mix some good critiques of Bush with this sort of "Oh, a Democrat could have removed Saddam and gotten 1 million troops to do it from the rest of the world" wishful thinking. A Democratic Administration appears to be your Rock Candy Mountain.

I think Salvadore Lee makes a more honest argument that leaving Saddam there would have been the better policy for a variety of reasons. And I think there are some good points about politicization and incompetence in postwar execution under the Bush Administration. I don't think it's realistic to think we wouldn't see similar problems under a Democratic Administration, although we can always argue about degrees of that sort of thing.

In short, if you're going to pride yourself on being "reality-based," then it proves helpful to be, well, reality-based.

[J Thomas]

Keith Brown, if we had tried diplomacy and found that it was possible to put together a viable coalition, we would be far better off today.

If we had tried diplomacy and foudn that it was not possible to put together a viable coalition, and we gave an honest look to the likely result of doing it alone, and we then chose not to do it, we sould be far better off today.

As for whether egypt *could* have provided hundreds of thousands of troops, they could. They had 15+ million able-bodied men, and an 11% unemployment rate. If we paid for them, they could easily supply half a million arabic-speaking warm bodies. Of course we didn't want anywhere near that many for GW1. Arab soldiers needed more than half as many supplies as US soldiers, and didn't provide nearly half the fighting potential. We didn't need people who spoke arabic for that war. (Looking back, if we'd had a lot of arab soldiers on our side and integrated into the war plans, I wonder if they could have persuaded more iraqis to surrender. But that's something else again.)

Would egypt provide a whole lot of MPs to serve in iraq? Probably not if the purpose was to keep a US military presence there forever, guarding the oil and intimidating everybody in the area. They might quite likely have assisted in some other war, if we had some other iraqi war in mind. While it would probably have been political/despotic suicide for the egyptian government to participate in the war that this war turned out to be, still we didn't have to do it this way. We didn't have to give them a lot of sweet-talk about democracy and then repeatedly force them into things that weren't democratic. We didn't have to prevent them from policing their own communities. We didn't have to forbid them to reconstruct their own power plants -- and require them to wait many months for us to replace their equipment with american-made stuff that we charged them top rates for. Etc.

Given the chance, egyptians might have mediated a settlement. Saddam and the top Ba'ath leaders go into exile with a generous retirement, iraq has multi-party elections, sanctions stop, etc -- and no invasion required. If our intention was to promote democracy that would be far better than what we got. It might have been possible. But Bush had no intention of allowing a diplomatic solution; when it looked like there was a chance Saddam would agree to his intolerable demands Bush had to add more at the last minute.

We can't be sure what would have been possible. But the point of diplomacy is to *find out* things like that. And we didn't find out. We didn't even ask. If you remember our attitude at the time, we thought we were the only superpower and everybody had to do what we wanted or else. We intended to invade syria and iran both and install democracies there too. "Punish france, reward germany, ignore russia." We didn't have to find out what the reality was, we had the power and we could use it to create a new reality. And here we are, in a new reality.

[J Thomas]

Keith, you're welcome to repeat your claim that no good outcome was possible.

I will agree with you that no neocon-desired outcome was possible.

Egypt is our client-state. Without our direct support they're in significantly more trouble than they are with our support. The egyptian government will do what we say unless it would destroy them to do it.

We certainly could have worked out a way for the egyptians to lead a successful attack on iraq that the egyptian government could survive. But we didn't try. A large number of egyptian MPs would have made a giant difference, if we could get them. But we didn't try.

You can say it would have been impossible, but that's hindsight from what actually did happen. Before the war how many americans were predicting it would inevitably turn out this bad? I was, but most of the people I discussed it with agreed that what we were doing might not be exactly ethical but we had the power and matters would go our way. What was your stand before the war? What is your track record on inevitability?

[J Thomas]

[crickets chirping]

[J Thomas]

[crickets chirping]