Some (Yes) Good News from Iraq
There may be a deal between the U.S. and the Mahdites or Sadr forces in Najaf. (Juan Cole via Kevin Drum).
As Rich Lowry says, the uprising against Sadr by Iraqis is "a very encouraging sign" that there is a civil society in Iraq, and it is being heard.
It's possible that a new and better Iraq will indeed emerge from all this--one with a stable government, perhaps even fairly effective police and courts. But it may not be very democratic. There is still a possibility that different regions will be governed in fact, if not in theory, by various militias. The mullahs are likely to be very powerful in the south. The country may be un-American or even anti-American--and may wish for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. If so, some of Bush's aims will not have been realized.
Matthew Yglesias may be right about just how difficult it will be for Iraq to achieve both law and order and elections. I believe many wise people did not think a peaceful transition from apartheid would be possible in South Africa--and who knows, there may still be trouble to come there.
Still, it will be very encouraging if we can see a people--or a number of somewhat distinct peoples--assert themselves more or less peacefully.
UPDATE: Cole sees events in Najaf as the U.S. "backing down"; H.D. Miller, on the other hand, sees the U.S. winning a war of attrition against extremists in Baghdad, Najaf, and Fallujah. (via Instapundit Monday).
Fallujah is already governed by an ad hoc coalition; U.S. forces say they are not finished stabilizing the city yet. (Via Jason Van Steenwyk and Instapundit).
UPDATE: This article says the deal is off--the U.S. is not willing to postpone Sadr's trial until after July 1. On the other hand, the U.S. is flexible on details as long as Sadr is put on trial, and his militia is disbanded. The article agrees with the hawks that in any case, the U.S. is winning a war of attrition, and Sadr is not gaining followers.
UPDATE (looking backward): Other than Sadr, the most dangerous individual in Iraq may be Abu Musab Zarqawi--the man, at least loosely associated with Al Qaeda, who is credited with the murder of Nick Berg. This is a man who Bush could have had killed on three different occasions. In each case, the military experts were convinced the killing could have been done with, as they say, minimal collateral damage. Why did Bush say no? Probably because he wanted to be able to say there was at least one live Al Qaeda operative in Iraq before the invasion in March 2003.
Apparently, Zarqawi was not the guest of Saddam, but of the Kurds--the Americans' staunchest allies in Iraq.
See Hit and Run here and here, and earlier posts here (with links; go to Al Qaeda letter).
UPDATE: Kevin Drum is still on this story.
|
