Why We Fight
Kleptocracy, Whiskey, Sexy! (Libretto. Soundtrack.)
It’s the kleptocracy (see BBC link) that should hold our attention. Iraq has been one since before Saddam Hussein. So it remains. All the stories about the post-election wrangling over who got which ministries made clear what the stakes were: patronage and graft.
“Obviously the Ministry of Oil and the Ministry of Electricity are lucrative ministries,” Said said. “They offer opportunities for enrichment and control and patronage. In the case of the Ministry of Defense, the controversy is over who should be on it. And there are many in the [Shi'a-dominated] United Iraqi Alliance who don’t want to see any ex-Ba’athist in any of these positions.”
The point made in the quote (from globalsecurity.org) can be found in just about any analysis of Iraqi political maneuvering. Iraq’s bureaucracy remains a spoils system. For decades, it was under the control of the Tikriti clan, with crumbs parcelled out to enough other Sunni tribes to keep things, well, quiet is not the right term for the last three decades of Iraqi history – let’s say, functional. Whether or not you think all governments are about theft, Iraq’s certainly was. Our vast expenditure of lives, money and ammunition has aimed, in practice, to distribute the authority for thieving among a more representative demographic profile, seemingly toward a bright future in which all steal from all. Or say, representatives of every group steal from the rank and file of every other. The inherent instability of such an arrangement should be obvious to anyone who remembers the scenes in Goodfellas dealing with the aftermath of the Lufthansa heist, or ever reflected on the plausibility of the old saw about honor among thieves. Somebody is going to try to corner all that lovely loot for themselves. Iraq will become a more ethnically fractious version of Hosni Mubarak’s Eqypt, whose most famous gift to the world has been Mohammad Atta and his friends.
“Egypt II” is and has always been the best-case scenario for our attempt to remake Iraq. “Greater Lebanon” and “West Bank East” were and remain the top competitors. Somehow, one of these three is supposed to inspire every last Muslim in the world to love the United States and Israel too.
Trackback by Making Light —
June 27, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
Why We Fight
Jim Henley, demonstrating that he’s still one of the greatest bloggers alive: “Egypt II” is and has always been the…
Comment by David Weman —
June 27, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
Surely, ‘Greater Lebanon’ is a better outcome than an Egypt on the Eufrates?
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 27, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
David, I should maybe clarify that when I say “Lebanon” my frame of reference is the 1980s. We can’t even be sure those days aren’t on their way back, though I think that the decline in Christian population means that any new civil war will be a lot shorter than the previous ones.
Comment by Francis —
June 27, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
While 80’s Lebanon has its attractions as a compelling analogy, I’ve been leaning more toward early to mid 70’s Cambodia as described in Shawcross’s Sideshow.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 27, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
Francis that seems hard for me to credit. Are you talking about PRE-democide Cambodia, maybe? While the Khmer Rouge was still on the way up? Perhaps I’m mistaking your reference.
Comment by Jonathan Vos Post —
June 28, 2005 @ 12:08 am
So, in the clever “Goodfellas” = Iraq analogy, which actor = which character = which geopolitical figure? John M. Ford might clarify the casting issues. What does it mean that Iran got a different Godfather this week than we expected? Is Petroleum a narcotic? And does Saddam Hussein slice the garlic paper-thin with a razor, to make the pasta sauce?
Comment by Farah —
June 28, 2005 @ 1:36 am
To a Brit, what you are describing in Iraq would be called “The American Model”.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 28, 2005 @ 9:17 am
Early to mid 70’s Cambodia was when there was a vicious civil war going on between the forces of Lon Nol and Pol Pot, with the US helpfully carpet-bombing the countryside and acting as a recruiting tool for Pol Pot. This happy period in which over 500,000 people were killed set the stage for the late 70’s when around 1.7 million people were killed by Pol Pot.
So Francis is probably suggesting the US course in Iraq is setting the stage for bigger horrors later. I doubt it’ll be as bad as Pol Pot, but scale down the prediction a bit and he may be right.
Comment by Francis —
June 29, 2005 @ 2:50 am
PJ: exactly. although i think Prince Sihanouk, not lon nol, was the leader. He was, however, a very weak leader surrounded by a profoundly corrupt military corps.
.
basically, the faster the US tried to arm the loyalist forces, the faster the US in fact armed the rebels.
.
the point being that, unless the army is loyal to the central govt, giving the army more weapons will only hasten the decline of the central govt.
.
we are creating in iraq right now household armies (to use Pournelle’s term) of dubious loyalty. when the kurds decide to create the facts on the ground necessary to support their claim for independence (by, say, seizing the northern oil fields), who will the peshmerga support — the central govt or the kurdish govt?
.
would the US dare to launch airstrikes against kurdish forces holding the oilfields? given the turks’ view of kurdish independence, could the US dare not?
.
p.s. i still hate this comment editor
.
p.p.s. Jim, electrolite is correct; you remain one of the essential bloggers.
Pingback by thepoorman.net » K Street international —
June 29, 2005 @ 6:37 pm
[...] K Street international
Posted by The Editors under Uncategorized
Jim Henley is worried about Iraq: It’s the kleptocracy (see BBC link) that should hold our attent [...]