Tallies are still unofficial in the Iraqi provincial elections, but from the perspective of Sunni participation in the political process — one of the biggest imbalances in Iraqi politics that the elections were supposed to redress — it’s looking increasingly grim.
First we’ve got the combustible mixture of acrimony, fraud accusations and lack of acceptance of legitimacy in Anbar province, where it appears the former insurgents and tribesmen who formed the Anbar Awakening didn’t get the electory victory they expected. Now Marc Lynch — who, unlike me, reads Arabic — has information about the elections in Baghdad province (yes, Baghdad is its own province). Going off the newspaper Aswat al-Iraq’s tally, the Sunnis appear to have gone from one seat out of 57 to ten or eleven. One of the reasons for this: Shiite death squads have spent years cleansing Baghdad of Sunnis through intimidation and violence; and the Sunnis who used to live in Baghdad couldn’t vote there. As Marc writes, combine that with the unexpectedly strong showing of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s party in Baghdad province, and it’s not hard to see Sunnis asking themselves: what did political participation get us?
One broader point. There has been a lot of tempered talk about how security gains in Iraq over the past two years are fragile and reversible. That’s appropriate. But rarely is there a discussion of what would contribute to their unravelling. Usually people bring up the prospect of U.S. troop withdrawals — and it’s an important factor to consider, for obvious reasons. Yet not enough emphasis has been placed on what would happen if the political process in Iraq unravelled. Iraq is barely out of failed-statehood. To have the Sunnis — the previously-rejection-minded sectarian demographic — feel like they didn’t get their concerns redressed by the ballot, precisely at the moment when reporting suggested that Iraqis viewed the elections as an opportunity to overcome sectarian bloodshed, risks the entire shaky enterprise. It wasn’t that long ago that there was a civil war, after all.
Everyone in the press, myself certainly included, has been looking to Afghanistan-Pakistan as the Big Foreign Policy challenge for the Obama administration. That’s because of three factors: first, the reduction in violence in Iraq; second, the alarming deterioration of Af-Pak; and third, because the Status of Forces Agreement ended the U.S. political debate about the war, and in Washington, there’s a tendency to view foreign crises as tamped down when they cease aligning with domestic political disputes. But it’s clear that the Iraqi political picture — which is the whole ballgame — isn’t a settled issue. Chris Hill had better live up to his reputation when he arrives in Baghdad.
Crossposted to The Streak.



2 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
So the key question for Iraq becomes the same as for Afghanistan/Pakistan, Somalia/Sudan and other “Hotbeds” of extremist ideologies:
Is placing large numbers on American combat troops in theater the best way to deal with the challenges represented by these regions?
Viewed macro, there are three broad options. A large scale troop presence in the field, a much smaller over-the-horizon troop presence that can respond to targets of necessity/opportunity, or a purely intel/Law Enforcement – based counter terror presence to deter and or disrupt actual plots that threaten Americans.
If we accept the proposition that a combat troop presence isn’t going to turn an impoverished third world failed or failing state into a working, functional society, then it really becomes difficult to understand the value of that troop presence. And if you reach that conclusion, then all you have left to do is an honest threat assessment to determine the type of forces and operations necessary to counter that threat.
Me? I can’t see anything in the presence of American combat troops in theater that ISN’T actually counterproductive to the political and diplomatic goals of the American leadership.
But hey, what the hell do I know?
mikey
That’s an outstanding post.