Iraq’s post-Saddam government has never reflected Iraqi political will, despite all of the proud (often American) claims in the wake of Iraqi elections. In the background, everyone always understands that even if the large deployment of American soldiers to Iraq can’t “cause stability” there, it surely could depose whatever government claims to rule from the Green Zone. But that’s not the extent of the lack of Iraqi sovereignty. In the foreground, the U.S. never allowed the Iraqi governments to reflect the vote totals from the Iraqi elections: we orchestrated governments more to our tastes, first by forcing the Iraqis to let Sunni groups participate even though they had boycotted the elections and later by extending negotiations to form a government for months after the elections in which Sunnis did participate.

Now the U.S. wants particular policies enacted in Iraq — key “benchmarks” — and so we are apparently quietly threatening to replace the current Iraqi leadership (people that we put in charge!) with what we hope will be more pliable Iraqi politicians. Check out today’s coverage in the Los Angeles Times.

Makes you wonder why we think anyone in Iraq would pay attention to “their” leaders in government. It seems to me that the best representation an Iraqi can hope for is from a neighborhood militia or tribal group. Should we really be surprised that Iraqis are cynical about the government in the Green Zone? And that the “national” politicians in Iraq focus more on getting invited to diplomatic conferences than on trying to build local political support with effective policy solutions or compromises?

No related posts.