Obama, the Dukakis Trap, and Meeting Sistani
Barack Obama is considering a trip to Iraq this summer. I fear he has been forced into this visit by John McCain, who keeps taunting him on his limited foreign policy experience, saying he has not been to Iraq since 2006 and so does not understand how the "surge" was "victorious."
McCain's taunts are ridiculous. His foreign policy-making experience is also limited, since he was not in the executive. To the extent he has been involved in others' foreign policy initiatives, he has been wrong most of the time. He demanded more money in the 1980s for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, some of whom later morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He coddled Pakistani military dictators such as Gen. Zia ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf. Gen. Zia promoted the fundamentalist Jama'at-i Islami and the 'Islamization' of Pakistani law. Musharraf declined to follow through on former PM Nawaz Sharif's pledge to send in a SWAT team to get Usama Bin Laden, in fall of 1999. McCain also was tight with Ahmad Chalabi and helped get up the Iraq War in the first place.
So much for the Arizona Senator's 'experience' and good foreign policy sense.
Moreover, as CNN war correspondent Michael Ware observed from Baghdad recently, any VIP visit to Iraq, cocooned inside the US military and the Green Zone, would be more dog-and-pony show than fact-finding mission. Guerrilla wars are not apparent on the surface. People shop, cars circulate, things look all right. But then in this neighborhood or that there is a bomb, there are killings. Neighborhoods slowly change their ethnic complexion. Outsiders wouldn't even notice it. Over time, the horror of guerrilla war, like a determined serial killer, imprints itself on the society. The fear stays in the back of peoples' minds. But you couldn't see it on a VIP visit.
Moreover, the McCain camp is hoping for a 'Dukakis moment.' They hope they can get Obama looking awkward or nerdy, trying to play soldier in Iraq. Then they can do a remake of Bush Sr.'s notorious hit job on then presidential candidate Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.
So here is some advice for Senator Obama if he goes to Iraq.
Sistani doesn't meet many foreigners. But he has met UN special envoys and a wide range of politicians. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that he would meet Obama. Providing security in Najaf could be done. US Ambassador Ryan Crocker was in Najaf recently. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim could set it up and help guarantee it.
McCain will try to focus on the US military in Iraq, which is a diversion. The question is Iraq and Iraqis. What do they want? Where are their politics going? What relationship do they want with the US.
By going to Iraqi political and civil society, Obama can elude the Dukakis trap that McCain is trying to set for him.
He can moreover shift the discourse from whether the US military can be "victorious" in Iraq to what Iraqis want. Since the Republican talking points have for so long focused on bestowing democracy on Iraq, that would be an effective counter to McCain's 'victory' narrative.
---
An informed and experienced observer writes:
' to your . . . posting today, I would add that Obama should be accompanied by someone like Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel for their military smarts and /or Joe Biden on the political side. Obama should also ask for meetings with one or two of Iraq’s top military leaders. Finally, he should bring along his own interpreters and should not necessarily feel impelled to include US officials/military in all of his meetings. His interlocutors might be much more candid in such a setting. '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/02/2008 03:05:00 AM
|
Facebook
29 Comments:
Juan... if he really follows all that that public advice that you so preciously give him, doesn't actually just prove that he is in fact wimpy?
It's not exactly 1988 anymore, either. Though the Presidential primaries do seem like a lot of recapitulation of those of 1976. The fellow who came in first in 1976 was all the wonder, claimed to be an outsider, thought he was the beginning of a New Era, did the famous walk up Pennsylvania Avenue, et cetera- and had a much smaller mandate than he thought. And his dependence on centrist and Left establishment cost him dearly.
The fellow who came in third that year won easily in 1980. And actually changed a lot more.
Obama might look than Dukakis; hope so, since he probably won't have a choice. But then, the real point is the NEED for the helmet, and the body armor. McCain's exaggeration of the level of security in Baghdad are still being contradicted by the video of him all buttoned up during his market tour
.
Teacher,
you have touched upon a critical aspect of dealing with leaders in an "Honor Society" that appears to be a complete mystery to the Bush Administration.
By suggesting that ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim could help guarantee Obama's safety while traveling to An Najaf,
you have suggested that the Candidate demonstrate with his own life his respect for Iraqi leaders.
I don't know if there could be a more powerful statement that the US respects the Iraqi people, their leaders, and their right to govern themselves.
In one fell swoop,
Obama could win the War, or at least end the attacks on US soldiers,
by proving that we do not intend to colonize their land.
Naturally,
out of respect for US military personnel,
he would be escorted by a contingent of Navy Seals.
But by seeking out and then traveling under the shield of the good offices of al-Hakim,
he advances US prestige throughout Iraq in a way that neither McCain nor Bush ever could.
Thanks
Your Avid Student
seriously Prof? if Obama met Sistani he would instantly become the "ayatollah's candidate". American political culture isn't refined enough to accommodate such a visit. the GOP will run ads saying Obama met Sistani for religious advice, Obama would have to make a trip to the Vatican to see the Pope, etc..
Ayatollah Sistani is Iranian, Ayatollah Khomeini is in Iran, one Ayatollah is just like the other, Obama is getting jihadi instructions from Iran!
Anyway it would be a disaster.
Very wise advice. I hope you've sent it along to Senator Obama and bis advisers.
The trap is a "neo-Dukakis" trap for it factors physical harm by anonymous agents.
Besides going to Iraq is just a silly show.
Oh Lord!! Juan, there is NO circumstance under which Obama can go to Iraq that the Repubs can't spin it to their favor. He meets with Sistani, he is a collaborator. He meets with Maliki, he is going into a Repub enemy camp - these are the same people who have made their deal with the Bushies. He meets with any Sadrist at all, he'll be accused of treason. Even if he doesn't, they will say he did. There is not a single pollitical objective that Obama can accomplish in Iraq, other than going to military bases and meeting with troops, and even that would likely be set up to backfire with a scripted soldier, while the network cameras are rolling, to ask him 'why are you against us?'
If he makes this trip, he is more naive than his worst accusers could have imagined. There is not a single person in the US camp in Iraq that is not a Repub party operative. What would they give to get him over there?
I fear that if Obama meets with a muslim cleric, that would allow the opposition to say that he went to receive orders, being that Obama is perceived to be a crypto-muslim by many. There would be questions of what secret deals were arranged, and how this adds to the danger for American troops and bolsters the enemy. That it would be untrue doesn't matter.
In a sane world, that would be good advice, as would the rest of your comments. Apparently it is visuals, theatrical production values and perceptions that might sway voters, in the face of the facts.
McCain's foreign policy credentials are largely based on his being a POW in Vietnam. And going on junkets as senator. His legislative record is not terribly distinguished, and he has acted contrary to his signature campaign finance reform bill.
If he does visit Iraq, I hope he stops on the way in in Jordan to meet with exiles to bring attention to their plight.
Ike promised to "go to Korea" after he was elected.
You are quite right that this is a Dukakis trap, only the Administration's control of the ground rules will make it impossible for Obama to break free of the snares. If he talks to someone like Sistani, he will be accused of usurping the policy prerogatives of the President. If he doesn't broaden the dialogue, he'll be in the media trap of pre-selected soldiers earnestly telling us that the folks back home need to support them in "completing the mission", while Obama is put in the awkward position of having to defend orderly withdrawal or waffle.
Prof, your suggestions remain valuable for what a President-elect or President Obama should do to kick-start our new policy aimed at ending our occupation of Iraq.
The most important factor behind McCain's plot is that the Green Zone puppets are his biggest supporters on the planet. He has promised them all kinds already. They will be more than happy to embarrass Obama in every way they can because they think the party will be over if he wins, so they have nothing to lose.
Here is my advice: don't go.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani might simply refuse to speak to Obama, since any such contact might be compromising. What might a Sadrist MP actually say to Obama? Could that same MP give him a message compatible with that received from Sistani? What if they contradicted?
If Obama met with Iraqis in Jordan, and were 100k to ask for US visas, imagine the havoc this could cause among the US electorate, aided by the Right. Many voters favor an "Iraqi settlement," but not in their own town.
For security reasons, any Obama visit to Iraq would have to be by stealth, last no more than 10 hours, be low profile, and confined to the Green Zone. Otherwise, there are just too many parties with a vested interest in sabotage.
Sistani doesn't meet many foreigners. But he has met UN special envoys and a wide range of politicians. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that he would meet Obama. Providing security in Najaf could be done. US Ambassador Ryan Crocker was in Najaf recently. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim could set it up and help guarantee it.
This projected travel, looks like a blunder, although he may feel the need to go (because MacCain went there and Hillary CLinton went). If Obama is serious about changing US foreing policy, he should rather publicly state that he won't visit Iraq right now, because he doesn't support colonialism.
As to wether it is a good idea for Obama to try to meet with Sistani, this is much a do about nothing. Sistani has not yet met a single American, despite all the efforts of Bremer and the following US vice-roys. Each time the US officials in Iraq have tried to meet him, he has refused, clearly stating that he doesn't want to meet with an occupier, period. I remember that Bremer sent Sistani several letters (at the time when the Iraqi elections were prepared) and Sistani has always left Bremer waiting for quite a long time before answering, thus imposing his rythm to the Americans. I don't think that Sistani, given his mindset, has more reasons to meet with Obama than with other US officials.
What would be great about an Obama trip to Iraq is the thousands and THOUSANDS of Iraqis who would turn out to see him if they can. Republicans couldn't buy that kind of popularity, and they tried!
If Obama met Ayat. Sistani, he (Ayat. Sistani) would lose whatever little credebility he still has left in Iraq. Because once (and a big IF) he becomes president, he (Obama) will not withdraw from Iraq. And will be forced to continue the same old tired policies. Sistani does not lead or have any influence over the Iraqi resistance (shia or sunni). He might've at one time, but no more.
And that will be the final straw for the Iraqi people who have become more and more tired of Ayat. Sistani's non-resistence.
There are reasons why Sadr is so hugely popular all over Shi'a areas of Iraq. Sistani once had a similar popularity, but his has gone down the tubes after he sat back and allowed over a million Iraqis slaughtered, and did not do the serious work of unifying Iraq in the face of imperial aggression.
That unifying work was left to the imperfect but very sincere and principled Sadr.
I would recommend Obama submit this public counter-challenge to McCain:
I will walk with you alone down any street in Baghdad, a street of your choosing. Neither of us will wear protective gear nor will we bring bodyguards. The date and time would be worked out privately. A discreetly kitted cameraman will accompany us.
Let's see how much of a "war hero" McCain really is, and let's see how confident McCain is regarding the "success of the surge" he continually claims.
McCain would refuse of course so there's little danger to Obama and McCain would look like a sissy.
.
Absolutely foolish advice you gave Juan. As if the Iraqi people want US soldiers occupying their land. Besides that I don't want Americans in Iraq and I am a voter. What kind of clown show would it be to got to army bases, what will he do give them a firm handshake and a pat on the back? I want this war ended. If obama goes to Iraq for any other reason than to notify the Iraqis that Americans are leaving then he will lose his base - antiwar, anti-empire, anti-imperialist citizens.
McCain's fatwa against Sistani's fatwa? Fatwa has only one meaning in the mind of most Americans. That sentence alone could put McCain in the White House no matter what the real meaning of the words. The Republicans own Iraq. Stay out of it. It's a mine field with a million booby traps. Obama trounces the competition with his speeches. Just keep him close to his poetry and keep him out of harm's way. He needs to fight here, not there.
What if he doesn't talk to the leaders at all?
What if he speaks with "normal" Iraqis. A small gesture to meet, dine, and speak with "the street".
This way he can not be held to meeting with influential people, or so they are perceived in the west, or spending the time and effort to choose which politician he should support over there.
Nope, if he were to meet the normal, every day Iraqi, and not televise it!, he can THEN go to the table with information that may not agree with the people on the other side of the table. If he can argue the Iraqi people's stance to their so-believed USA puppet leaders, a discussion about bases and US troops can be placed into a "democracy building" argument to sway liberal neo-cons.
The trap here is "who will he meet". And if he meets locals, and individual troops to get an "understanding" of these operations being carried out... he will be a better Commander-In-Chief than ANYONE who wants to don the protective battle gear and get-in-there to smoke-them-out.
The first lesson I would like a new commander in chief to learn is to listen to the people on the ground, not the philosophers on K-street.
How about Obama visiting the displaced Iraqi people both in Syria/Jordan and within Iraq to stress the humanitarian disaster which receives almost no attention by US media.
Sistani and Obama?
Through intermediaries and letters they can correspond, but a face to face meeting? Surely you of all people Dr Cole would have realised that is not even an option. It would fly in the face of everything Sistani has been doing in Iraq for the past 5 years. He has avoided direct contact with the Americans for all these years and will certainly not change his policy because of a PR stunt by Obama.
Wow! This is a prediction for the books: Obama in the White House; Prime Minister Muqtada Al Sadr and Victory in the Iraq! All courtesy of Immanuel Wallerstein.
After eight disgusting, debilitating years of Bush, a lot of people around the world are not going to want to talk to, or to believe the US president. That is the lasting gift George Bush has bequeathed the American people and its children, the gift that lasts and lasts. The next president will have to rebuild the many bridges that gambler and sociopath George Bush has capriciously or intentionally blasted so he can congratulate himself on his toughness and the size of his genital bulge. Bush shot America's wad in a fit of power-driven ecstacy, without perceptible benefit, and with a table laden with extremely nasty fallout. What little wad America has left needs to be saved for a real emergency, not one invented for ego or corporate profit taking. The next era, if there is one, will require an American president who is a builder of international relationships, not a pusher or a destroyer. Obama has yet to live up to this task. But he alone of the all the remaining presidential contestants has demonstrated the potential to pull it off. God help us all if any success goes to his head. As a well spoken non-American once said "in the gentlest words possible", America's power is past, its path determined by its own actions, and inactions. Only its ghost remains. Earth's future is now in the hands of other peoples. Look very far into the future, and this become all too apparent. What to do? Bush. Cheney. 2009. The Hague. Be there!
I would say the most important thing he can do is to meet with US troops-- hundreds of them-- to express his support for them as people and say his goal is to GET THEM HOME SOON AND SAFE.
My strong impression impression is that this would get a rapturous response.
He might also meet a few Iraqis. But in purely US-electoral terms, meeting with anyone in a turban could be a big problem. Sad, but true.
It is interesting to see a checklist of people Senator Obama should meet when he visits Iraq. Whether he visits before or after his election is not as important as whether he meets with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani after his election. A pre-election visit to the green zone might be superficial in appearance even though it would permit back-channel communication to begin.
Thank you for exposing the Dukais trap to the light of discussion; I tend to think our senator will act wisely rather than succumb to the machinations of McCain/Rove.
How about a visit to that market that McCain went to last year (with armor and 100 troops), but skipped this year, for safety reasons? Or a visit to those institutions that were among the finest in the region under Saddam, but are now just shells: most of the hospitals (equipment stolen, doctors fled), the Baghdad library, the National Museum (artifacts from 7000 years of civilization vanished, along with any claim to that status by the occupiers).
And one more place. A Christian church, in the oldest Christian community in the world and one of the few whose language is basically the same as that of their Founder. If you can find a church that hasn't been bombed and its members killed or driven into exile. Don't you love the smell of genocide in the morning?
Photo opportunities are misleading and a factor in this entire mess Bush and his crew created.
And the cost of such opportunities could best be used in here.
Chuck Hagel, Jim Web and Joe Biden would be a 'TRUTH SQUAD.' Agree the interpreter should be a person who could be trusted.
Sistani would be at the top of the list for candid info about the entire 'mess.'
He should also meet a responsible person from other groups.
Since he can communicate here with the military, there is no need to do so in Iraq. And there is an advantage in avoiding cameras so as not to appear 'political.'
Quite right Prof. Cole. Barack Obama doesn't have anything to prove to Sen. John McCain. This is akin to Dems staying away from FOX News. Do not legitimize the assertions of those with no credibility. If he does this, he's playing right into McCain's hands. Sen. Obama has a hard enough path to tread as it is, without playing right into Republican and FOX hands.
I also was thinking Obama should visit Iraqi Christians. They would be able to provide a different perspective.
From a purely PR perspective, they are also going to garner the most sympathy of all Iraqis from Christian Americans, which would make Obama look good. Worshipping with them would also combat the "Obama is a Muslim" narrative.
Post a Comment
<< Home