Implications of a Weakening Iraqi Government

04/17/2007

Paul Munnis


We are looking at the shaky position of the Iraqi government and the implications of deaths of members of Iraq’s Parliament, the immigration of the intelligentsia from Iraq, the firings of Iraq government members, and the recent pullout from Parliament by the al Sadr bloc.

There isn’t much of a government left in Iraq and we are thinking it has a high probability of falling. We are also looking at a “surge” plan where the deaths are increasing, an urgent call by the Red Cross to give aid to Iraqis who are living in dire straights due to a lack of security, and failed Police and Army units who are not loyal to the present government.

By now hardly anyone believes that the present Iraqi government will last much longer. On the one hand, because more than 500 civilians have been murdered or blown up in Baghdad over the past two months despite the new security plan. On the other hand, because Democrats are exerting pressure on President George W Bush over the Iraq dilemma, which might finally mean that al Maliki will soon have to leave. Why would he have to leave? It is thought that without U.S. troops in Iraq there is little support for the al Maliki government. Iraq’s government will be further rendered powerless by sectarian civil-war and violence.

We ask ourselves whether Mr. Bush can fix this mess not withstanding Democrats’ pressure to withdraw or if it could be fixed during the remainder of his tenure in Washington? We think that is highly unlikely. There is just no positive movement in Iraq towards, peace, healing, and end to violence, and a will for nation building with the exception of the Kurds. To a major extent, Bush pushing on Democrats is a ruse to avoid having to admit the failure of his Administration in Iraq and perhaps Mr. Bush is trying to set up Democrats to take the rap for his failures.

So we then turn to a different question. If the Iraq government fails will Mr. Bush end up resigning?

Taken together the Iraqi government, the Iraqi elections, and the Iraqi Constitution, also fall along with the Iraqi government. Unless a salvage plan can be immediately implemented then Mr. Bush will have nothing to show for the Iraq War. There will be huge debt, dead American soldiers, a failed government, lost oil, thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, no WMD, no justification for invasion, and charges (perhaps in International Court) of torture, abuse, and more levied against him and VP Dick Chaney. The pressure for Mr. Bush to resign will be strong from Democrats and his own Party. Back in Iraq an ability to hold an election is doubtful given the present violence levels.

It is demand from his own Party politicians however that will hold the most sway with Mr. Bush. So far he has ignored the polls and the Congress and the citizens represented by Congress. His support is down below the knee-level in terms of his approval ratings, and there is reason to believe that the support that he does have is not very well informed.

Democrats alone do not have enough votes to impeach Mr. Bush but a GOP Party demanding his resignation provides for missing votes. At that point he is better off to resign than to be impeached.

So who would then replace Mr. Bush? He could name his own replacement as a part of the process of negotiating his resignation and the Constitution provides for that. I think John McCain and Lindsay Graham would be his most likely choice. He could be denied that opportunity however in which case Nancy Pelosi becomes the next president of the United States by law.

Thus we are looking at the possibility of two governments falling if the government of Iraq falls.

Now we ask ourselves about the rest of the mid-east. A power vacuum will result and the U.S. will be redeployed at best, removed from the mid-east at worst. If we are still there then we could help to mop up Afghanistan and then get that conflict over with. We could also act as a check and balance for Iranian ambition and we would give the Syrians cause to think twice. Saudi Arabia, seeking to support Sunni’s would want to exert a restraining hand and it would act to make others seeking civil war to also think twice. The Kurds would be damaged in their ambitions to build a nation-state for themselves and would have to take their case to the UN. The Turks would have to be contained too and maybe an American presence will be needed to affect such a balance. So contrary to the present rhetoric the U.S. is unlikely to being home the troops rather we are likely to redeploy the troops and indeed that is the language being used by the Democrats – to “redeploy.”

Frankly the future of Iraq and the Bush Administration does not look good while the mid-east might be containable and Afghanistan might be salvagable.