Ahmad ChalabiWhy shouldn't a politician be president of Iraq?

Remarks from the Fray:

Saying a penchant for corruption and undermining one's opponents is as good a qualification for a political candidate in Iraq as in the US is like saying irony and ignorance are as useful in foreign policy commentary as they are in analysis of The Simpsons. But never mind that. The Bush administration would save itself a lot of trouble if at some time in the near future it made very clear that several things will have to be done in Iraq before we can start talking about a fully responsible Iraqi government, let alone a democratic one. The security situation will have to be settled, and some kind of mechanism for maintaining public order established; the oil industry's status and future operations will have to be arranged; a de-Saddamizing of the country will have to be at least started; the lifting of economic sanctions and laying down the outlines of a system for raising government revenue will have to be managed. Iraqis can and should participate in all these, but it is unrealistic to think they can run any of them right now -- not when almost all of the Iraqis with governmental experience got it under the Baathists, and when the easiest route to a strong political position is for an Iraqi politician to campaign as the spokesman for his ethnic or religious faction in effective opposition to all the others. This is what Milosevic did in Serbia, and is precisely what we do not want no matter how democratic it is. I am one of those deeply skeptical about the ability of any Arab country to maintain a stable democracy. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but I won't be in Iraq unless it is clear at the outset that with the creation of democratic institutions there must be an explicit understanding that some choices may not be made. Without such an understanding no democracy has ever endured, and in Iraq the only way to ensure it is to impose it.

--Zathras

(To reply, click here)



I have to agree with Mr. Suellentrop that there is no inherent reason why Mr. Chalabi or any other Iraqi expatriate should not be allowed to vie for leadership of Iraq. The key thing, as he suggests, is that no leader should be imposed on the nation. Nor can I say that I would be anything other than pleased to see Mr. Chalabi or whoever ultimately assumes power in Iraq show both sincerity and vigor in attempting to establish that country as a true democracy. All of the cautions that Mr. Suellentrop raises about Chalabi … concern me but none so than … his expatriate status. Chalabi is really more than an Iraqi expatriate; he is virtually a foreigner in his own homeland. It is almost as though an eighteen-year-old U.S. citizen, disgusted over what he sees as corrupt American culture, flees to Europe only to return forty years later and announce he/she is running for President. Interestingly, they would be in violation of the fourteen year residency requirement prescribed by the Constitution and unable to do so. It almost seems like what is sauce for an American goose ought to be sauce for an Iraqi gander. As I said, his expatriate status does not mean Chalabi should not have a chance to run. He is hardly an exact counterpart of my wayward American. After all, his forty-year exile was hardly voluntary. Still, forty years is a long time to be away from the country you propose to govern and particularly so if you were little more than a youth when you last truly lived there. The U.S. Constitution's requirement for our President to be a natural-born citizen probably arose out of the Founding Fathers' desire to avoid the equivalent of the foreign-born potentates so common in Europe in the Eighteenth Century. It would appear, however, that they felt those who had lived outside the U.S. for an extended period were equally liable to be unduly influenced by foreign ways and ideas. At any rate, they were likely to be unfamiliar with the intricacies U.S. law, society, and culture and many citizens were likely to be distrustful of them. So while Chalabi has the right to run, there may be certain wisdom in withholding undue support/promotion of his efforts…

--The_Bell

(To reply, click here)


When did failure to stand up for ethical and moral beliefs, being able to balance a checkbook, and pragmatic thought have anything to do with politics? A better choice for a candidate can be found than Ahmed Chalabi. He is twenty years removed from any real positive influence in Iraq. His track record has some missing minutes. I would rather that a panel of five leaders coalesce under Coalition Military and United Nations authority for two years. The military authority can slowly be weaned from chairing as citizen representatives learn their jobs and the coalition can determine agenda's first hand. This is now about the Iraqii people. It will eventually be their choice to elect a president. It would harm the process tragically if a man was appointed who began by trying to pad some off shore account with as much dinari as he could shake rattle and roll out of the country. I think Chalabi can be a bad choice if his authority cannot be determined and guided properly by Coalition, AND, United Nations advice. Iraq needs to be democratized from the inside out. Not bring in a roundtable of twenty years removed politicos who haven't shown their mettle for organization and ethical dealings. We can not replace a despotic murderer with a fast talking card shark … Failing now by appointing some half stringed puppet would undermine this entire sacrifice so many have made, on BOTH sides, on ALL sides. It is imperative on the international community to see that this very important process be as unfettered as possible. Iraq MUST be democratized from WITHIN … Say that Chalabi is posted as president of Iraq and inadvertently squanders his authority. The Iraqii people will recognize this and search for someone to attach responsibility to … They would see the US as responsible for installing a man who had not the countries best interests in hand .. It is VERY important that we build Middle Eastern confidence in the US right now. Middle eastern people sort of expect political/ military coup as indicative of political/social change. What is so radical and new is that it is a foreign country doing the changing, NOT A MUSLIM ONE.... That is the sensitive matter. But if America and the Coalition, AND the United Nations can make this work... the benefits will be extraordinary … This can become a bridge that bonds our two distinct civilizations and creates a truly solid relationship. A new platform from which we can cooperate to heal much of the wounds and bloodshed of the region. Arabs are just as fearful and concerned about terrorism as the west... Future trouble must be avoided and can be avoided while creating a free society of native Iraqiis. Which will be a bastion to other Arab states and an influence upon their political arrangements. And it will also temper much fanatical/radical Islamic rhetoric that demonizes the west … They will see and learn at how democracy can work and see it as a viable part of rebuilding their country. That is what nation building is supposed to be about. Isn't it?

--AeitianMahrruull

(To reply, click here)

(4/10)