November 9, 2005
AHMED WE HARDLY KNEW YE:
Chalabi's Return: An Iraqi democrat is welcomed in Washington--finally. (Opinion Journal, November 9, 2005)
A year ago the Bush Administration tried to destroy Ahmed Chalabi's chances of ever leading a free Iraq. This week the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister has meetings scheduled with Bush Cabinet members Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and John Snow, as well as National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. What gives?Let's hope it's a sign of maturity from a Bush foreign policy team that realizes it erred badly last year. Mr. Chalabi's political success in Iraq since that fiasco is impossible to ignore. The same man once derided as an "exile" with "no support" in Iraq brokered the Shiite alliance that dominated the country's free elections in January. Though a secular Shiite who believes in separation of mosque and state, Mr. Chalabi may be the Iraqi politician most trusted by Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He gets along well with Kurdish leaders and has influential Sunni allies as well, including Iraqi Defense Minister Saddoun Dulaimi.
In his current role, Mr. Chalabi was a central figure in drafting Iraq's new constitution, where he successfully pushed for language to create an Alaska-style trust to share oil revenues equally among Iraqi citizens. And he assumed special responsibility for oil and infrastructure protection, resulting in what one observer called "the highest crude oil exports in anyone's memory."
Milk long since spilt, but one wonders how much better shape Iraq might be in today had Mr. Chalabi and a Sistani-approved transitional regime been stood up immediately after the invasion, rather than an occupation begun. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 9, 2005 2:22 PM
Yes.
And I wonder how much worse the civil war would have been had the US appointed an unelected, indicted shite exile to rule over the sunni population. Instead of a marginal but effective approx. 10% sunni rebellion we may have seen an 30%-50% sunni rebellion.
Counterfactual history is fascinating but it shouldn't delude us from reality. And sometimes reality is picking a bad outcome because the other one is possibly worse.
My thinking is somewhat parallel to Chicago's but I wonder how bad the slaughter of the Sunni Arabs would have been and whether Iran might have gained more influence over the formation of the government without our occupation.
Posted by: Patrick H at November 9, 2005 4:15 PMChicago:
The Shi'ites would have had a freer hand in brutalizing the Sunni recalcitrants into submission.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2005 6:02 PMChicago, Patrick H.
The Sunni would have had no difficulty reconquering the Shia. (as proven in the the previous 80 years)
Posted by: h-man at November 9, 2005 6:42 PMThe last fifteen years show that we determine how much power the Sunni exercise in Iraq.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2005 6:54 PMoj,
the Iranians are also Shiites. Isn't it likely they would have tried to offer support to their brothers in the battle against the Sunni? Much would have depended on our presence there. If we did a total cut and run after capturing Saddam, who else would the Shia have had to turn to? How strongly would Syria have been assisting the Baathists. It could have been a bloodier mess than the occupation, and the MSM would have blamed every death on Bush just as they do now.
This "raid". Did anything come of it? Was he arrested? Tried? Put in prison? Executed?
The "raid" on Chalabi's house was just a way to get our guy street "cred". Seems to have worked.