How ironic.

Here in the core of the World Government the people have reserved to themselves the right and power to use force, delagating to the state only so much of that right and power as is necessary to keep domestic order and to maintain Imperial power.

Thus it is that the only state to be truly sovereign at present, by the definition we are given todfay, is not sovereign.

The irony is stronger. Let us ponder how the virtues of limited government are themselves the wellspring of the power to rule the world.

Lou:

Did you sleep through the '90s when we crushed the militia movement?

Although the article doesn't mention it, al-Maliki's victory was a victory for Iran and defeat for the US. We were trying to get Abdul-Mahdi of SCIRI chosen for PM, he was backed by the US and all the Kurdish/Sunni/secular Shia parties and nearly half of the UIA. Jaafari and his Dawa party are closely allied with Iran, and may have been using the Interior Ministry to kill democratic Sunnis. However, apparently Sistani brokered a compromise within the UIA in which everyone Jaafari stepped down but another Dawa official gets the PM -- thus keeping Iran-backed elements on board. The US, Kurds and Sunnis chose to back down and accept this.

The big prize that went with the PM position was authority over the decision of whether to disarm the militias, most of which are backed by Iran and closely allied with the mullahs, thereby making the US-associated military dominant. Al-Maliki seems to be taking the position that the militias will be kept around, but "merged" into the military as a kind of fifth column that nominally answers to the government but may actually be more responsive to al-Maliki/Dawa, Sadr/Mahdi, and the mullahs.

The US was clearly hoping to resolve the situation in Iraq by getting a pro-democratic PM in place and disarming the Iran-allied militias. This would then free our hand to move against Iran without fearing rear-guard actions against us and our democratic allies in Iraq.

By winning the political maneuvering here, Iran has made it much riskier for the Bush administration to take action against them. This is a real setback for the US.

No victory for Sistani is a victory for Iran. The best thing about al-Maliki is that he has anti-American credibility.

This was a kicking-the-can-down-the-road compromise. They postponed conflict. The downside of not resolving the tensions is that any US-Iran conflict will now entail a civil war in Iraq between Iran and US backed groups. Clearly, Sistani is betting there will not be a US-Iran war. By brokering this compromise, he tones down conflict in the short term. He also arranges things so no one has to openly take sides against either the US or Iran.

While I can see the logic to it from the Iraqis point of view, it's a clear concession to Iran. Iran got 95% of what they wanted -- an Iranian loyalist as Prime Minister, and no disarmament of Iranian-loyal militias. The US only got the substitution of one Dawa guy for another -- just a face-saving cover for a near-total loss.

Clearly, people in the Middle East have concluded the odds of decisive US action against Iran are low, and even our best allies aren't willing to come out openly against Iran.

This wasn't a victory for Sistani. He's not trying to direct Iraq's course. He would have preferred a SCIRI PM, as he's very close to them, but his over-riding goal is to tamp down conflict and broker compromises among the powerful. He's been doing that consistently, as when he asked the US to treat Moqtada al-Sadr with kid gloves when his Mahdi Army was fighting us. We could have arrested or killed him, but we let him run free at Sistani's request.

He's not gambling. There won't be a US/Iran war.

All we needed was someone who is serious about crushing the Sunni insurgency. We got him. That's what Sistani wanted too. Sadr is necessary to defend Shi'ites in the central region if partition occurs.

The Sunni insurgency is already crushed.

Then the troops should be home already.

oj: Sorry for the delay in replying, but I just got back from a pistol match.

The "militia movement" you write of was not the militia, but actually a form of counter-militia. The true militia is composed of people who are law-abiding to a fault.

To understand the the militia, one must understand the existence of civil society as distinct from the state. This should be plain to anyone who has read the appropriate portions of the Federalist Papers. It is never about fighting the black helicopters or contending with the Z.O.G. or whatever the pseudo-militias rave about. Rather is is about responsibility for one's own defense and that of one's family and immediate community. It is a spiritual thing, a state of mind.

Likwise Iraqi factions, each with its own militia, are not a civil society under arms, but merely competing counter-militias.

I suppose it is asking too much that a non-shooter rightly comprehend the gun culture or that a bus-riding wheelbarrow-pusher appreciate the motor music. Nevertheless, the ordered liberty inherent in the miitia concept is one of the bases of the power we Americans wield against the world we rule.

The true militia is composed of people who are law-abiding to a fault.

Bingo.

War with Iran? What delusions of grandeur they have. All we'll do, if that, is destroy their nukes.

oj - If the troops came home, Iraq would become an Iranian satellite nation, just like Syria. All the Sunni democrats would be killed. Sistani would be marginalized, just as moderate Ayatollahs in Iran have been.

The threat in Iraq never has been the Sunni insurgency -- they're "dead-enders," as Rummy calls them, able to kill but not able to construct a state. The threat has always been Iran. That's why we had to invest in democracy, to create an alternative and a counterweight to the mullahs.

erp - Which means war with Iran.

This is a poker game with no limit. They have a nuclear reserve in North Korea, they can replace lost nukes. We are unlikely to be able to destroy their nuke-creation facilities without entering the country. And we must expect terrorist attacks against us if we attack them. In short, any effort to destroy their nuclear program may quickly escalate to a choice between regime change or loss of the war.

pj:

Socialists were sure the workers would unite and not fight WWI. Neocons think Sunnis and Shi'ites and Arabs and persians will unite.

pj. I respectfully disagree.

We don't need regime change in Iran. Let them rattle their sabers and elect any nutjob they wish. The notion that China will allow North Korea to launch nukes is just silly as is any notion that the great leader would be able to come to the aid of his ally in Iran.

Bush learned the lesson of the decades-long media propping up of a weak-as-a-kitten Soviet Union and won't be taken in by any more media hyperventilation about the danger from the two weakest and most foolish "leaders" on the globe. Throw in Chavez for good measure and voilà, the oddest threesome in recorded history.

To mix a bunch more metaphors, paper tigers whistling past the graveyard.

oj - It's not unity I expect and fear but disunity. I don't think the groups you mention'll unite any more than Iraqis "united" to establish Saddam's regime. They can fall under the rule of a powerful, Iran-backed minority simply by being unable to coordinate their opposition. They don't have to want it or work for it. It's might takes power. 70% of Iraq is rooting for democracy; if unity were easy for them, we would have no troubles.

erp - You've somewhat misunderstood me. North Korea has already given Iran nuclear technology, and quite possibly nuclear weapons, with China's blessing. North Korea is certainly not going to launch nukes, terrorist delivery is a much stealthier method which gives a greater chance of pulling off a nuclear attack unscathed. Anyway all they are doing is selling to Iran. Iran's mullahs would give them to the terrorists. How would we tell where Iran's nukes came from? Most people would assume that Iran had built them.

The only way to make us secure against nukes from Iran is regime change. We can try to be cute and launch air strikes, but that will either (a) merely delay Iran's program 6 months as they shift the effort to places we don't know about or can't strike, or (b) lead them to retaliate through terrorism, forcing us to respond again. It has high political/diplomatic costs, potentially discrediting military action further and crippling the next president, and it's not clear the military gain will be that significant. Regime change would be a clear victory, but possibly at a very heavy cost.

I think you either do nothing militarily, and push the democracy angle and hope for the best, or you prepare for regime change, perhaps provoking an escalation in aggression on the way there.

pj. I hope you are unduly pessimistic.

The Shi'ites are the majority--they will govern. But not in Syria.

If America is nuked by terrorists, the rest of the world will not be unscathed.

ALL of the world's powers would support anything that the U.S. did to retaliate, including France, Russia, and China, since no powerful nation can allow irregulars to use WMD with impunity.

As for determining the source of a nuclear weapon used in an attack on America, what makes anyone think that the American public would care if we punished the innocent along with the guilty ?
We know who doesn't like us.

Even though 9/11 wasn't an Iraqi operation, the attack gave Bush the domestic political support to attack Saddam, a long-time enemy of America.
Similarly, if North Korea sneaks a nuke into NYC harbor, Iran will feel the backlash as well, along with most of the rest of the Middle East.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 23, 2006 10:16 PM