In its efforts to steer Iraq's political process, however, the Bush administration has continually appeared unable to decide whom to support. Indeed, the last four years have offered a wretched history of folly: U.S. officials, abetted by hyperventilating domestic war supporters, repeatedly anoint Iraqi leaders as saviors only to subsequently blame those same leaders for the continuing disaster. Ever-shifting diplomatic signals have significantly harmed the development of Iraq's political process while irrevocably undermining the administration's own credibility in touting, and supporting, the latest "capable" Iraqi leadership. ...Read the whole thing.First, the approach distorts the American public's understanding of the conflict by perpetuating the absurd idea that Iraq can be fixed if we just get the right Iraqi leader in power. There is no Nelson Mandela waiting in the wings, no Ataturk -- not even a Yeltsin or a Nasser. The internal conflicts in Iraq, not to mention a constitution that essentially mandates proportional ethno-religious representation in parliament, currently preclude the ascendance of such a unifying leader. (Ironically, the Iraqi leader with perhaps the most ostensibly U.S.-friendly political profile, including a strong Shia base of support, the goal of a united Iraq, credibility with Sunni groups, and relatively weak ties to Iran, is � Sadr.) At this point, for a variety of reasons, the situation is beyond salvation at the hands of a single leader, and the administration should stop pretending otherwise.
Second, such relentless meddling in political conflicts we do not fully understand ensures that neither Iraqis nor other regional powers can establish any reliable relationship with the United States. We have become a proxy in the Shia-Sunni regional struggle, a pawn in Iraq's intra-Shia rivalries, and a joke in the Israel-Palestine peace process, all in large part because of the current administration's inability to discern and credibly advance its own policy. Because all the players believe -- correctly -- that U.S. positions are malleable, they will constantly seek to alter those positions and alliances. American inconsistency therefore fuels unpredictable behavior in and around Iraq, seriously damaging military and diplomatic efforts. And for all of these difficulties, our careening policies in the region never seem to actually gain anything.
--The Editors
