… at the US Institute of Peace this month. Click here for the full event briefing and list of participants (it's unclear whether the event was off the record; I couldn't find a transcript or anything of that nature). The USIP gathered six Iraqis of note who are now resident in the United States to take note of their advice for the Obama administration; apparently, there were numerous disagreements, but they arrived at some common ground on the un-controversial stuff:
Despite a few sharp disagreements, the speakers agreed that the next U.S. administration should support Iraq in its transition by 1) maintaining security while respecting Iraqi sovereignty; 2) strengthening institutions; 3) ensuring free and fair elections; and 4) encouraging positive regional engagement.
All wise and important conclusions. Of course, none of these assertions is going to ruffle any feathers located in the vicinity of the center; the absence of specifics makes it difficult to contest any of them with any enthusiasm. (Unless you are Ron Paul). The observations on #2 that come later in the briefing, though, are worth noting:
… Istrabadi reminded the audience, “Democracy is a process, not an endpoint.” The U.S. can support Iraq's transition to a robust democracy through policies aimed at capacity-building, curtailing corruption and improving respect for the rule of law. To increase overall competency within Iraq's governing institutions, Talabani suggested that the U.S. support more “exchange programs, training programs and partnerships.” Atiyyah emphasized that the next administration should work to build the government of Iraq's institutional capacity, rather than tying support to individual politicians or parties. He warned, “One of the mistakes the [Bush] administration has made is pinning its support for an Iraqi government not to the institutions but rather to an individual.”
There is a degree of irony in Atiyyah attributing the individuals-over-institutions process to the US’ poor management of post-conflict Iraq, as the tendency for institutions to vary in their credibility and effectiveness entirely according to the individual leading them is a characteristic often attributed to “Islamic societies” in classic Orientalist fashion. However, I would venture to say that Maliki's struggle to push the SOFA through Parliament is in some ways indicative of his general credibility weakness. If he and his cabinet enjoyed greater goodwill among MPs, then perhaps the fiasco of the SOFA would have been mitigated.
The LA Times ran an op-ed today about this tendency more broadly in American foreign policy – exhibiting a preference for individuals over institutions, that is. I’m inclined to think that the op-ed's argument – that presidents make policy based on who they like – is overly simplistic; attraction to an individual's personality is, I am sure, tempered with consideration for how helpful that individual is judged to be or have the potential to be in advancing US self-interest. But the convoluted thinking that leads to “cultivating rule of law and democracy” through sponsoring individuals over institutions is too troubling not to point out.
