Allawi gave a very good speech before Congress today. There are many things in it to praise, including his forceful commitment to holding elections in January and his spirited testament to the hope, pride, and faith of Iraqis:
Iraq is still a nation with an inspiring culture and the tradition and an educated and civilized people. And Iraq is still a land made strong by a faith which teaches us tolerance, love, respect and duty.
Kerry is already calling it "unrealistic" but that's more or less because Allawi is painting with the same overly optimistic brush Bush uses, and Kerry's not distinguishing between the two (for more or less the same critique, see his speech at NYU the other day).
For me (being easily swayed as I am), Allawi made a compelling case that patience and commitment could pay off. But, just as when President Bush insisted before the UN the other day---
Since the last meeting of this General Assembly, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty.
---Allawi lost me with
They warned that there could be no successful handover of sovereignty by the end of June. We proved them wrong. A sovereign Iraqi government took over control two days early.
If anyone in the world knows just how false that last statement is, it's Allawi. He's not the leader of a sovereign government. He knows he's not. He may have simply tried to put an optimistic spin on the fact that he's less powerful than Negroponte at this point, but there's a point when listening to someone who's trying to persuade you at which you begin to mistrust everything they say. That point is often a statement they make you know they don't believe.
Now I believe in the "Fake it 'til you make it" rationale which argues that, despite your inner doubts and the roadblocks ahead, you more quickly reach your goal the more you act like you're already there. But what is Allawi gaining by pretending that he leads a sovereign government? It would be one thing if anyone believed that statement, but as no one with the ability to look up "sovereign" in the dictionary does, it actually works against him, as it makes him look more puppetlike.
He could have edited that statement to simply
They warned that there could be no successful handover by the end of June. We proved them wrong. A interim Iraqi government took over control two days early.
He would not have lost anything with that claim. Certainly not the credibility he did with the one he chose instead.
It's like the moment when the patsy catches a tell. The gig may not be exposed but the con artist has lost the leeway to pull off a clean hustle.
Posted by: carsick | September 23, 2004 at 02:42 PM
Dear U.N.,
I am hear today to tell you that even though you unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 1546... Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq's transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004..."
you are mistaken.
Sincerely,
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi of the fully non-sovereign Intermim Goverment of Iraq.
Posted by: Blue | September 23, 2004 at 03:19 PM
My heart is warmed by the fact that Blue is suddenly a proponent of the judgement and credibility of the United Nations.
Posted by: Phil | September 23, 2004 at 03:22 PM
You heard it here first: Allawi is going to wind up costing us big.
If you want proof of this appointed administration's incompetence, installing Allawi was a huge mistake. What were they thinking? At a time when this administration is trying to shift the rationale for occupation away from WMD and terrorism to one about democracy and human rights--why would you install a guy with a long history as a member of the mukhabarat? After all, this thug used to assassinate foes of Saddam's regime until he realized the pay and bennies were better elsewhere.
The problem with thugs is they're only marginally useful until their self-interest leads them in different directions.
Posted by: JadeGold | September 23, 2004 at 03:37 PM
That's an important distinction for Allawi's credibilty, especially with the Iraqi's, Blue:
looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign
"Looking forward" to something is one thing. Stating you've achieved it when the world knows you haven't eats away at your reputation.
Posted by: Edward | September 23, 2004 at 03:38 PM
I have to admit that I really don't think the U.N. is worth much at this point.
I think given the fact Allawi was addressing the U.N. I don't think it odd or insincere for Allawi to choose the words he did.
Wasn't that Edwards critique?
Posted by: Blue | September 23, 2004 at 03:59 PM
I think given the fact Allawi was addressing the U.N. I don't think it odd or insincere for Allawi to choose the words he did.
Allawi was addressing the US congress...and thereby the people of the US.
It was incredibly insincere to tell the people paying for the reconstruction of his country and still essentially in charge that he is in charge.
Maybe it does no harm to anyone other than him, but that was my critique.
Posted by: Edward | September 23, 2004 at 04:09 PM
It was incredibly insincere to tell the people paying for the reconstruction of his country and still essentially in charge that he is in charge.
telling such a sweet lie serves the purpose of those by whose pleasure he serves.
Posted by: cleek | September 23, 2004 at 04:33 PM
cleek
My your hair looks great today! And have you lost weight?
By the way, can I borrow $20? And could turn away for a moment while I instill a little "democracy"?
wink wink
Posted by: carsick | September 23, 2004 at 09:55 PM
Allawi makes my case. The bet is over. It is time to take the issue to the judges, either here or over at Tac.
Happy Trails
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | September 23, 2004 at 10:26 PM
Faith Based Politics? Lucky Guesses? Political Predestination?
LUCKY GUESS: If the intelligence agencies are, as President Bush put it yesterday, "just guessing" about how disastrous the future of Iraq will be, it's worth remembering how prescient their previous "guesses" have been. This is from a piece published September 9, 2003, in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus, entitled "Spy Agencies Warned of Iraq Resistance." Note the reaction given last year by the anonymous administration official Pincus quotes about the assessments:
More:
LUCKY GUESS:
Posted by: Haven | September 24, 2004 at 01:05 AM
I was suddenly overwhelmed by the irony of it all after hearing Rumsfeld's comment: "Well, so be it, nothing is perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
My doctor says I must avoid too much irony in my diet. I'm hoping to be able to take his advice by 2005.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 24, 2004 at 06:07 AM
"Well, so be it, nothing is perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
Jes just like the presidential election of 1864 and the Republic survived it. History is full of irony, you just need to know where to look.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | September 24, 2004 at 07:58 AM
Come now Timmy, I hope you're not going to be dredging up 19th century examples to make your case on the bet.
Those goal posts are sliding, my friend.
Posted by: Edward | September 24, 2004 at 10:08 AM
Actually, if Timmy the Wonder Dog is capable of it, a historical essay on the parallels between Nicaragua in 1984, Iraq in 2004, and the US in 1864 would be fascinating. Not wager-winning, but possibly PhD material. ;-)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 24, 2004 at 11:48 AM