OxBlog

# Posted 10:32 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

THE CHALABI LOBBY: After landing in Nasiriyah, the INC's Free Iraqi Forces are headed for Baghdad to help restore order. This suggests, of course, that the Pentagon is preparing INC chief Ahmed Chalabi for bigger and better things.

As I've written before, I have serious reservations about the decision to support Chalabi and his ambitions. And I am having a hard time finding anyone who seems to disagree.

Some of Chalabi's critics, for example the CIA, are politically motivated. Others, such as Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose, are veteran analysts with no apparent axe to grind.

Perhaps most surprising are the words of caution from Robert Kagan, who writes that

some Bush officials may want to support the political fortunes of people they have known and trusted for many years, such as Ahmed Chalabi.

It's understandable, but it's a mistake. Chalabi is undoubtedly a good man. While in exile, he labored long and hard against Saddam Hussein. If he can now muster genuine support in Iraq, through his own exertions, then the world should wish him well. But the United States must not give him a leg up over other potential leaders, and especially those who may now begin emerging from within Iraq. As Paul Wolfowitz put it last Sunday, "You can't talk about democracy and then turn around and say we're going to pick the leaders of this democratic country." Exactly right, so the United States shouldn't help Chalabi or anyone else position himself as Iraq's Charles de Gaulle in the waning days of the war. If it ever starts to look as if the United States fought a war in Iraq in order to put Chalabi in power, President Bush's great success will be measurably discredited.

Given Kagan's prominence among neoconservatives, one begins to wonder if anyone other than Richard Perle believes that Chalabi should play a leading role in postwar Iraq.

Wolfowitz's position on the Chalabi issue is hard to discern. While Kagan does cite Wolfowitz to support his argument, the vagueness of Wolfowitz's comments suggests that, for the moment, he is still undecided. And Kagan knows it.

By citing Wolfowitz's public statements as evidence against Chalabi, Kagan is trying to remind Wolfowitiz that he will seem hypocritical if he decides to set Chalabi up as head of a provisional government. What Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush think of Chalabi is even less apparent. My guess is that they are waiting for a consensus to emerge from below, even if they tend to favor the Pentagon on such matters.

Taking this lack of clarity into account, one ought to revisit Josh Marshall's argument that this is going to be an "AEI occupation". Chalabi's departure for Baghdad supports that point. The question in my mind is whether the Pentagon will let him do anything once he gets there.

Finally, on a related note, take a look at Stanley Kurtz's response to Josh's recent article in the Washington Monthly. Josh defends himself well from some of Kurtz's criticism, but I think that much of it is right on.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion