The problem with Maliki

Former Ambassador to Iraq Jim Jeffrey argues in this morning’s Washington Post for more wholehearted support to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and other allies willing to fight Al Qaeda:

…as also often happens in this region, the administration is sounding an uncertain tone, seemingly signaling to everyone that its top priority is to not get the United States into any sort of military engagement…

Let’s leave aside whether the tone is really all that uncertain and whether President Obama has accurately read the sentiment of the American people.  They certainly don’t want American troops going back to Iraq, and there is no clear sign that Maliki wants them either.

There is another problem with Jim’s argument.  Maliki has contributed to the problem in Iraq, by alienating the Sunni population.

Jim acknowledges this in passing, but fails to recognize that a more whole-hearted endorsement would send the wrong message and make the problem worse.  The challenge for American diplomacy is to restrain Maliki’s autocratic instincts while helping him militarily.  This is a difficult trick.  It requires not wholehearted endorsement but rather nuance:  we’ll help you with what you need on the battlefield, but we expect you to play a more democratic game politically.

Maliki has more than enough reasons of his own to fight Al Qaeda. He doesn’t need our moral support.  He does need some military equipment and intelligence shraing.  He also needs our wisdom on how to manage dissent and sectarian conflict in a relatively open society. 

The notion that changing the American tone in the Middle East would buck up our allies and magically defeat our enemies is silly.  Israel and Saudi Arabia, which Jim mentions explicitly, are unhappy with American policy because it is not sufficiently supportive of their absolutist views of Palestine and Iran.  Backing those views would not help the Administration succeed in its current efforts to mediate a final settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict or in its negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program.  To the contrary:  increased rhetorical support in public to Netanyahu and Riyadh could wreck the prospects for diplomatic solutions to both.  Better to do what we appear to be doing:  provide Israel with whatever security assistance it needs to ensure that a settlement with the Palestinians poses no danger and consult frequently and in depth with Saudi Arabia on how to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capabilities.  

I agree with Jim that Iraq is important, both because it is a central player in the Arab and Kurdish worlds and because its oil production helps now and can help in the future to stabilize the world oil market.  But the problem with American policy is not insufficient support to Maliki.  It is insufficient frankness with him about what we expect of our friends and allies.