tom_thinks

Over the weekend the Iraqi Governing Council announced it's choice for Prime Minister of the Interim Government. They nominated a former Iraqi exile with ties to MI6 and the CIA, Ayad Allawi. However, the Washington Post reports that Mr. Allawi was not the first choice of the Americans.

One of the working assumptions among senior foreign policy officials in the Bush administration had been that Iraq's new prime minister, the most important of the 30 jobs to be filled, would not come from the Governing Council. None of the 25 council members, all handpicked by the U.S.-led coalition, has rallied significant popular support, according to several public opinion surveys over the past few months.
In an attempt to ensure that the new government would enjoy a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of Iraq's 25 million people, U.S. officials also thought they needed to find someone who would not be seen as a surrogate of the United States -- representing a "clean break from the occupation," as a diplomat from a coalition country said. Allawi is among those with close U.S. ties, including to the U.S. intelligence community.

Is this a not-so-covert attempt by the U.S. to install a friendly puppet or could this be a power play by the Iraqi Governing Council, seeking to ensure positions of power for themselves?

From the Independent (UK)The appointment of Iyad Allawi as Iraq's interim Prime Minister this weekend was being seen as an American-backed coup which wrong-footed Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy supposed to be putting together the interim government which will wield "sovereignty" after 30 June.
The more that is learnt, however, about the sudden emergence of Mr Allawi, a man close to the CIA and MI6, the more it appears the appointment of the new government has been hijacked by the ambitious politicians of the Iraqi Governing Council - the very body it was meant to replace. The only question is whom the IGC was conspiring with as its members picked jobs for themselves.

The idea of eliminating members of the IGC from positions in the new interim government seems to have been abandonded after unsucccessful efforts to have Mr. Hussain Shahristani become the new Prime Minister

Shiite Politicians' Objections Lead Candidate to WithdrawShahristani, 62, a nuclear scientist who was imprisoned by Hussein's government for more than a decade after he refused to help Iraq build nuclear weapons, has little political experience. Shahristani escaped Iraq in 1991, but unlike many other Iraqis who lived in exile, he was not active in opposition political parties, choosing instead to focus his energies on helping Iraqi refugees. For the past year, he has avoided politics and worked on humanitarian aid projects in southern Iraq.

It seems like the United States is going to have a rough time convincing people that this government is legitimate with their appointees all scrambling to get their piece of the power structure. It seems pretty obvious that you can't bake a great tasting cake with rotten eggs, but apparently the US is going through with this plan anyway.
The new Prime Minister, Allawi, has a lot in common with another corrupt individual Ahmed Chalabi (see previous posts). Allawi is reported to be responsible for the 45-minute WMD claim and he and Ahmed seem to be cousins according to Salon's Andrew Cockburn. Once again Cockburn has a great article on this subject A man for all intrigues

There could be no more perfect evidence of the desperation among U.S. officials dealing with Iraq than the choice of veteran Baathist and CIA hireling Iyad Allawi as prime minister of the "sovereign" government due to take office after June 30. As one embittered Iraqi told me from Baghdad on Friday: "The appointment must have been orchestrated by Ahmed Chalabi in order to discredit the entire process." He was not entirely joking, given the fact that Chalabi joined the rest of the Governing Council in voting for Allawi despite their long and vicious rivalry.
Though he is Shiite, Allawi was once upon a time an active Baathist, a member of Saddam Hussein's political party, and is thought to enjoy much support among the officer corps of the old Iraqi army, and by extension among many former Baathists and influential Sunni. Indeed, there are reports that the reason Ahmed Chalabi, the neoconservative favorite, urged his friends in the White House to dissolve the army last year -- a decision now acknowledged to be the most disastrous of the occupation -- was Chalabi's fear of the support enjoyed by his rival (and cousin -- everyone in Baghdad is related) within the military.

Meanwhile Chalabi's old neocon friends have been lobbying to get him back into the good graces of the Bush administration (see nytimes.)
Obviously things are a big mess in Iraq, and at this point there are no easy answers, but it does seem clear that having power hungry US appointees voting themselves into top positions is not going to make things any better.
In related news: Some people have speculated that Chalabi's Iran connections may be a fabrication by the Bush administration to justify an invasion against Iran. If the Iranians were found to be subverting the Iraqi government, could the Administration make such a justification? William Rivers Pitt of Truthout.org believes such ploy would fortunately be doomed to failure. In his recent OP/ED, The Deep Game he disputes the claim,

Is this Chalabi story a calculated ruse by the Bush administration to create an environment where war against Iran would be acceptable? Clearly, they would like this conflict to become a reality. But reality, in this matter, interferes. Consider a call for war in Iran. The immediate questions would be:
With whose army? Our troops in Iraq are badly stretched, and there aren't many Reserves left. The UN won't have anything to do with another invasion. It is difficult to believe that we would dare use Israel as a proxy force, because we'd lose every other country in the region overnight, including Pakistan, which actually has nuclear weapons.
With whose vote? Congresspeople have constituents, and the constituents are badly disturbed by Iraq already. The war is a mess, and Congress has more than enough political cover to say 'no' this time around. It isn't 2002 anymore.
With what money? Bush has spent hundreds of billions on Afghanistan and Iraq, and has failed (quietly on the first and spectacularly on the second). Because of Iraq, Congress can, and almost certainly will, say no to Iran spending.
With which Pentagon? If you believe Sid Blumenthal's report that the officer corps in the Pentagon is on the edge of revolt because of what has taken place already, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they would sit still for yet another military action.

I for one hope he's right, we've got more than enough problems without another war.