WOLFOWITZ OF ARABIA

I had a long post addressing the rumors that Paul Wolfowitz would replace Paul Bremer as ambassador/viceroy of Iraq, but the computer I was working on ate it.

So here's the short version: Do you remember the last time Wolfy went to Iraq?

If I get motivated enough, and have the necessary time, I'll reconstruct the longer version.

UPDATE: I'll try a brief version of the slightly longer version. Now version this!

The Wolfy rumors only make a shred of sense if the Bushies are taking an inappropriately long-haul, cart-before-horse view of Iraq. Given the three variables of...

1) The stated US goal is to establish a pluralistic, open democracy in Iraq after years of being held together under the iron fist of Saddam

2) The desire of some Iraqis that the US leave, and the actions to that effect conducted by some of those Iraqis, and

3) The belief among a segment of the Iraqis probably larger than just the insurgency that the US and Israel are in kahootz on some level

...why would we appoint as the de facto/(jure) head of Iraq a guy who not only is highly friendly with the Likudniks, but also has the most Jewish name in the administration? (not to be harsh) On the other hand, some people see this as a you-broke-it-you-bought-it situation for Wolfy, who was the source for many of the administration's most bullshit over-optimistic sentiments of the pre-war period. As Juan notes:

He is currently deputy Secretary of Defense, but probably could not have continued into a second Bush term. He is associated with the worst mistakes of Iraq-- concentrating in 2001 on Saddam rather than on al-Qaeda, hyping Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, insisting that Iraqis would welcome a US occupation with garlands, thinking Iraqi Shiites were "secular" and had no sensitive holy cities in that country, and backing the corrupt financier Ahmad Chalabi and his militia as successors to Saddam and the Baath. He is probably already a liability to Bush in this election. There were earlier rumors that he might step down this spring. Sending him to Baghdad as ambassador would solve a problem for Bush domestically, perhaps.

While that's a cute way of characterizing the motivations at work here if these rumors pan out, it doesn't fully illustrate any political thought process at work.

(of course tomorrow I'm sure all these rumors will be proven false, and we'll have wasted a lot of bandwidth)

Here's my thought. Going back to the cart-before-horse idea, here's the reasoning the Bushies may have in mind with a Wolfowitz-led Iraq: If Iraq pans out and becomes what they hoped it would become (a pluralistic democracy and such), then Iraq's closer association with Israel would -- eventually -- take some heat off of Israel, because a free and prosperous Iraq would be a good thing for Arabs and Muslims.

Trouble is, this is a pipe dream. It's pretty clear, from Fallujah and elsewhere, that some Iraqis are throwing a lot at our forces and people in Iraq to stop that from happening, and having a Likudnik in charge of Iraq would only fan the flames of anger at America moreso. Juan also writes:

But having a Likudnik* run the US embassy in Baghdad would be a complete disaster for US policy in Iraq and in the whole region. It would be proof positive to the insurgents in Iraq that the US intends to reshape the country in accordance with a Zionist agenda and make Iraqis the bitches of Ariel Sharon [Mind you, I think this conspiratorial way of thinking illegitimate, but it is already a theme in Iraqi popular political discourse]. It seems unlikely to me that Wolfowitz could get the cooperation of the Shiite clerics.

As I mentioned before, the last time Wolfowitz was in Iraq, he was almost assassinated. At the very least, doesn't Wolfy have a problem when he comes back to Iraq and says "I'm back, you assholes"?

Furthermore, if and when we retaliate in Fallujah, it is likely that we will use tactics similar to those the Sharon government and previous Israeli governments have used in the West Bank and Gaza. (I can't immediately find the link, but that's what they said they want to do) Would those sorts of actions, combined with Wolfowitz as leader, paint a picture that Iraqis would want to see?

If Wolfowitz does indeed become head of the CPA, this is highly problematic. By comparison, it makes the no-bid Halliburton contracts seem downright subtle.