I've got an analytical piece going up at TomPaine.com tomorrow about the Bush administration's loss of confidence in Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, and it raises the question: Is the administration thinking about trying to "fix" Iraq by encouraging a coup d'etat by Iraq's armed forces?
Since then I had a conversation with a former CIA official with wide experience in the Middle East. Here's his take:
It's being talked about in Washington. One scenario is, the Iraqis do it themselves, some Iraqi colonel who's fed up with the whole thing, who takes over the country. And it would take the United States 48 hours to figure out how to respond, and meanwhile he's taken over everything.The other side of the coin is, we do it ourselves, find some general up in Ramadi or somewhere, and help him take over. And he'd declare a state of emergency, and crack down. And he'd ask us to leave -- that would be our exit strategy. It's a distinct possibility. I've raised this with a number of foreign service and intelligence people, and most of them -- remembering the days of the coups d'etat in the Middle East -- say, "Hear, hear!"
And you know what? I think Rumseld would jump on this idea in five minutes.

Comments (1)
Would a coup really achieve anything when the state apparatus it would be taking over is so weak already?
Wouldn't it just accelerate the breakdown of whatever central authority there is?
Posted by Tom Griffin | October 6, 2006 2:05 PM
Posted on October 6, 2006 14:05