I finished on the plane Ali Allawi's book, The Occupation of Iraq. I have to say that this is an intelligent and well-written book on the US occupation of Iraq, no matter what I think of his politics. Now after all: he is a protege of Muwaffaq Ar-Rubay`i--one of the worst people in Iraqi government, and certainly the least accountable as he serves at the pleasure of the occupiers. Prime ministers come and go, and Ar-Rubay`i stays: above the elections and above the constitution-under-occupation. Rubay`i brought `Allawi into government, and for that `Allawi is grateful (or greateful, as Ahmad Fatfat spells it). The author remains an adviser to the prime minster of Iraq, shuttling between London and Baghdad. But the account is frustrating in more than way. The author reminds me of Clinton: he clearly wants to have it both ways, and writes in a wishy-washy language (politically speaking). He is for the occupation, but is critical of management of occupation. So he objects to foreign occupation on technical grounds only. Furthermore, he is focused on the neo-cons: you have to understand from his perspective why I object to Arab media obsession with neo-cons: the Saudi media love to underline and exaggerate the role of the neo-cons because conservatives (Arabs and Americans) like to absolve Bush and the various elements from the US government from responsibility of wars and occupation. So `Allawi is willing to criticize Lewis and Wolfowitz but never a word about Bush or Cheney, and he buries a criticism of Paul Bremer in an endnote so that most will not notice it (it was an important one about Bremer's alleged lies about meeting or not meeting the corrupt Ziyad Qattan). In fact, in TV interviews, `Allawi refuses to say a word on Bush, and in fact states that he "is not in a position" to criticze the US administration. Whatever that means. His account in that regard should be seen as an American patriotic critique of the war, and less as an Iraqi patriotic critique. It is part of the mildly critical literature against the war in mainstream US. `Allawi is very effective in painting a picture of Iraq under occupation although he seems to ignore the plight of the poor and the high civilian toll of war and occupation. I recommend that you read his endnotes: they are rather interesting: and he--unlike most accounts--incorporates the Arabic literature and scholarship on Iraq. I took umbrage to his reference to Hanna Batatu in one endnote as "lifelong Marxist." I mean, Batatu was (an "independent Marxist as he defined himself, influenced by Barrington Moore and Marcuse and not by Khalid Bakdash) but what is the point of mentioning that except to prejudice his English language readers in the US? It is like me saying that the author, `Allawi, is a life-long "liberal" (and I never use the word "liberal" as a compliment). And he was unfair to Batatu: he accused Batatu of ignoring Islamist groups in his book. Well, the book started in the 60s: and the Islamist groups were quite marginal. Iraq was a different place. And read the subtitle of the book: Batatu was concerned with Arab nationalist and communist groups only. In other writings, Batatu did pay attention to Islamist groups in Iraq and Syria: his article on Ad-Da`wa was one of the first in English. (I know: I am very defensive about Batatu, and very protective of his name. He was my mentor, and I admire him as a person and as a scholar). And his sense of outrage is odd: he was most offended when the US (he blames Iraqi puppet officials--of whom he was one--) formed the Fallujah Brigade without his knowledge of authorization. OK, but why not be outraged over other things. Abu Ghraib is barely mentioned or the murder of Iraqi civilians by the occupiers. He is amazed that the Arab people are not offended by the violation of Iraqi sovereignty by foreign fighters (a terms that bizarrely excludes Americans) but he is not offended by the violation of Iraqi sovereignty by US occupiers. There are some things that are good in this book: I read the best (brief) treatment of the political thought of Sistani. He explains that the notion that Sistani is simply opposed to Wilayat Faqih is not quite accurate. He also gives a good account of the background of Muhammad Sadiq As-Sadr. I also find the references to the new puppet Iraqi intelligence service (under the leadership of a Saddam henchman, Muhammad Shawnani) rehabilitated by the occupiers) to be quite alarming. This Shahwani guy seems to operate totally independent of any government control and with the full support of the occupiers. And what is with his admiration of the sociological work of Iraqi scholar, `Ali Al-Wardi who combined Weber with classical Orientalism mixed with some of the sociological (and often racist) generalizations of Ibn Khaldun?