海角大神

The Hill has a report titled 鈥淥bama seeks Iraq regime change.鈥� Thankfully, the piece doesn鈥檛 support that worrisome claim.

It鈥檚 not just The Hill, either. The Daily Beast has a similar report titled, 鈥淓xclusive: Inside Obama鈥檚 Push for Regime Change in Iraq.鈥�

In recent years, common usage of 鈥渞egime鈥� has been in description of authoritarian governments. One typically sees references to the 鈥淪addam Hussein regime鈥� in Iraq or the 鈥淎ssad regime鈥� in Syria but not to the 鈥淢erkel regime鈥� in Germany or the 鈥淩eagan regime鈥� in the United States 鈥� although occasionally the latter form is used by opponents to imply that elected governments are behaving in undemocratic or unsavory fashion.

But a regime is only聽synonymous with the current political leadership in an authoritarian state. In Robert Fishman鈥檚 often-cited definition, 鈥淎 regime may be thought of as the formal and informal organization of the center of political power, and of its relations with the broader society. A regime determines who has access to political power, and how those who are in power deal with those who are not.鈥� He continues, 鈥淩egimes are more permanent forms of political organization than specific governments, but they are typically less permanent than the state.鈥�

So, in the case of the United States, the current regime dates to the inauguration of George Washington as president under the Constitution of 1789. Forty-two men have held the office since but they鈥檝e all done so through the processes established under the Constitution (as occasionally amended both formally and through custom, notably the evolution of how the Electoral College functions in practice). We鈥檝e had incredibly bitter and contentious elections 鈥� and a bloody Civil War 鈥� but have handed off control of government according to our institutional processes this whole time. The last 鈥渞egime change鈥� in the United States, then, was when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. Before that, there was arguably a regime change when the Articles replaced British rule, although I鈥檇 argue that we established a new state rather than changed regimes.

In the case of Iraq, ascertaining the lines is admittedly more difficult. Wikipedia tells us that,

I would argue, then, that regime changes took place in 1925, 1958, and 2005. These represent true changes in governing systems 鈥� British rule, military-authoritarian rule, and something democracy-like. The last date is murky, in that the US-led Coalition ousted Saddam on April 9, 2003, and handed over power to a temporary Iraqi government shortly thereafter. There were even more-or-less legitimate democratic elections under the Transitional Administrative Law during that interim period. One could, then, reasonably argue that that constituted a 鈥渞egime鈥� as well.

Regardless, Iraq is still operating under the Constitution of 2005. So, in fact, the US government is backing the current regime against an apparent plan by the sitting prime minister to retain power through unconstitutional, perhaps event violent, means. That鈥檚 the exact opposite of regime change.

James Joyner is editor of the Outside the Beltway blog at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/.