Nouri al-Maliki: The Wrong Man For The Job
This is a real quandary…I have tried to give the Iraqi Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. Clearly, he has placed the mission in Iraq in deep jeopardy with his unwillingness to tackle the security situation and take on the militias:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview with USA TODAY that his government will not force militias to disarm until later this year or early next year, despite escalating violence in Baghdad fueled by death squads and religious warfare.
Al-Maliki’s remarks point to a growing gap between the U.S. and Iraqi governments over how to handle growing sectarian violence.
U.S. officials have urged the Iraqi government to take immediate action to reduce the violence. On a visit to Baghdad earlier this month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the “security situation is not one that can be tolerated and it’s not one helped by political inaction.”
Al-Maliki also predicted a significant U.S. troop withdrawal starting early next year, despite the growing violence. If Iraq’s security forces continue to build in strength, U.S. troops could start withdrawing in “a matter of months,” he said. There are currently 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
The prime minister criticized the U.S.-led military coalition for an overreliance on force, which he called the “wrong approach.”
“Terrorism and militias — especially militias — cannot be dealt with only by using tanks, guns and aircraft,” he said.
Al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government depends on some militia leaders for political support.
Al-Maliki said he has rejected U.S. plans to launch large-scale operations into Sadr City, a Baghdad slum and a stronghold of the Mahdi Army, a powerful militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr’s political organization controls several Cabinet positions and 30 seats in the parliament.
“We have told the Americans that we don’t mind targeting a Mahdi Army cell inside Sadr City,” al-Maliki said. “But the way the multinational forces are thinking of confronting this issue will destroy an entire neighborhood. Of course it was rejected.”
There “seems like a disconnect” between U.S. and Iraqi strategies, said Steven Cook, a Middle East analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations.
We have seen, with Hezbollah and Hamas, what happens when one tries to find cooperative ‘solutions’ with militants that allow them to keep their arms. No state can effectively govern without a centralized military. The bloodshed and deteriorating security situation are a direct consequence of this unwillingness to do what must be done.
The problem, of course, is that the Iraqi Prime Minister is part of a democratically elected government, one which we quite proudly hailed at its inception. We cannot go back to the South Vietnamese model of puppet heads of state that are deposed and raised to power at our whim.
Unfortunately, neither can we keep our troops indefinitely in Iraq with a government that refuses to take the necessary steps to enforce security. That would seem to indicate that perhaps it is time to begin withdrawal and admit that we have done all we can do, if the Iraqis don’t want to help themselves.
Yet that solution would leave an unacceptable situation in the heart of the hornet’s nest, as the government would surely fall, and the most likely outcome would be a Shiite theocracy and a safe haven for terrorists. What is to be done, then?
We must bring extraordinary pressure to bear on al-Maliki, and we must take the fight to the militias with or without Iraqi backup. If this means putting a U.S. face on the war (more so than now, that is), then so be it. And President Bush has to take the bully pulpit and say, for public consumption, that the policy of the United States Armed Forces will be to shatter the militias, and if they want to avoid that fate, we will enter into discussions with them on how to disband and integrate themselves politically into a peaceful Iraq.
Otherwise, I have to question if this is worth pursuing any further…
“…Clearly, he has placed the mission in Iraq in deep jeopardy with his unwillingness to tackle the security situation and take on the militias…”
Yup…it was Dubya and his lack of insight vision and knowledge. It wasn’t Rummy and his lack of planning. It wasn’t Cheney and his stovepiping of intelligence. It’s al-Maliki’s fault this mission is in peril. Where is the acountability?
a) the article nevers mentions actions being taken inside the interior ministry-the actual Iraqi govt branch responsible for dealing with the militias. The problem they have now is not they are worried about the militias roaming free, it is the militas that have inflitrated the security force.
b) disarming the militas is secondary to establishing a police force that can disarm the militias. The US is not going to be responsible for disarming the militias, the Iraqis are.
c) the person directly responsible for dealing with the problem is Jawad Bolani, a name which never even appears in the USA today piece.
Look at the world public opinion poll that has been thrown about,
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf
bad news, unless you are the Iraqi govt.
77% opposed to militias.
72% believe Iraq will remain a single state over the next five years.
confidence in police? 71%. army? 64%. Interior ministry? 62%.
or at pipa.org
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1
Are iraqi security force capable? 9/06 53%. up 14 pts from 39% in 1/06.
Will Iraqis still need help from foreign forces? 46% in 9/06, down from 59% in jan 06.
The clear trend is that the iraqis are growing in confidence in both their security forces and their ability to handle the situation on their own. Hence the quote from Maliki, in the same article:
“Al-Maliki also predicted a significant U.S. troop withdrawal starting early next year, despite the growing violence. If Iraq’s security forces continue to build in strength, U.S. troops could start withdrawing in “a matter of months,” he said. There are currently 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.”
worth mentioning that Sadr has lost control over his Mahdi army, or at least a third of them. A grand scale attack might nave the deleterious effect of bringing them back together. The pr effect is clear: maliki tells the coalition to eave the mahdi army alone(but you can still hit specific groups) making him look like a leader to his people.
We are down to months remaining in the mission. The final point, where the Iraqi forces stand up, and we stand down.
sadr city has a population of 2 million.
let the iraqis deal with it.
mookie’s grip weakening:
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370161
a direct attack on the militia which is falling apart, would bring them back together.
We have to take the hands off the bike and let them peddle.
mtl, do you honestly think they can (no snark, I’m being completely serious)? As I said in the post, I think if we withdraw, the government falls in a coup…
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that they are going to end up with another Saddam-like figure to take charge?
The desire by some to make this into the next vietnam, is comletely wrong.
During vietnam, confidence in vietnamese govt consitently was declining, they had little public support, and no confidence in the security forces…these trends are completely opposite to waht Iraq is experiencing.
There will be no magic moment-where everyone will look and say it is won or lost-but the Iraqis themselves are winning, right now.
look at the elements you need for a coup…
a competing set of ideas/or control of the military.
growing dissatisfaction with govt
this isn’t organization v. organization.
It is US supported organization against inorganization.
soon it will be purely ‘iraqi’ organization v. disorganization.
For the first time-at least since sept 06, less than a majority of Iraqi believe they need our help. This is fantastic news.
I’m missing the two competing ideals, vying for control of Iraq. The govt may yet fail, but it won’t get to that point of being an actual govt, until they are in control. They will never appear in control while we are there in strength. The final act is going to be letting go, while critcs still claim things are in bad shape, but it is part of the progression needed.
If Iraq announces a timetable, which is clearly what the article was hinting at, I think they are gaining confidence daily.
snark alert-
Henry H-if another saddam figure takes over, then is it really that bad? I thought saddam wasn’t a threat to us, at least according curent progressive ideology.
MTL.
“The Iraqis themselves are winning right now”
You have to be kidding!!
You think Iraqis have “Confidence” in a Government that presides over complete caos? And the confidence comes from some polls that you put up? My friend please stop it. You are EXTREMELY misinformed.
There are over 600,000 refugies from Sunni and Shiite tribes that would beg to differ. There are over 100,000 souls that can’t vote in you “poll” because they are dead, there are over 300,000 wounded Iraqis that will tell you that your polls are incorrect. As a matter of fact no news organisation has ever reported such polls and that includes Fox News. Why my friend?
Iraq is not Viet Nam is worst. Is Viet Nam in the middle of the Region with the larget reserves of oil in the world.
Why did mookie cut his militia lose?
were they an asset to current enviroment, or a detriment?
has the militia gained in strength by losing Al-Sadr’s support?
Timetable coming down the pipe soon…but it will be coming from the Iraqis.
gil-if the iraqis are losing, what is the ‘metric’ you have used to come to that conclusion?
What about your beloved purple fingers? Who are we to put pressure on the “democratic process in Iraq?”
Cecil, I love the way you mock the free elections of Iraq – nice to see you spit on the aspirations of the Iraqis that way. Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said we couldn’t go back to the puppet regimes of Vietnam…try reading the post again, slowly…
hmmm….
I just have listed several reasons why I think things are going better than portrayed:
seperation of militia from govt, growing iraqi confidence in their security forces and govt, lessening depnendece on us military, the president of the country seeing a signifciant draw down in less than 6 months
file them all under “as Iraqis stand up, the us will stand down”.
It as if we were in 1944, and the ‘defeatists’ were proclaiming we had lost the normandy invasion based on casualites, and therefore must be losing the war.
Brush up on those talking points about how by Iraq setting a short timetable, it will mean the Iraqi govt is throwing us out. No need to discuss the non-sequiter of the fact that an Iraqi govt taking over control is the very thing our presense in the country is supposed to achieve.
I have no idea how the actual govt will turn out, but it would seem the populace of Iraq wanting to remain unified is a good start. Of course it hurts all those federalization plans being floated, and I’m sure if we remain we can continue to control the direction of the country to achieve a solid division, but that would entail staying longer than either the US or Iraqis would wish. Great plan.
“Is Viet Nam in the middle of the Region with the larget reserves of oil in the world.”
Why is the price of oil coming down?
MTL.
The metric is common sense.
If you have a nation where militias kill each other by the hundreds each week, where car bombs explode every day, where you have more than 100 attacks per day on our forces, where hundreds of thousands of Sunni and Shiite are forced from their homes into exile or refugee camps, where Al Quaida is stronger than ever, where the interior ministry is infiltrated by all kinds of militia man and Al-Quaida, where the Government has rampant corruption, where Iran is now an allied of Iraq, where NO ONE is desarming any militias nore do they plan to …. I believe that my “Metrics” would indicate that we have a problem. Why are your “Metrics” telling you anything different is beyond my comprehension
If I was to put all the names of Generals, Senators, Congressman, Leaders around the world, Foreign Generals, influential people, academics, etc, etc . that are finding the “Metrics” these days terrible, I would have to spend the rest of the afternoon gathering names.
Bythe way, I read some of your web adresses that are supposed to back up your claims, and frankly what the web sites clearly indicate is that Iraq is a mess….. From where do you get YOUR metrics?
MTL
My comment in reference to Vietnam and oil has nothing to do with current market forces. If you think oil is going down right now, just wait until the Winter, and than call me again, or better yet until next Summer when it will be at $3.00 + again. Iraq’s oil does not even figure in today’s markets.
My comment (I tought it was obvious) has to do with the fact that just like in Viet Nam we have a quagmire, but unlike Viet Nam the Quagmire in Iraq is in the most strategic region in the world. When Bush ignored all advice to the contrary and decided to invade Iraq, he decided to play with matches on a powder cage.
OH, and before you start asking what are my “Metrics” for a quagmire let me tell you that a quagmire in my book is when you have four years “Staying the Course” and “The Course” is getting worst by the day…. But “You can’t cut and Run” because things will get worst and the implications of “Worst” in Iraq, unlike Viet Nam is that worst = CATASTROPHIC.
“Henry H-if another saddam figure takes over, then is it really that bad? I thought saddam wasn’t a threat to us, at least according curent progressive ideology”
It would not be bad in the sense of posing any threat to us. It wouldn’t pose any threat, just like Saddam didn’t. It would be quite the mixed bag for the Iraqis – the establishment of order at the price of repression. That is a price that many, or most, human societies have been willing to pay throughout history. In fact, were the United States ever to be in a position of grave danger, or widespread civil unrest, I suspect most Americans, especially of the conservative persuasion, would willingly make the bargain as well. At least all the implications and tendencies that the right has exhibited over the past five years seems to indicate that. Who would ever thunk that 19 guys with boxcutters could lead Americans to compromise their freedoms?
Of course the worst aspect of the rise of neo-Saddam would be the painful realization that, at the cost of three thousand American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, we really would have accomplished exactly nothing.
Hmmm… so I am “spitting on the aspirations of the Iraqis” by pointing out the ridiculous symbolism of the purple fingers celebrated by the Malkinites and U.S. elected officials during the State of the Union Address? How about the aspirations of a normal human being not to die? It has nothing to do with Iraqui leadership anymore – the deaths are directly attributable to the destabilization cause by the presence of foreign troops and the careless dismantling of the previous power structure, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Calling someone “Mookie” or others “defeatist” is just a way of ignoring the real issue – Iraqi people dying in a country where the only true political system or power is that of GWB. Let’s talk about the real “Wrong Man for the Job” if you are honest enough.
“Why is the price of oil coming down?”
The price of oil is determined by many factors exogenous to Iraq: worldwide demand; the labor situation in Nigeria; the political situation in Venezuela; whether the world expects Iran to go nuclear soon; the weather; OPEC’s strategies; outages like the BP shutdown; and the activity of hedge funds and speculators. Oil is down ~ $16 from its high but roughly double where it was a little more than a year ago. The amount of oil produced in Iraq is one of many variables in determining the price of oil.
“Hmmm…”
When a poster begins his missive with this expression (same principle applies to the use of the word “Er,” here), you can bet the bank that they’re going to make an incoherent point that has no relationship to the original post.
“How about the aspirations of a normal human being not to die?”
Bingo.
You’ve got to appreciate the preening sophistry and overweening sense of moral superiority that this poster clearly loves to revel in – let’s look at some additional deep thoughts…
“…celebrated by the Malkinites…”
Wow, that’s absolutley brilliant satire. They’re sure to love this stuff over at FireDogLake; no doubt you’re a regular there – now please go back to your duties under the bridge, and try working on your cognitive skills before you darken our doorway again.
the dreaded ‘common sense’ metric.
please apply it to this:
Nov 2004:Bush 51% Kerry 48%.
I guess democracy is only good if the duly elected leaders are competent. That goes for any country.
Dmac Says:
October 16th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
“Hmmm…”
When a poster begins his missive with this expression (same principle applies to the use of the word “Er,” here), you can bet the bank that they’re going to make an incoherent point that has no relationship to the original post.
Dmac:
mtl Says:
October 16th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
hmmm….
Yes, Cecil, the ‘ridiculous symbolism’ of the purple fingers, symbolizing, of course, the freedom to vote and not live under a brutal thuggish dictator…and how clever of you to determine that Michelle Malkin actually came up with the whole ‘purple finger’ thing.
The purple finger was a celebration, and frankly, only a heartless bastard would not have been inspired by at least THAT portion of our Iraqi adventure.
Congratulations, the shoe fits, and you may wear it…
“mtl Says:Hmmm…”
Gosh, that’s brilliant repartee, but the commenter referenced above actually has posted for quite awhile here, and makes coherent and rational points. Perhaps after you’ve posted here for over 24 hours and have proven that you can actually form a complete thought, we’ll start to look at you in a new light.
“The purple finger was a celebration…”
“Cecil” apparently only understands one finger in particular, given the profound thoughts he’s expressed on the matter previously.
Calling someone “Mookie” or others “defeatist” is just a way of ignoring the real issue -
actually I have discussed specifics.
judging by your lack of response to specifics, I guess you have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you dispute growing confidence by Iraqis in their security force and govt?
Do you believe that they will not be asking us to leave in the next six months to a year, providing the precious timetable on their terms?
Do you believe the militias are gaining in strength?
I’m not aware of any recent reports of Iraqis running from combat, so it would seem we have made some progress.
You could even argue whether it is the role of the US to deal with militas, or the Iraqis.
I have provided very specific examples, so I am not falling back on semantics, or name calling.
I have stated the reasons for my beliefs becuase reason should precede belief. In failing to discuss your own reasoning for your beliefs, I cannot help but feel you have none.
the oil price drop implies a future where oil disruption in Iraq is not as likely as in 03-04.
Their return to market might be the thing that is driving the price down.
Iraq is already lost. Probably so is Afghanistan. Ever wonder why Baker has just turned up , touting his Committee’s new report about how we need a new direction in Iraq? Dont you realize that a sea change has been occurring? First James Baker, then a couple of Senators like Warner and Hagel, then the leak that old Father Bush hands are in dismay over the direction of the war in Iraq. Theyre pumping up a campaign to change course and do exactly what Murtha has been calling for, only none of them is being called a traitor or a member of the cut and run group, as Murtha and others were. But thats exactly what theyre proposing.
Just watch as Bush himself starts to back-pedal, saying maybe if something isn’t working, we ought to change it. With that, “cut and run” suddenly goes down the drain. No “traitors” here anymore, even Bush when he says he’ll consider what Baker and his committee want to propose. I call them all “traitors” because I grieve for the good men and women already killed, and the others who still will be killed, while this sea change occurs.
can you actually define ‘lost’?
I am aware of the warner plan…which allows for 90 days before making changes.