Why Iraq Is Changing Its Tune on Withdrawal
Something must have made Maliki and his security advisor think that they have the upper hand in the negotiations. After all, they declared: “Our stance in the negotiations under way with the American side will be strong… We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn’t have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq”
Here, we’re facing a typical case of the manifestations of the dual loyalties of many Iraqi politicians. The government as a whole has made achievements, especially in terms of security improvements. But these achievements have now been turned into a check that is being cashed to serve the sect and its allies.
For a long time, when the government was very weak, Maliki and Rubaie (especially Rubaie) were clearly against the idea of setting timetables, at least in public. What has changed now is that these politicians have gone to the Ayatollah and told him that their domestic foes have been more or less neutralized and that they are ready to use these gains for the benefit of the sect.
What I am saying here is that the statement “we are strong” does not reflect the Iraq-US balance of power in terms of two states negotiating a deal. It reflects the presumed balance of power between Shiite faith (in its regional context) on the one hand and the US, Sunni Arabs and Kurds on the other.
This calculation is obviously flawed. Maintaining the presence of American troops is crucial for the survival of Maliki and the future of Iraq — it is not as crucial for America. If America insists on a position of refusing to include a timetable for withdrawal in the agreement, it will be Maliki who will have to make concessions.
That will be very bad for his image.
People make mistakes, but the mistake here is aggravated by the fact that Iraq’s leader has allowed his misperceptions to drive him into making demands that are not in the best interest of his country.
Frankly, I’m disappointed by Maliki’s unjustified maneuver. Gambling with the future of nation and its people is an insult that will cast a shadow on his record as a leader of Iraq.
As long as the local elections are held in October, this could be a good thing, for America. Bad for Iraq, but Iraq is a sovereign nation which means having the ability to screw up on their own.
Holding off for now is a good thing. Let the Iraqis think about life without the USA and then decide what they want.
It’s always a little nerve wrecking the first time you give a youngster the keys and watch them drive off. The best you can hope for is that they don’t floor it until they are out of sight.
PRESIDENT Bush has been thru this little bit o’ life and knows how it goes.
If Iraq wants the USA gone, we outa` dere. The troops go on to some other theater, Somalia or the Sudan, and the money goes into American neighborhoods and Energy R&D.
It is a win win for America.
Saddam is gone for good. Iraq has a slim chance at a real government. America CANNOT shove democracy down the throat of Iraq. We can and did hold at bay those who would prevent Iraq from going democratic. Now it is up to the Iraqi’s.
“I’ll get you where you wanna go if you know what I mean.
Got a ride that’s smoother then a limosene,
can you handle the curves, can you run all the lights
If you can then baby boy we can go all night.
cause I’m 0 to 60 in 3.5
baby you got the keys,,,,
Now shut up and drive.”
Rihanna “shut up and drive” -Good Girl Gone Bad-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WAapKx2TvM&feature=related
Sooner or later, you gotta let go. If now is the timw, then now is the time.
He went to Iran recently and was told he can’t rely on US and President Bush. He was told US can change its policy overnight and is not loyal to anyone. He was told see what happened to the Shah of Iran after 40 years cooperation with US. Carter came along, was tricked to withdraw support for stable and friendly and actually the only friend in the area, and see what the world got. Terrorism, Islamism, Khomeinism, Talibanism, and anti-Americanism. Maliki was told see how Europe plays with US. All along all European countries have had relationship with Khomeinists, and UK and Germany do anything to damage US prestige in the area. Just check BBC , Reuter, and AP reportings. He was told that Germany was actually hosting Khomeinist delegation as recent as last week-end. Maliki was also threatened, and was told if you don’t withdraw from the pact with US you will be in trouble. Maliki was reminded of loneliness of Christians in Lebanon being slaughtered daily by Helbollahs and nobody cares, the conditions of students, women, and journalists in Iran being jailed and murdered daily and no one including AI are nowhere to be found, and the conditions in Gaza with Hamas. With all those evidences what would you do if you were Maliki?
The problem is that the constitution in Iraq is a MUSLIM constitution. How can there possibly be individual rights and true liberty if the government doesn’t even recognize or respect western values of liberty? So, wether the US stays or leaves sooner than later is irrelevant, because islam will be the final arbiter. All of our boys lives lost for what?-Iraq to be ruled by 10,000 islamists instead of 1?
With all those evidences what would you do if you were Maliki?
I’d take the money I’ve been busy skimming off the Americans for rebuilding Iraq the last five years and retire to some place on the Mediterranean where they like rich despots and ex-tyrants and protect them.
And then I’d invest in a hair transplant.
Maliki also knows this is ‘free’ rhetoric. We’re not going to be out of Iraq anytime soon, and he knows it as does Senator Obama.
Snoop: We’re not going to be out of Iraq anytime soon, and he knows it as does Senator Obama.
Not really, he gives Obi an out to keep his pledge to the nutroots. Even Bush had said we wouldn’t stay a day longer than the Iraqis wanted us to. Seems we should get out before Maliki totally disarm the Sunnis and the Kurbs.
If we believe the media reports about the successes in Iraq, then these plans are already being talked about in Washington. Don’t rule out an “October Surprise” where President Bush states the implementation of some type of withdrawl plan. I’m not saying this is a political move but a true coincidental move. He may have asked Pretraus if enough success can be achieved by October–and Pretraus might have said yes indeed. Meaning we are witnessing one of the few moments when a government plan actually went according to plan. I view this as another sign of success.
Even if we started pulling out now, we would not be gone until after the provincial elections and possibly the national elections next year. By that time, Iraq should be in full PIC, have established internal security, and new government.
America does the best she can do and if the Iraqi government wishes us to go, then so be it. It is their right as a Nation to say so and do that, and more than happy if they believe that they can take care of themselves.
I do expect that this has more to do with the fall elections, however, and possibly an attempt to undercut al Sadr’s party and its reason for being. If that party can be minimized then Maliki gets far more manuevering room heading into next year’s parliamentary elections, plus has plenty of time to mend fences, look like a ‘realist’ and see if he can keep his party in a position of strength… I have this strange feeling that the immediate post-war government coalition is about to disappear very soon. There are, apparently, other politics now coming into play that are not strictly religious based.
Of course the MSM didn’t report the whole story or just emphasized the wrong part. This would all be tied to the Iraqi army being able to take control and keep control over all the provinces. This would be a real victory for Iraq and us. Of course the left and the MSM will spin it the other way. When all is said and done history will mark this as a great achievement and Al Gore will try to take credit for it.
IF al Maliki is getting marching orders from Najaf (al Sistani) and IF the intent of said marching orders is to install or cement some kind of sectarian (Shi’a) dominance in Iraq, then I (for one) will be extremely disappointed after this long hard slog we (Americans) have had in Iraq.
The biggest limitation of al Maliki’s predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, was his own limited vision and sectarianism.
OTOH, with all the screeching of American politicians about “getting out” of Iraq on a timetable, it would be slightly humorous (only slightly) if the Iraqis themselves preempted the withdrawal thing.
Dollars to donuts it won’t happen within a decade (2018).
I agree with tge author’s analysis only to this extent: Maliki’s arrogant betrayal of our trust is extremely foolish and risky. But conspicuously missing from the above analysis is any reference to the “Treaty of Hubaidaya” which Islam’s founder Muhammad betrayed once his position became more powerful. This betrayal by Maliki may simply be typical boilerplate Arab/Muslim behavior as sanctioned by the example of Muhammad. The author tacitly accepts the idea that Maliki may be changing his tune do to a heightened sense of his improved position, but withholds any reference to an event in Islamic history which would not only prove informative, but which parallels this opportunistic behavior by the vile Maliki.
Is anyone else as exhausted as I am by the apparent constant necessity for Arab interlocutors in the West to explain to us all the subtle complex nuance which characterizes Arab behavior in the ME? We’re rarely levelled with, and Islam and all the atmospherics of Islam are rarely mentioned in conjunction with all the malevolent bad acts which abound in the Arab cesspool. For example, when Islamic regimes call for our genocide, we’re informed by the these assuring cultural interpreters not to worry — “… it’s for the consumption of the Arab street — behind the scenes the Arabs are saying very different things…”
When Arabs stab us in the back and betray their obligations, we’re informed about all the maze-like reasons why their treachery is not really treachery.
When caveman like Maliki spit in our face all the subtleties of various alliances with Najaf and Tehran are trotted out, as if there are legitimate (albeit foolish) political reasons to do such spitting. The fact that purely religious reasons may be behind the spit is deliberately obscured lest we “infidels” begin to catch onto the motivations of our enemies. Of course, since within Islam little distinction capable of being made between politics and “religion”, perhaps this is a nugget of oblique truth-telling in that.
In any event, we should take full advantage of the Maliki’s likely Islam-inspired and very stupid blunder. We should immediately create the shortest time table possible and extricate ourselves out from under the preposterous and impossible burden of fixing the unfixable. Let the arrogant Arabs wallow in the Islamic sewer they’ve created for themselves. We have done enough for these villains. We have spent enough. We have died too much.
Dear Mohammed,
I want to thank you for your frank review of this political act off Mr. Maliki.
He is a bold politician who has many to satisfy and few to support him.
The reconciliation of all Iraqi’s seems to be the key to the success of his regime.
I am concerned that in his focus on Najaf (and I believe that to be Sistani whose philosophy is apolitical — but his acolytes’ political ambitions, primarily) can topple the impartiality that reconciliation’s success will require.
Maliki senses that Iran is the big dog now, and they assure him that they are. He sees that in January President Obama will embark upon a repudiation of present policies and alliances that may well leave him out in the cold. And there is historical precedent – one that the kiddies voting for Obonga know nothing about: the Republic of Vietnam in the Spring of 1975. We reneged on a security agreement. The Democratic Congress and Senate and a weak president did this.
So, I differ from the author’s thesis that Maliki is acting out of a sense of strength. I think he senses his government is weak and that Iran is about to kick us out of the neighborhood. And an American President, Congress, and people will go along with the deal.
It only gets worse from here.
Last time I checked, it wasn’t just “Najaf” or Sistani who wanted withdrawal, it was three-quarters of the Iraqi population. I’m growing rather tired of the “wishing will make it so” school of thought on Iraq. They want us gone, and–in case you haven’t noticed–most of us want the US to get out of that snakepit too. So what’s the problem? Shall we continue to pretend that the average American cares what happens to Iraq after we withdraw? If Maliki’s making a mistake, so be it. No one I know still cares what happens to the Iraqis.
no one trusted no one and politics has no permenent friends but permenent intrust , the fact is , you the take advantage and let the others do the same on thear turn becouse its intraction between the two one wins and the other losses just give a time .
one should wait and see when his turn comes and just take it.
its like opertunity knocks but most don,t understand it, maliki does and showed risponsibilty amongest sunnis and shiats in the same boat.
I have to disagree with you that conceding on timetables will hurt Maliki. Regardless of the recent gains, Americans are still unpopular in Iraq and most Iraqis want us to leave. By making these public statements, he can now take the position that he wanted the US to leave, but his hand was forced. This will score him big points with Iraqis and Arabs the world over. When he can claim to be strongarmed by the US, his cries of victimhood will have a receptive audience. Just a political point scored at America’s expense.
I’m not in Iraq, and certainly not an expert but Maliki’s maneuvering seems related to his independence from the coalition strategy first marked by his raids on Basra. Conventional MSM called that a disaster at the time and was proven wrong. Then he went after Al Qaeda remnants in Mosul and was successful.
What Maliki seems to do, ongoing, is short-circuit the malcontents on either side as the situation warrants. Now his credibilty calls for playing a hard line stance on US and coalition withdrawal. But it’s more complex than fears of the Sunni’s, who worry about Iraq becoming too close with the Iranian religious template. Maliki’s disarming of the Shia Militias should indicate that.
Given the timeline rumored.. over 5 years.. the precept is to short-circuit all critics of US occupation including Democrats, here. So, not only is Maliki a much more able leader than supposed, he is acting to unify, one at a time, his opposition behind his government. I’d suppose he’ll come up with something to make the Sunni sheiks and Kurds happy, once the memorandum is accepted.
When you look at the big picture, it seems Iraq is turning out even better than anyone hoped. Certainly it is NOT this generations ‘Viet Nam’. Indeed, Maliki’s stance indicates a threshold on which the war is ‘Declared Won’.
Wish we could say the same about Afghanistan.. it seems that it is, after all -referring to the Soviet Occupation of the eighties, our ‘Afghanistan’.
Roark,
All of our boys lives lost for what?-Iraq to be ruled by 10,000 islamists instead of 1?
No, Iraq will be ruled by 10,000 islamists instead of 1 guy that was mostly secular and completely crazy. It may be much better for the Shi’ites, worse for the Sunni and the same hell for the Kurds. Hoepfully, even if the place does become ruled by 10,000 islamists, they will be less inclined to attack their neighbors and cause us headaches. I doubt that democracy will flourish there, because their religion doesn’t fit with the concept that you should be an independent thinker (much like the Christian Church 500 years ago). It was only with the Enlightenment and the Church’s own kind of enlightenment that made our modern democracy possible. The psychology and philosophies changed BEFORE 1776 and whole generations were raised to think for themselves, before we founded our democracy. Iraq has not been so lucky, though, perhaps in 20, 50 or 100 years, they will also have some sort of Muslim enlightenment.
Until then, the people will vote the way their religious leaders say and the democratically elected leader will be under their thumb. Ick.
Shall we continue to pretend that the average American cares what happens to Iraq after we withdraw? …No one I know still cares what happens to the Iraqis.
Maybe you just need to meet different people.
I can’t imagine not caring about the Iraqis’ future. I can even recall their past (pre Saddam) for much of which they have been a people of high accomplishment.
Of course, most Iraqis (and Iranians for that matter) are under age 25 and wouldn’t necessarily recall their countries prior to The Assassin (or The Mullahs).
And Iraq really is the place that “those who perpetrated 911 and many other horrific events before and after” have been eager to set up shop, in the true heart of Islam, Mesopotamia. And you really should be glad that that little plan has been substantially messed with. At least for the time being.
And you should hate to see that all thrown away if al-Maliki really isn’t up to the task of leadership integrating all the Iraqi people, including the few Christians still left alive.
Once again, ajacksonian nails it.
The awakenings, such as in Anbar, have demonstrated that in Iraq tribal ties often outweigh sectarian affiliation. Several powerful tribes contain both Sunnis and Shia; these tribes intend to provide candidates for the fall elections, and have a good chance of winning.
Nina Carlotti,
Perhaps the most important reason for having bases in Iraq is the omnipresent threat of the Mullahocracy in Tehran. And if you lack sufficient knowledge as to why this matters, what do you suppose the world and the Middle East are going to look like with Iran having powerful influence in Iraq AND having nuclear weapons.
Iran is DESPERATE to get us out of the neighborhood. So much so that it has been furiously arming, funding, and training the insurgency during the last few years.
Iran is the Beast. If you have your boot on the Beast’s neck, should you just remove it and walk away, or should you snap its neck?
How can one justify two wars that are leaving behind tens of thousands of dead people, ten times more of (most likely) disabled people and… i haven’t heard, for the last seven years, one single reason that can possibly put some sense to all this killing. Trigger happy people don’t make a better, safer, green world. I strongly recommend the book from Amin Maalouf (French/Lebanese), “The Crusades From An Arab Point Of View” for a better understanding on arab politics/military history related with “western” nations (specifically in the ME). I believe that the Afghanistan war is lost, it has been from day one… just need to read a few history books to understand why. In 2001 i “gambled” with some french friends that the Afghanistan war would last ten years… it has been going on for seven now and i really hope i was wrong. The Iraq war is just a mess, no matter how you look at it and with no predictable outcoming… But i’m an optimist. I believe that stable, independent nations, someway, somehow, will come out of these wars once again. Someday…
Best regards from this eurofriend, Freedom Always.
PS – I’m sorry for the long “comment”. One last note: fred: what exactly is the US government definition on bootin’ the beast’s neck? The same one has in 1990? The US should be more carefull with foreign policy… it might help to prevent deadly surprises like Al Qaeda… or recurring wars in the same country. Peace is more profitable
Gee, Eddie, AQ has wreaked some “deadly surprises” on your continent as well.
Have you forgotten about the Madrid trains ? The London subways ?
Not to mention the plots that haven’t come off or have been interdicted (planes with liquid bombs, all the bombs that haven’t gone off) because other peace loving Euros besides yourself have been on top of these guys ?
Just last week, bin laden’s charming 16 YO son vowed that Britain must be destroyed.
Bet you didn’t think the butcher in your own backyard, Slobodan Milosevic, needed attention, either.
“The scale is very delicate and I think Maliki will wait for it to stop before he makes adjustments to his position. However, these adjustments are unlikely to move him far away from his current position and I see that ultimately the agreement will be signed, if with some modifications. Sorry, Tehran!”
Please…Please stop your thoughtful analysis..YOU ARE WRONG
Eye – Then what is right?