More Noise From The Iraqi PM
He’s not through mouthing off yet:
Iraq’s prime minister said on Thursday he could get violence under control in six months, half the time U.S. generals say they need, provided Washington gave him more weaponry and more say over his own forces.
In sharp criticism of the handling of Iraq’s security by the United States, Nuri al-Maliki denied U.S. assertions he was working to a timetable of steps agreed with Washington.
He also told Reuters in an interview he had no fear the Americans might oust him, after President George W. Bush said on Wednesday his patience was “not unlimited” and that he would back Maliki “as long as he continues to make tough decisions”.
“They think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months, for us to be in control of security,” Maliki said, referring to remarks two days ago by U.S. commander General George Casey.
“We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough.”
He called for more say on security policy once the U.S.-led Coalition’s U.N. mandate runs out in December.
“If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition,” Maliki said.
…Maliki, in office for six months at the head of a unity coalition including Sunnis and Kurds, said he had won the agreement of Shi’ite militia leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr, the focus of particular U.S. criticism, to halt violence.
We’ve heard that song and dance from Sadr before…it’s become apparent he’s not the solution, but the problem. As long as Maliki remains in his pocket, nothing will be done to improve security, I don’t care how well-armed and trained the Iraqi regulars are.
Here’s Ralph Peters in the New York Post:
IT WAS wrenching to listen to President Bush’s news conference yesterday. He’s struggling to do the right thing. But he’s getting terrible advice.
He’s still counting on a political solution in Iraq. Ain’t going to happen. And you can take that to the blood bank.
Our famously loyal president has one grave flaw: He’s a poor judge of character. He trusts the wrong people. Then he sticks by them.
Bush met Russia’s Vladimir Putin, “looked into his soul” – and failed to recognize that the guy is an unreformed secret policeman. He stubbornly defends Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon’s architect of failure. Now he’s standing up for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki – a man who has decided to back our enemies.
I lost faith in our engagement in Iraq last week. I can pinpoint the moment. It came when I heard that Maliki had demanded – successfully – that our military release a just-captured deputy of Muqtada al-Sadr who was running death squads.
As a former intelligence officer, that told me two things: First, Iraq’s prime minister is betting on Muqtada to prevail, not us. Second, Muqtada, not the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is now the most powerful man in Iraq.
At his news conference, Bush was asked about another statement made by Maliki just hours before. Our troops had conducted a raid in Sadr City, Muqtada’s Baghdad stronghold. The Iraqi PM quickly declared that “this will not happen again.” He was signaling his allegiance to Muqtada. Publicly.
Oh, Maliki realizes his government wouldn’t last a week if our troops withdrew. He doesn’t want us to leave yet. But he’s looking ahead.
For now, Maliki and his pals are using our troops to buy time while they pocket our money, amass power and build up arms. But they’ve written us off for the long term.
Peters’ solution is extreme (I’m not sure a targeted assassination of Sadr, a prominent cleric, wouldn’t cause more troubles than it would solve), but much of what he says above is true. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Maliki is, unfortunately, a tool of Sadr…
no way on the assasination. Sadr is under the protection of Sistani, lose sitani and you lose the shia.
The militas are extremely popular becuase the shia fear sunni/insurgent death squads. The past two years have shown that the largest bombings are occurring in exclusively shiite areas. Maliki sees thing as a shia, the ing cannot yet provide the protection and ‘deterrent’ that the militas can.
The death of saddam will change things. IT is maliki’s primary purpose, and all else is secondary. Disarming the militas that are protecting the shia, when the likihood of sunni/baathist reprisals before and immediately after the execution are weighing heavily on his mind.
Maliki-i’m guessing-wants to use the ing to protect the shia areas, and ignore the sunni areas. The us fears that ignoring the sunni areas leads to increased insurgency and will allow them to dig in.
In maliki’s eyes, the largest boiling pot is saddam’s fate, he is solely focused on dealing with it. The militia, the more they gather under sadr, will be more easily addressed. Kill sadr and you will see competition between 5-15 factions to become the next power in militias. good luck dealing with 15 leaders, as opposed to one.
“I lost faith in our engagement in Iraq last week. I can pinpoint the moment. It came when I heard that Maliki had demanded – successfully – that our military release a just-captured deputy of Muqtada al-Sadr who was running death squads.”
If the us goes it alone against the shiite militias, Iraq is over. The militias are exerting a massive amount of pressure on the sunnis, forcing them to move assets they had working in northern Iaraq against the kurds, back to defend the sunni areas.
The areas where things are extremely bad are not in the homogenous zones, but the heterogenous-particularily in Baghdad.
Watching mort kondracke throw out that what is needed is a ‘national reconciliation’ suggests a certain ignorance of the situation in Iraq. The ‘reconciliation’ (which to me is just words) must wait til after the death of Saddam. Everything is on hold til the execution.
I dunno, mtl…I just posted on an article in TIME that also speculates on the strength of the Prime Minister’s spine. When he publicly chastises the US for doing what he won’t, which is try to stop the killing by going after those who are doing it, then goes a step further and suggests that this is all for domestic political consumption, I think he has crossed a bridge that he will find it difficult to travel back over…
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IBO629170.htm
The roundup by rueters:
Baquba-28 policeman killed. (They don’t say whether it was sunnis or militias, but take a reasonable guess)
Najaf-”Authorities in Najaf briefly closed the Shi’ite Muslim holy city’s shrines after receiving intelligence reports that the Sunni militant al Qaeda group was planning to launch attacks…”
4 us soldiers killed in anbar-no credit to the sunnis, or militia.
If the press really was worth its salt, it would be breaking down the deaths of Iraqis by the various groups killing them. Despite reports of shia militia(it is an easy story, an hour outside the green zone, and you have insta-news). If you break the numbers down, the critical problem remains with sunnis, not the militias who are responding to the sunnis. Deal with the sunnis, then deal with the militias.
Well, on the press we are in total agreement – far too often we see or hear of mass carnage, but aren’t provided the context (or, to be fair, perhaps it is there and we don’t always seek it out). I’m not saying the Sunnis are angels, but the government of Iraq should not be in the palm of any one faction, and it looks like Sadr is pretty much calling the shots…
49 of our casualties this month are by ieds. up 100% from last month.
if there is a report of sunni/insurgents backing away from ieds, and a move for the shia militias to employ this tactic directly against our forces, I have yet to see it reported.
militias are a new and catchy story, but the problem remains that the cancer of Iraq is found in sunni areas, and they are ramping up the violence, not the militias. are the militas an accurate guage of public confidence in the ing? yes. The more attacks by insurgents, the greater the climate for militias.
If the militias are out performing vengance killings against sunnis-is that a bad thing? The shia have been getting popped for the past two years, while the sunnis have moved with impunity. That the shia are fighting back is a sign of failure? It would suggest that the battle the sunni baathists have been waging is now being met. Sorry that it is not the ing doing it, but as security concerns for the sunnis grow, the more they will be forced into compliance with the govt.
Well, I’m no expert on the relative proportions of those killed by militias and those killed by terrorists/insurgents (though I would suggest that anyone who kills in this manner deserves the label of terrorist). I do know this, however; no government can function with anything approaching normality when they don’t have a monopoly on the organized use of military arms. Witness Lebanon and the Palestinian mess…
if you look at the war as a macro-
03-04-sunnis organized, shia disorganized. end result? shia get slaughtered in mass, shia have no response.
05-06-sunnis still organized, but much less so than in 03-04. Shia get more organized and lead a ‘counter-insurgency’ through the militias.
The sunni insurgency had no restrictions early on, so their effort was one-sided. The militias killing sunnis? It is not just sadr’s support that keeps maliki going(maybe 7% of the seats that do support him), but the shiites love the vengance squads. This is the eventual dynamic, the us has to walk the fine line of keeping them at a stalemate(the shia still have some catching up to do-6 more months and they will be there), at which point actual negotiations can begin.
Mort might find his national reconciliation at that point.
A warning sign? mass killings of villiages, women and children. That is what an arab civil war really looks like. Btoh factions lack the ability and the will to carry it off, but even if it does transpire, it will be that much more pressure to reach an agreement.
The tipping point comes when the sunnis give up. Popularity of the shia militias with the shiites is growing as fast as the support for the sunni/baathist insurgency wanes.
Its a war zone, and no one quits until they have to.
this current crisis comes down to where the the sunni baathists give up.
They are fighting a three front war, aginst the shia, the us, and the kurds. Syria doesn’t make enough to keep them going. It comes down to attrition or surrender of the Sunnis. The militias will come later. They are opening a ‘fourth’ front, which is playing more into pr results than actual strategy.
The us is wise not to open conflict with the militias, until the sunnis are not a problem, if ever.
Well, we agree on so much else, but on this one, I can’t buy in to the notion that we just have to let the death squads play themselves out…it’s too much for me…if mass killings can’t be prevented because we’re in a war here, that’s one thing…but if they can be prevented and we don’t try because we’re afraid of the political fallout, that strikes me as moral culpability…
You know me, I’m no shrinking violet, but I read stories like this one, and I can’t help but shudder…
if they are killing sunnis, driving the insurgency to protecting and defending their assets, instead of being on the offensive and killing our troops, i find it hard to complain.
there will be no peace deal so long as the sunni’s are on the offensive.