Bush imperialism: one last deperate move to push Maliki out?

[ProSense]

January 13, 2007

A coup in Baghad?

Posted by Mark Kleiman

Yesterday, trying to figure out why Mr. Bush and his crew think the escalation in Iraq might have a chance to work, I speculated that replacing Nouri al-Maliki might be part of the plan. Today, that doesn't seem so speculative.

Here's John Burns on CNN (emphases added):

JOHN BURNS, "NEW YORK TIMES": Well, it's pretty clear that there are contending American and Iraqi agendas here. The United States is looking for a road home which, requires at least a minimal fulfillment of American objectives here. To accomplish that, they've got to have some kind of healing process amongst Iraqi politicians of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Mr. Maliki, on the other hand, is a tribune of a Shiite religious interest and, as he would see it, of the 60 percent of the population that are Shiites who have waited a thousand years for this opportunity to rule here. And they do not intend to be reflected or, if you will, constrained by the United States.

So I think what we're going to see here is a growing contest of wills. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if the loser in that is Mr. Maliki. There is much talk across the river in the Green Zone about easing him out over the next few weeks or months.

Snip...

So the signs are not good. And I think one interpretation you can make of the Bush plan is that they've built this assumption in, that Maliki will not fulfill those pledges, he won't meet the benchmarks and the Americans have been working desperately behind the scenes to create a kind of parallel political movement, a moderate political movement based on factions within the existing Iraqi parliament that could be used as a vehicle for a parliamentary coup against Mr. Maliki.

I won't pretend to be shocked that the United States government is grossly interfering in the politics of what's supposed to be the sovereign and democratic nation of Iraq. As far as I can tell, Iraq isn't sovereign, isn't especially democratic, and isn't a nation. If Iraq's biggest problem is sectarian warfare, and its current government is encouraging sectarian warfare by allowing sectarian militias to take over pieces of its army and police force, then a new government sounds like just what the doctor ordered.

But if al-Maliki falls, with us pushing him, that's not going to do much for our credibility as a promoter of democracy. And do we really have any good reason to believe that his successor would be able to do better? Iraq had elections, and the secularists got a thumpin'. Finding a parliamentary majority for a government that will actually go after the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades seems impossible. So what's left? An unparliamentary strongman regime? Last time I checked, all the actual strong men were on the wrong side.

Anyway, can you say, "Ngo Dinh Diem"? I was sure you could.

In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment

Each United States soldier in Ramadi, in western Iraq, must fill one sandbag before dinner, to be used as part of their defense against attacks.

By JOHN F. BURNS and SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: January 12, 2007

Correction Appended

Snip...

Within hours of Mr. Bush’s speech, American commanders were meeting with their Iraqi counterparts in Baghdad to work out the details of a new command arrangement that would give Mr. Maliki a direct role in overseeing the new crackdown. The Iraqis named a commander for the operation, Lt. Gen. Aboud Gambar, a Shiite from southern Iraq who was a top general in Saddam Hussein’s army until the American-led invasion in 2003.

General Gambar will report directly to Mr. Maliki, outside the chain of command that runs through the Defense Ministry, which the Maliki government has long viewed as a bastion of American influence, and, because the defense minister is a Sunni, of resistance to Shiite control. General Gambar will have two deputies, one for the heavily Shiite east part of Baghdad, another for the mostly Sunni west part, and they will oversee nine new military districts, each assigned an Iraqi brigade.

Snip...

One of Mr. Maliki’s political allies, Sheik Khalid al-Attiya, who is deputy speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, said Thursday that he expected the benchmarks set by Mr. Bush to take 6 to 12 months to be met. With American commanders in Baghdad saying they hope to have the main parts of the city stabilized by late summer — allowing American troops to be pulled back to bases outside the city as Mr. Maliki has demanded — the Americans seem likely to run out of patience with Mr. Maliki long before Mr. Attiya’s timetable plays out.

A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. “He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias,” the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. “He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side.”

more...

[Donna Zen]

1. John Burn's speculation:

Burn's talked about this theory, getting rid of Maliki, the other night on Charlie Rose. I'd say that it makes plenty of sense. Maliki is in very deep with Sadr. Recently (I think today) Maliki's spokesperson reiterated that Iraq would decide where and when the troops used force. That is not the take of the bushes. Also, Sistani's guy was in the US not so long ago for meetings at the WHouse. That faction of mullahs has no problem with going after Sadr, and in fact, would be happy to oblige. The problem I see with the plan is that 1) mullah politics is dangerous and would put us in the camp with the Badr brigade, and 2) does nothing to advance our interest in actually stabilizing Iraq.

Long term, it will not help us to get the troops out of this hell hole. Badr is tied to Iran which would further inflame the region.

[ProSense]

2. Maliki appears unable to do the job, but

Bush's hand in pushing him out is not the way to go. This administration seems bent on taking any illegitimate route to secure an upper hand in Iraq's affairs. It should be pretty clear to them they'll never get it.

[Donna Zen]

4. They do not get it.

The bush regime believes that aligning themselves with Sistani will save their bacon. And thus, Iran has a bridge to sell them.

They need a new policy. After shoving the ISG out the door, I think all hope is lost.

[MasonJar]

3. Maliki has already said he will not run for re-election.