Are Iraqis any closer to forming a new government? Probably not.

[beachmom]

If you read The New York Times today, or similar wire reports, you would think that there was a glimpse of hope.

Shiites Appear Closer to Ending Impasse Over Premier
By EDWARD WONG

Published: April 16, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 16 — Shiite leaders agreed today to allow Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's party to nominate the next prime minister, but some rivals are still insisting that Mr. Jaafari step down, Iraqi politicians said.

The move could bring the Shiite bloc closer to resolving a nearly two-month impasse over the candidate for prime minister and speed the formation of a new government.

As of this evening, Mr. Jaafari remained unwilling to abdicate, but officials in his party were discussing options, Shiite leaders said.

To allow more time for negotiations, the acting speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, Adnan Pachachi, canceled a meeting of the 275-member assembly that was scheduled for Monday. He said in a telephone interview that he had acted "against my better judgment," but that a solution may be reached within a few days.

Later in the piece, Wong mentions two possible names from the Dawa Party: Jawad al-Maliki and Ali al-Adeeb. When I read this this morning, I thought this was WONDERFUL. It would satisfy the Shiites, and also be acceptable to everyone else! This was the major breakthrough we were looking for. But then I read Iraq the Model (who really tries to be positive, but hasn't been lately) and got the reality check:

The premiership as you already know is another whole story; some parties within the UIA still insist that Jafari is the only candidate for this post while others leaked news about a deal to replace Jafari with another candidate also from the Dawa Party and here the names are either Jawad al-Maliki or Ali al-Adeeb and both of them have no better chances than Jafari had in gaining acceptance from other blocs and the official nomination of either one will probably move the process back to the first square and will make future negotiations even harder than what we've been seeing for the past 4 months.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/04/breaking-deadlock-or-approaching-new.html

Why was this not included in the NYT? The MSM falsely gave us hope. I have no reason to question Iraq the Model; they are very much for democracy and would like to see things get better and there be a functioning government. This big deal that MAY happen within the Shiite bloc is doomed before it's even done. May 15th, guys. That's as good a date as any to know that we're not going to HAVE an Iraqi government. What happens then? Call another election?

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground continues to deteroriate. I know you all are well versed in what that means for American troops. Here are a few details for the Iraqis:

From the above link:

The security situation had been steadily deteriorating since after the elections and the Samarra mosque bombing and Baghdad has become more dangerous a place than it used to be. Makeshift barricades that block entrances and inner streets are now a common sight all over Baghdad, and these are part of protection plans implemented by the so called 'popular teams' or 'neighborhood watch teams' but in fact these teams are not so popular or people-based as they consist of trends that reflect the demographics of any given district; in one neighborhood the teams are led by the Mehdi militias while in others by former Ba'athists.

snip

I personally do not feel safer with these teams around me because they represent yet another form in which the phenomenon of militias is being rooted but people here consider it a better alternative for the poor performance of the police and other interior ministry forces. And of course we frequently hear about clashes caused in many cases by misunderstanding between locals and government forces at night; after the people were told not to obey the police unless accompanied by the army or the MNF during night raids, those watch teams became suspicious of police patrol after night falls and they would set off alarms that are usually false about a suspected raid by the interior ministry commandoes.

Many such clashes took place recently especially at Aadhamiya, Hay al-Aamil and al-Doura and people tell contradicting rumors about the casualties but all indicate that large battles have happened.

I finally got to see Hotel Rawanda this weekend, and I literally couldn't sleep that night, both disturbed by that horrible genocide and sick with worry about what will happen in Iraq. I'm feeling a new rationale for this war coming on; perhaps I should just fax it to the White House. Here it is: Our troops cannot leave because they're here to prevent a genocide. We are there as peacekeepers on a humanitarian mission. What is going to happen if talks 100% collapse and different sects declare war on one another? The point is: we CANNOT let that happen. The only way out is the Dayton like summit Kerry has called for. We need to do MASSIVE diplomacy involving the WHOLE WORLD to avoid a catastrophe worse than it is now from happening. These are people's lives at stake, and it should be the ONLY thing that should be on *'s mind. Instead he's possibly entertaining dropping an A-bomb on Iran.

Finally, a few notable blog entries to learn more about life in Baghdad and what they're thinking:

Zeyad's very scary Baghdad busride:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/zeyad_a/2006/04/this_is_my_stop.html

The Kid has a rambling entry about the rising religious fervor in Baghdad, and says this about Saddam Hussein:

http://ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com/2006/04/freedoms-3rd-birthday-and-happy.html

If Saddam died these nearby days, I think the gravestone should read:
BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW.
and he'd be glad, that son-of-a-gun.

[TayTay]

1. I hear you Beachmom

This istuation is enough to drive you insane. The Iraqi politicians are mired in hopeless factionalism and the US simply doesn't seem to want to really kick them into making decisions. I d think the 'Dayton Accords' meeting is a great idea. There is nothing that US troops can do in a civil war except get hurt and maybe die.

Gawd, this is just a nightmare. I never thought I would see a situation that was worse than Vietnam in it's intractability in my lifetime. I was sooooo wrong and am so filled with grief over it.

[karynnj]

3. I so agree - and like you I thought Vietnam ws the worst it could get

We really are close to what we thought would be the worst possible outcome in March 2003. I really wonder how much support there will be when the recess is over for the type of ultimatum Kerry has recommended. Although it seemed that Bayh added a bit of a twist, it really is surprising that he gave some support to Kery's plan.

Given his earlier positions that were pretty militaristic, this is a change. The twist likely is because as a candidate banking on his foreign policy/ national security credentials following Kerry - admitting that he got it right - is too much to expect. All I can think of is that he has been wither home (Indiana) or on the campaign road and Kerry's plan is gathering support. It's hard to make a lot of inference from one person, but there have been unexpected people who have supported it.

That Biden saw the need to distort it is interesting. If he really thought it was a bad idea he would say so, describe it accurately, and then say where it goes wrong. I hope Kerry makes himself available to enough Sunday shows to ensure that his whole plan gets out - and so his classy presence will contrast with the ever present Biden.

[wisteria]

2. This is a complete contradiction to what I read today. Talks were

at an impasse and apparently no one was budging.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/04/16/369138.html&cvqh=itn_marines

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12342623/

I read in the first link that talks were postponed until next month. Now isn't this just ridiculous? How many more of our soldiers will be killed waiting for the "next" meeting?

[beachmom]

4. That is weird: NYT vs. MSNBC

I think the NYT was focussing on their being a new turn on Shiite discussions, which they felt was positive (which actually isn't) and MSNBC focussed on the cancelled parliament session.

I like Iraq the Model's analysis better, because he explains what the Shiite negotiations meant. I hope nothing happens to these Iraqi bloggers, because the ones who have shown credibility are really helping us sift through the misinformation.

BTW, I like that NYT writer Wong -- I've seen him on Jim Lehrer; I just think he should have dug deeper for the story. Or maybe as an objective journalist he didn't want to strike down the possible Shiite deal the way Iraq the Model could, which might look like negative bias?

[karynnj]

5. You may be right on Wong's just not wanting to show negative bias

either that or just or a natural desire to look for hope. (Though not to the Thomas Friedman level.)

[beachmom]

6. But when they bend over backwards to show "objectivity"

Sometimes, they miss what it means . This is why blogs are so prevalent. When the MSM becomes so timid as to not help us a little with what these facts on the ground mean, then we go somewhere else to learn more. But the RW has been screaming since the Nixon days about "liberal bias", which translates to "not getting OUR message out" that they've cowed into submission, and the real losers are the general public, left in the dark.

[karynnj]

7. I agree - which is why I love reading the blog exerpts you post

It might also be that it's impossible for the MSM to really cover Iraq at this point, because it is so dangerous. It's strange as there were always reporters on the ground in Vietnam. I was shocked to read more reporters have been killed in Iraq than in Vietnam. As most of the news media are embedded now, you would think they would be more protected, but it may be that this very closeness made them targets.

The RW has done a wonderful job in convincing people that the media has a liberal bias, while ignoring that radio and cable are very far to the right.

[beachmom]

8. I think the big papers have "Iraqi runners" who get the news

Westerners simply won't survive on the street very long. A lot of these Iraqi runners are very accomplished journalists now. The one exception is that crazy Time magazine guy -- Michael Ware -- who does drive around sometimes and has connections to the insurgency. Anybody see that Frontline documentary about the insurgency? There was a moment when Ware was in a Zaqawi stronghold in Baghdad, and a man ran out with a loaded grenade (I suppose that's carjacking Iraq War style). The only reason why Ware was not taken and killed that day was that his Ba'athist connections talked the Jihadists down to spare his life. That's one messed up world, when the Saddam Hussein guys are the sane ones, and save a westerner's life.

This is why the Jihadists scare me more than the Communists. They don't seem to care if it looks bad to kill journalists. They're infidels and must be destroyed; plus it accomplishes the goal of making Iraq go further into chaos. But now they're not the ONLY bad guys in Iraq. I think the Shi'ite militias are very scary, too.