Bush placed much of the reliance for a successful outcome of his proposed "troop surge" strategy on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That is questionable on its face because al-Maliki is a proven weak link. Moreover, relying on al-Maliki is breathtakingly paradoxical and ironic, because al-Maliki said at the last summit with Bush that Iraq would be ready to take over its own security by June, 2007. So if al-Maliki is so reliable, why do we need a surge?
Bush had a summit with al-Maliki at the end of November. They met
in Jordan and had a post-summit press conference. al-Maliki said Iraq would be ready to take over security in six months.
Bush said al-Maliki was
"the right guy for Iraq." Yet here is "the right guy for Iraq" with Iran's loony hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
two-day meeting in Tehran in September, 2006.
What did al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad talk about for two days?
And then there is Muqtada al-Sadr. When Saddam Hussein was handed over for execution
by al-Maliki, people in the audience at the hanging shouted
"Muqtada Sadr!" George W. Bush's "right guy" al-Maliki handed Saddam Hussein over to people who support Muqtada al-Sadr. Yet Bush expects al-Maliki to reign in sectarian militias.
Al-Maliki is a weak link in Iraq, no question. But ultimately it should be becoming clear that America's weakest link in Iraq is not al-Maliki. Nor was Ahmed Chalabi the weakest link, nor Ayad Allawi. As things keep getting worse and failure mounts there is one glaring common factor:
President George W. Bush. Look no further for the weakest link.
(On edit: Corrected date information for Bush/al-Maliki summit.)