Allies after a Fashion

27 October 2006



Iraqi PM Blames Occupation for Poor Security

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a press conference a couple days ago he could take control of his nation’s security situation in 6 months , rather than the 12-18 months the Americans claim. According to him, the only obstacles are his foreign “allies” and their policies. He noted, “I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the UN mandate.” Wasn’t sovereignty handed back some time ago?

The prime minister then set about saying that General George Casey and US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad were plain wrong in their press conference earlier this week – as this journal noted. Washington has blamed the Sadr Brigade, the Badr Brigade and just about every other group with guns in Iraq for the violence, but the prime minister disagreed. “If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition,” he said. After all, which occupying force failed to secure the country's weapons dumps and abolished the army and police, yielding anarchy?

Unlike the Busheviks, Mr. Maliki believes that the solution to Iraq’s problem is political not military. Demands that the militias be disarmed are simply unrealistic. “I have to be careful fighting some militias and terrorists ... because they are better armed than the army and police,” Maliki said in his press conference. “The police are sharing rifles.” That’s not good, but at least, he’s dealing with reality rather than wishful thinking. He added, “At least we can talk to the militias, we know who they are,” he stated implying that the Coalition doesn’t know who the players are, even this late in the game.

As for the claim by the general and ambassador that the Iraqi government had agreed to quell the civil war there in 12 months, well, he called them liars. “This Government represents the will of the people, and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it.” As for Mr. Bush’s statement that he’d back Mr. Maliki as long as he made “tough decisions,” the PM almost suggested Mr. Bush had too loose a grip on reality. “"As far as 'tough decisions' go, I say we want to take firm and difficult decisions. But anyone who wants to take a difficult decision has to do so from solid ground and so the far the ground is unstable -- due to current security policies.” And with regard to an Iraqi-US raid in Sadr City, Baghdad, which his government didn’t OK, he said, “We will be seeking an explanation from the multinational forces to avoid a repetition of what happened without our co-operation in advance.”

Mr. Maliki may or may not be the man to lead Iraq toward a better tomorrow. This journal doubts it’s got a better tomorrow coming in the next decade or so. Still, the US claims it wanted a democratically elected government to run things. Now, it seems the US didn’t want that after all. What the White House hoped for was someone who would follow orders after he got elected, and Mr. Maliki doesn’t seem to want that particular job.

There is a veiled threat here that, if he doesn’t start playing ball and getting the job done (whatever the job may be after all this time), that he’ll be removed. He naively said, “I don’t think American policy would commit the mistake of replacing a prime minister or a government in Iraq. That would be burning their slogans. I don't think they think like that as it would mean the failure of the entire political process.” South Vietnamese President Diem must have thought the same thing in November 1963, just before his generals shot him. It would be just another Vietnam parallel.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.


Home

Google
WWW Kensington Review







Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More