al-Maliki Yanks Bush's Chain

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. This must be doing wonders for troop morale. Maybe cut and run is not such a bad alternative to letting our troops' safety be compromised by this kind of weakness.


    Al-Maliki wins pact with U.S. to lift blockades
    By Christopher Bodeen
    November 1, 2006

    BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flexed his political muscle yesterday by winning U.S. agreement to lift military blockades on Sadr City and another Shi'iite enclave where an American soldier was abducted.
    U.S. forces, who had set up the checkpoints in Baghdad last week as part of an unsuccessful search for the soldier, drove away in Humvees and armored personnel carriers at the 5 p.m. deadline set by Mr. al-Maliki.
    Iraqi troops, who had manned the checkpoints with the Americans, loaded coils of razor wire and red traffic cones onto pickup trucks.
    Their departure prompted celebrations among civilians and armed men in Sadr City, the sprawling Shi'ite district controlled by the Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
    The prime minister's challenge to U.S. conduct of the war was the latest in a series of acts designed to force the American hand and test Washington's readiness to give him a greater say in securing the world's most violent capital.
    Mr. al-Maliki's move yesterday came three days after his closest aide, Hassan al-Suneid, said unabashedly that the prime minister was trying to capitalize on American voter discontent with the war and White House reluctance to start a public fight with the Iraqi leader just before the midterm election.
    More than 40 Iraqis were killed or found dead across the country Tuesday, including 11 Shi'ites who perished in a suicide car bombing at a wedding on the north side of the capital. Four of those killed at the bride's home were children, and among the 21 wounded were several youngsters with burns over much of their bodies.
    There were conflicting reports about whether Mr. al-Maliki ordered the blockades lifted with or without consultation with American military officials in Baghdad.
    State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the decision was reached jointly at a meeting attended by Mr. al-Maliki, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
    They agreed to make adjustments in the checkpoints because of problems with traffic and pedestrian flows in the area, the spokesman said. He said Gen. Casey ordered the actions after the meeting.
    A senior American diplomat said Mr. al-Maliki issued the order after the meeting "to address the problems that resulted with the flow of traffic and the disruption of essential daily activity for the average citizens of Baghdad. This was a joint decision."
    Defense Ministry spokesman Brig. Qassim al-Moussawi said the U.S. military was consulted, but only after Mr. al-Maliki made the decision at a meeting with his ministers of defense and interior and the national security adviser.
    Mr. al-Suneid said the prime minister acted without checking first with the Americans, because the blockades had "backfired and made the security situation in Baghdad worse. It is not important that such decisions always be made jointly."
  2. Democracy in action, apparently not the democracy that we were looking for. This is absolute crap, the fact that the Iraqis can follow the demands made by our outspoken enemies, but can't seem to get it together enough to protect their own country.

    When is enough going to be enough?

  3. I think there is a general perception among the troops that we are holding back to avoid stirring up CNN and the rest of the anti-US media. The adminsitration saw what a PR pounding the Israelis took and they don't want any part of it. Better to lose a few troops here and there. Of course, they don't say that but that is the reality.

    This business with al-Maliki is another example of the administration getting trapped by its own spin, just like the Dubai ports deal. They told us for months on end how they were fighting terrorism and put air travelers through incredible hassles in the name of security. Then they were ok with an arab country running major ports. There were decent arguments to be made in support of the deal, but they got drowned out by the public's understandable confusion. Ditto the immigration debate and control of the southern borders.

    Now we have made a big fuss over the democracy in iraq, but it turns out that our guy Maliki is a stooge for al Sadr. In a rational world, we would send a CIA team to terminate him or simply arrest him, but it looks like we will now have the spectacle of our military strategy being subject to the veto of a guy fronting for our worst enemies. As they say in the Guiness commercial, "Brilliant!"
  4. Yeah, another example of being careful what you wish for. Free elections worked so well when Hamas won easily. "Not". Don't hear too much spinning of that fiasco any more, do we? One group's freely elected governance is another person's terrorists or, my favorite "insurgent".

    I like the idea of the CIA handling things, perhaps they should have taken care of Saddam.

  5. The only thing the CIA can do now is leak embarrassing stuff to the Washington Post. It apparently is riddled with incompetents, political hacks and liberal malcontents. Probably they should just do away with it and Homeland Security and start from scratch.
  6. I honestly think that even liberals wish for the good old days of Maxwell Smart and the Chief. Wanting our government to be smart, tough, and yet fair. Kind of neat feeling secure in knowing that "they" are really good at everything, "they" know what they're doing, and have all the cool stuff to win with. And that we know for sure that we're the good guys, without question.