Showing posts with label al-Maliki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al-Maliki. Show all posts

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Is Saudi Arabia behind the ISIL land grab?

Shortly after the US revealed that, in addition to aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships it was also sending a few hundred "special forces" on the ground in Iraq, contrary to what Obama had stated previously, Washington made quite clear it wants Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to embrace Sunni politicians as a condition of U.S. support to fight a lightning advance by forces from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Then something unexpected happened: Iraq's Shi'ite rulers defied Western calls on Tuesday to reach out to Sunnis to defuse the uprising in the north of the country, declaring a boycott of Iraq's main Sunni political bloc and accusing Sunni power Saudi Arabia of promoting "genocide." 
In fact, as Reuters reported moments ago, the Shi'ite prime minister has moved in the opposite direction of Obama's demands, announcing a crackdown on politicians and officers he considers "traitors" and lashing out at neighbouring Sunni countries for stoking militancy. 
Not only did Iraq defy the US, but it also called out America's BFF (or at least formerly so until the arrival of Iran, which the US is aggressively, and inexplicably, rushing to make its new key partner in the region) for being the real aggressor behind the scenes? How dare Maliki point out the truth - doesn't he know that those US troops in Iraq can just as easily be used to depose the current regime as "fight" the Al Qaeda Jihadists the US itself armed in the first place? 
Apparently not, and instead of seeking a broad coalition with Sunnis as the US ordered, the latest target of his government's fury was Saudi Arabia, the main Sunni power in the Gulf, which funds Sunni militants in neighbouring Syria but denies it is behind ISIL. 
"We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that - which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites," the Iraqi government said of Riyadh in a statement. 
As Reuters notes, Maliki has blamed Saudi Arabia for supporting militants in the past, but the severe language was unprecedented.
And
(Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki broadcast a joint appeal for national unity on Tuesday with bitter Sunni critics of his Shi'ite-led government - a move that may help him win U.S. help against rampant Islamists threatening Baghdad. Just hours after Maliki's Shi'ite allies had angrily vowed to boycott any cooperation with the biggest Sunni party and his government had accused Sunni neighbor Saudi Arabia of backing "genocide", the premier's visibly uncomfortable televised appearance may reflect U.S. impatience with its Baghdad protege.
The Saudi government says no:
The Saudi monarchy has been a vocal supporter of the overthrow of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and sent money and weapons to rebel groups fighting against him from early on in the Syrian uprising. It has also called repeatedly for western arms – including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons – to be given to Syrian rebels "to level the playing-field" in the war.
Wealthy individuals and religious foundations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf have channelled millions of dollars to the anti-Assad opposition, though it is not clear with what degree of official connivance. 
But since last autumn the Saudi government has diverted its support to a broad Islamic Front which has been fighting against jihadi formations such as Isis and the Syrian group Jabhat al-Nusra. There is other evidence of a rethink in the replacement of the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, with Prince Mohamed bin Nayef, the interior minister and architect of a successful campaign against al-Qaida. The Saudis are also co-ordinating more closely with the US than previously
"There is Saudi money flowing into Isis but it is not from the Saudi state," said Lina Khatib of the Carnegie Foundation.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

And it's one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn....

So. Trillions of dollars later and hundreds of thousands dead, a destroyed infrastructure and ruined country, a depleted uranium-poisoned environment, a broken and misused military, and thousands of young terrorists in the making.... all for...

Continuing where Saddam left off:

Baghdad, Iraq (AHN) - Iraq's government approved Tuesday a $3 billion deal with a Chinese company to develop an oil field in the central Shiite province of Wasit.

China Petroleum National Corp. will make the Al-Ahdab oil field produce 25,000 barrels of oil per day in the first three years making it the first foreign company to be awarded a service agreement to tap Iraq's oil reserve since the ouster of former leader Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The same agreement revives a $700 million joint venture deal between Iraq and the company signed by Hussein's regime in 1997 but was scuttled because of United Nations sanctions and the war following the U.S. invasion of the country.

How's Cheney taking the news? Planning any air raids on al-Maliki's house and the irritatingly functional democratic Iraqi parliament?

How are the real head honchos taking it? Not Deciderer Commander Guy Georgie Bush, but Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP?

Monday, August 25, 2008

It's aspirational!

Don't call it a plain ol' timeline! Cuz it's not! Even though it is! Not. Even though al-Maliki says it is. He's wrong. It's aspirational.

So we can change the date anytime we choose. So we can stay there for 100 years. 10,000 years. Something to kinda sorta aspire to when we want to kinda thing. Because leaving is defeat! And staying forever is victory! Aspirational.


Who did they lock in a cupboard until he came up with that term, anyway?

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Reasons 1 through 4 on why we need to leave Iraq

And it isn't so we can attack Iran.

Lawrence J. Korb of the Boston Globe:
First, Maliki knows that if the United States does not set a withdrawal date, the status of forces agreement, or even a memorandum of understanding, will not be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. A majority of the Iraqi Parliament has signed a letter to that effect. Iraq's elected legislators know that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people want the American forces out and believe that these foreign forces are actually causing much of the violence. The American people agree that the United States should have never invaded and want US forces to leave as quickly as possible. But, since Bush will not submit the agreement to Congress, he can ignore the wishes of the American people.

Second, there were not that many foreign terrorists to begin with. Despite the administration's claim that we are fighting them (Al Qaeda) over there (in Iraq) so we do not have to fight them over here (the United States), the number of Al Qaeda loyalists who came into the country after the US invasion never numbered more than 2,000. Moreover, Al Qaeda in Iraq is an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization with domestic aims. When members began killing Iraqis and tried to force a rigid version of Islam on their Iraqi collaborators, the Iraqis turned on them.

Once the United States sets a date for a complete withdrawal, Al Qaeda in Iraq will lose what little support it has from the Iraqi people.

Third, with the rising price of oil, Iraq is awash in money and no longer needs US assistance to rebuild its war-torn infrastructure. When the United States invaded, oil was $25 a barrel. Now it is about $130. The Iraqi government now produces 2.5 million barrels a day, and with the contracts it has recently signed with Western companies, it soon will begin producing even more. This means that the Iraqis will be bringing in $100 billion to $200 billion a year.

Fourth, the Shi'ite dominated Iraqi government is not as concerned about the threat from Iran as the Bush administration. Many of Iraq's Shi'ite leaders lived in Iran during the regime of Saddam Hussein and see the Iranians as Shi'ite allies with whom they can and should have a close relationship - unlike Bush who sees the Iranians as the second coming of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Time to leave. Even al-Maliki agrees (and Der Speigel stands by its quote):
In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had "misunderstood and mistranslated" the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

Good.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Can we go home now?

They want us out of there.
BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.

The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

On Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.
It's almost like Iraq is a sovereign nation or something....

Monday, June 16, 2008

I thought you said anybody who talked to bad guys

Was a Nazi appeaser, Georgie? What about your best buds Israel and Turkey?

Israel and Syria:

Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - Israel and Syria have resumed indirect peace talks in Turkey over the weekend. According to Israel's military radio station, close aides of Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, traveled to Ankara to being the peace talks on Sunday under Turkish mediation.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, who is on a visit to the U.S. urged Syria on Sunday to enter into direct talks with Israel. He said that the leaders should meet directly to discuss the issues.

Turkey and Iran:
On June 6, General Ilker Basbug, the commander of the Turkish Land Forces, confirmed that Turkey and Iran were sharing intelligence and coordinating military operations against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) - which is primarily composed of Turkish Kurds - and its Iranian affiliate, the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK).

Both rebel groups have their headquarters and main training camps in the Qandil Mountains of northern Iraq. Although it has long been assumed that security cooperation between Turkey and Iran has included both intelligence-sharing and the coordination of military operations against the PKK and PJAK, Basbug's statement is the first public confirmation by a high-ranking Turkish military official.

Turkey and Iran first signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on security cooperation on July 29, 2004, three months after PJAK's inaugural congress in April 2004 and two months after the May 2004 decision by the PKK to return to violence following a five-year unilateral ceasefire. This agreement was reinforced on April 17, 2008, by a new MoU which foresaw a broadening and deepening of security cooperation between the two countries.
Well, they might be Nazi appeasers, but at least the Iraqi army is doing your bidding:
Baghdad - A fresh outbreak of violence across Iraq on Monday caused at least five fatalities while Iraq's army said it would not go ahead with a crackdown on Shiite militias in the southern Maysan province until a government deadline for militiamen to surrender their arms expires.
Ah, okay. But Maliki is Georgie's bestest bud and will support our military staying forever in Iraq in 58 bases and not being answerable to Iraqi law, right? I mean, that's not unreasonable, is it?
BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.

Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.

"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
Kevin Hayden of American Street says it best: (my bold)
It should be noted, too, how perverse the political process is that has functioned for the past 8 years. Consider (a) the twin heads of Al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, (b) Al Qaeda funding largely came from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Arab nations but has never been tracked to Iraq or Iran, (c) Al Qaeda terror training occurred in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia, mostly, (d) nuclear design and technology came from AQ Khan of Pakistan, (e) base headquarters of Al Qaida’s principals was provided by Afghanistan, and (e) the 9-11 attackers came mostly from Saudi Arabia, plus Egypt and Yemen.

Out of the 10+ principal nations complicit in sustaining and equipping Al Qaeda or in spreading nuclear technology, the Bush administration remains allied with most of them and has only directly attacked Afghanistan. Plus it attacked a non-involved party (Iraq) and regularly threatens the non-involved Iran.
*Gasp* Then ... Then that means YOU are the Nazi appeaser, Georgie!

Monday, February 04, 2008

I wrote this in August of 2007

So the very shaky U.S. backed al-Maliki's Shiite government which had Sunnis resigning out of the so-called Iraqi Parliament because the Shiite government is being shored up by Sunni-killing Shiite death squads and al-Sadr which our military promptly attacked while al-Maliki was out of Iraq visiting Shiite Iran to start meaningful diplomatic ties which really freaks Sunni Saudi Arabia who is sending their radicalized Sunni youth to attack Americans in Iraq yet Saudi Arabia has been promised an immense delivery of jets and weapons by the United States which made Russia promise Iran a boatload of weaponry as well which makes no sense to weaponize the Middle East because it is so volatile but it makes perfect sense to Bush to sell weapons to the country that supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers so they can claim part of the Iraq that we invaded because of 9/11 but had nothing to do with 9/11 while we ignore Afghanistan which is returning to the Taliban which harbors Osama bin Laden and probably will destablize Pakistan who has nukes.
Has the surge worked yet because it seems that nothing has changed....

Thursday, January 03, 2008

How strange... even the Iraqis want accountability

And recognize the illegality of this occupation:
WASHINGTON - The end of 2007 produced a telltale indication of what the New Year seems likely to bring to Iraq. "We the Iraqi members of Parliament signing below demand a timetable for withdrawal of the occupation forces [MNF] from our beloved Iraq," 144 members of the 275-member Parliament, a clear majority, wrote in a declaration April 2007.

Despite this, the George W Bush administration and the Iraqi government led by US-installed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the UN Security Council to extend by another year the legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq.

The move on December 18 violated both the Iraqi constitution and the resolution passed earlier this year by the Iraqi Parliament.

Many Iraqi lawmakers say that any renewal of the UN mandate not ratified by Parliament is illegal. The move almost guarantees an increase in violence and a deepening of sectarian tensions.
Hmmm. The Iraqis don't seem to realize they are operating under the BUSH democracy plan where he tells them how to vote, they vote, and everybody gets the purple finger....

And all their oil are belong to us.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Understatement of the year

U.S. sponsorship of Sunni groups worries Iraq's government.

BAGHDAD — The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day.

The United States, which credits much of the drop in violence to the campaign, is enrolling hundreds of people daily in "concerned local citizens" groups. More than 5,000 have been sworn in in the last eight days, for a total of 77,542 as of Tuesday. As many as 10 groups were created in the past week, bringing the total number to 192, according to the American military.

U.S. officials said they were screening new members — who generally are paid $300 a month to patrol their neighborhoods — and were subjecting them to tough security measures. More than 60,000 have had fingerprints and DNA taken and had retinal scans, American officials said, steps that will allow them to be identified later, should they turn against the government. The officials said they planned to cap membership in the groups at 100,000.

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.

It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.

"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

Brought to you by the people who are responsible for the war in Afghanistan.... what on earth could go wrong?

Saturday, September 29, 2007

The diplomacy of Blackwater in Iraq

Obviously helps win hearts and minds....

While the shooting in Nisour Square has put the issue of private forces in Iraq -- and Blackwater's name specifically -- on the front pages of newspapers around the globe, this is hardly the first deadly incident involving these forces. What is new is that the Iraqi government responded powerfully. Within twenty-four hours of the shooting, Iraq's Interior Ministry announced that it was expelling Blackwater from the country; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called the firm's conduct "criminal."

The next day, the State Department ordered all non-US military officials to remain inside the Green Zone, and diplomatic convoys were halted. The Iraqi government, acting as though it was in control of the country, announced that it intended to prosecute the Blackwater men responsible for the killings. "We will not allow Iraqis to be killed in cold blood," Maliki said. "There is a sense of tension and anger among all Iraqis, including the government, over this crime."

But getting rid of Blackwater would not prove to be so easy. Four days after being grounded, Blackwater was back on Iraqi streets. After all, Blackwater is not just any security company in Iraq; it is the leading mercenary company of the US occupation. It first took on this role in the summer of 2003, after receiving a $27 million no-bid contract to provide security for Ambassador Paul Bremer, the original head of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Since then, it has kept every subsequent US Ambassador, from John Negroponte to Ryan Crocker, alive. It protects Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she visits the country, as well as Congressional delegations. Since its original Iraq contract, Blackwater has won more than $700 million in "diplomatic security" contracts through the State Department alone.

The company's domestic political clout has been key to its success. It is owned by Erik Prince, a reclusive right-wing evangelical Christian who has served as a major bankroller of the campaigns of George W. Bush and his allies. Among the company's senior executives are former CIA official J. Cofer Black, who once oversaw the extraordinary-rendition program and led the post-9/11 hunt for Osama bin Laden (and who currently serves as GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's top counterterrorism adviser), and Joseph Schmitz, the Pentagon Inspector General under Donald Rumsfeld.

So embedded is Blackwater in the US apparatus in Iraq that the incident in Nisour Square has sparked a crisis for the occupation that is both practical and political. Now that Blackwater's name is known (and hated) throughout Iraq, the bodyguards themselves are likely to become targets of resistance attacks, perhaps even more so than the officials they are tasked with keeping alive. This will make their work much more difficult. But beyond such security issues are more substantive political ones, as Blackwater's continued presence on Iraqi streets days after Maliki called for its expulsion serves as a potent symbol of the utter lack of Iraqi sovereignty.

Maliki has been under heavy US pressure to back off his initial demands. While Rice immediately called the Iraqi prime minister ostensibly to apologize, she made a point of emphasizing publicly that "we need protection for our diplomats." A few days later, Tahseen Sheikhly, a representative of Maliki's government, stated, "If we drive out this company immediately, there will be a security vacuum. That would cause a big imbalance in the security situation." Given the carnage of September 16, it was a difficult statement to wrap one's head around.

Maliki then agreed to withhold judgment on Blackwater's status, pending the conclusion of a joint US-Iraqi investigation. If he ultimately goes along with the United States and tolerates Blackwater's presence, the political consequences will be severe. Among those calling for the firm's expulsion is Muqtada al-Sadr. A cave-in by Maliki could weaken his already tenuous grip on power and reinforce the widespread perception that he is merely a puppet of the US occupation. Clearly aware of this, while visiting the United States a week after the shootings, Maliki went so far as to call the situation "a serious challenge to the sovereignty of Iraq" that "cannot be accepted."

[snip]

Iraq's anger would be understandable even if the only incident involving Blackwater was the Nisour shootings -- more so if you take into account the past year of the company's actions. But this is a four-year pattern that goes beyond Blackwater. The system of "private security" being paid billions in US taxpayer dollars has not only continued despite rampant abuses; it has flourished. Blackwater and its ilk operate in a demand-based industry, and with US forces stretched thin, there has been plenty of demand. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are as many as 180 mercenary firms in Iraq, with tens of thousands of employees. Without the occupation and continued funding for the war, these companies would not be in Iraq.

Even though this scandal is about a system, not about one company or "a few bad apples," Blackwater does stand out. While it has no shortage of US and British competitors in Iraq, no other private force's actions have had more of an impact on events in Iraq than those of the North Carolina-based company. Blackwater's primary purpose in Iraq, at which it has been very effective, is to keep the most hated US occupation officials alive by any means necessary. This has encouraged conduct that places American lives at an infinitely higher premium than those of Iraqi civilians, even in cases where the only Iraqi crime is driving too close to a VIP convoy protected by Blackwater guards.

It isn't just the Iraqi government and the country's civilian population that are angered by Blackwater's conduct. Col. Thomas Hammes, the US military official who once oversaw the creation of a new Iraqi military, has described driving around Iraq with Iraqis and encountering Blackwater operatives. They "were running me off the road. We were threatened and intimidated," Hammes said. But, he added, "they were doing their job, exactly what they were paid to do in the way they were paid to do it, and they were making enemies on every single pass out of town." Hammes concluded they were "hurting our counterinsurgency effort."


It is always good to know what is done in our name with our tax money for our country. We should demand our money back.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Changing the rules, moving the goal posts, rewording the memo

Using a new definition of success...

WASHINGTON: With the Democratic-led Congress poised to measure progress in Iraq by focusing on the central government's failure to perform, President George W. Bush is proposing a new gauge, by focusing on new U.S. alliances with the tribes and local groups that Washington once feared would tear the country apart.

That shift in emphasis was implicit in Bush's decision to bypass Baghdad on his eight-hour trip to Iraq this week, stopping instead in Anbar Province, once the heart of an anti-American Sunni insurgency. By meeting with tribal leaders who just a year ago were considered the enemy, and who now are fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a president who has unveiled four or five strategies for winning over Iraqis - depending on how one counts - may now be on the cusp of yet another.

It is not clear whether the Democrats who control Congress will be in any mood to accept the changing measures. On Tuesday, there were contentious hearings over a Government Accountability Office report that, like last month's National Intelligence Estimate, painted a bleak picture of Iraq's future.

Remember this:
"...Gail Sheehy wrote an article for the {Vanity Fair} magazine about W. that made this point: “Even if he loses, his friends say, he doesn’t lose. He’ll just change the score, or change the rules, or make his opponent play until he can beat him.”"

Monday, September 03, 2007

Bush makes al-Maliki come into Sunni territory

To show how the Shiite leader can reach out to unite the country. But Bush himself doesn't dare stand before crowds that have not been 'vetted' and his outreach to U.S. citizens sucks.

Bush in Iraq:

The first video is in from Bush’s surprise visit to a remote and heavily guarded air base in Iraq’s western Anbar Province and it truly speaks volumes. It’s clear that this was nothing more than a chance for the president to use the troops as props (note the big thumbs up! from Gen. Petraeus) to spin his failing surge as U.S. troop levels surge as well. MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer brought in Republican strategist Joe Watkins and former Senior Advisor to John Kerry, James Boyce, to talk about the presidential visit.

Boyce is on the money, calling this what it was — a staged photo op. Watkins tries to spin this as a positive move by the president, and that he wants to get in touch with the troops to find out what’s going on on the ground, but Boyce fires back, reminding him that if Bush really wanted to get things done in Iraq he’d stay for more than six hours, he’d visit more than three times in four years and he wouldn’t have ignored the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations.

Bush in the United States:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sunday, September 02, 2007

I guess we don't like the democratically chosen al-Maliki anymore?

So we are pushing Allawi in on a 'parliamentary coup'? What happened to the respect for all those purple-fingered votes?

Steve Benen of Talking Points Memo quotes the Chicago Tribune:

"There's been a definite change in tone from Washington, and the momentum and drive to support Allawi will increase," said Jaafar al-Taie, a political analyst involved in the new coalition's campaign. "It's not only that Maliki must go, but that the whole system must go."

According to Allawi's published program, the parliamentarians would not only appoint a new government but also suspend the new constitution, declare a state of emergency and make the restoration of security its priority. [...]

"Even when Bush tried to modify what he said, he did not go so far," said Izzat Shabandar, a strategist with the Allawi bloc. "We know that Bush from inside would like to replace Maliki, but he did not say it clearly. He chose to say it in a diplomatic way."

Update: Digby:
We are clearly attempting to stage a coup and put a strongman/puppet in charge of Iraq to "restore security." For some reason nobody seems worried that this will fuel more terrorism and hatred against America around the world since we will be seen as pulling the strings. In fact, the administration seems to want the world to see that we are pulling the strings. Apparently, they still believe, even after throwing away all the good will built up over 50 years and proving themselves to be abject failures at occupying and reconstructing the country we invaded for no good reason, that it is a good idea for the United States to be throwing its weight around even more in the middle east.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Uh oh. The Saudis are gonna be pissed, Georgie...

How're you gonna explain this to your bestest Sunni pals?:
Baghdad's new Kurdish-Shiite coalition may end efforts at national reconciliation with the Sunnis. But a government pursuing common interests is Iraq's only hope. Even stability brought about by a Shiite-dominated regime would be better than the chaos that currently reigns.
[snip]
The members of the new coalition include, for the time being, the two Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), as well as two Shiite groups, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Daawa Party. These are exactly the four parties that have favored transforming Iraq into a federalist state since the drafting of the constitution in 2005. These "federalists" are the only forces in Iraqi politics that can be expected to make any headway when it comes to stabilizing the country. This does nothing to change the observation that they are less interested in a functioning federal system than autonomy motivated by the desire for political power.
So, how are you going to handle this exclusion of the Sunnis, Bush?

Let's see.... Point fingers of blame at al-Maliki and his Shiite government... check:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 22 -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday strongly rebuked American politicians for threatening to withdraw support from his government, suggesting while on a trip to Syria that he could "find friends elsewhere" if he was abandoned by the United States.

Facing widespread and growing American criticism that he has not pushed his government faster toward political reconciliation or engineered the passage of important legislation, Maliki defended his elected government as reflecting the will of the Iraqi people rather than the urgencies of presidential politics in the United States. He said the calls for his removal were "discourteous."

Spend millions telling people the war was a good idea.... check:
A new group formed to pressure members of Congress to continue supporting U.S. military efforts in Iraq launched a $15 million ad campaign Wednesday that mostly targets members of both parties who have voted or spoken out against continued operations in that country.

Freedom's Watch, which counts former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer among its supporters, is targeting several Republicans who are deemed vulnerable in 2008, including Reps. Heather Wilson (N.M.), Jon Porter (Nev.) and Jim Gerlach (Pa.).

The group says it is “dedicated to fighting to protect the ideals and issues that keep America strong and prosperous” and wants to refocus the Iraq debate on the threat to U.S. security.

Tell people no matter what, you are planning to keep troops there until you are out of office and can't be blamed anymore:

President George Bush sought to buy more time for his Iraq "surge" strategy yesterday by making a risky comparison for the first time with the bloodshed and chaos that followed the US pullout from Vietnam.

Making it clear he will resist congressional pressure next month for an early withdrawal, he signalled that US troops, whom he hailed as the "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known", will be in Iraq as long as he is president. He also said the consequences of leaving "without getting the job done would be devastating", and "the enemy would follow us home".

Just an aside, but does Georgie really think terrorists don't have ... like... world maps? Does he truly think terrorists can't find their way over here without sneaking onto troop transports? And does he really think terrorists are unable to delegate, so that some terrorists can be following us over here while others still blow stuff up over there? And even if this crop of terrorists is stuck in the quagmire over there and cannot figure out where the United States is, we've cleverly made a new generational crop of terrorists who will never forget we've ruined their lives.

Not everybody is as dumb as you, George.

Monday, August 20, 2007

While Bush pretends to build democracies, Al-Maliki branches out

And visits Syria:
DAMASCUS -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki is due in Damascus Monday, on his second visit to a US foe this month after a trip to Syria's main regional ally Iran.

It is Maliki's first visit to Syria since he became premier, early last year, although he was based in Damascus in the 1990s when in exile during the rule of executed dictator Saddam Hussein.

Maliki will be accompanied on the three-day visit by his ministers of oil, trade, the interior, and water resources, his office in Baghdad said.

Syria and Iraq only restored diplomatic ties last November, 26 years after they were broken under Saddam over Syria's support for Iran in its eight-year war with Iraq.

The rapprochement paved the way for a week-long visit to Syria in January by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, another formerly-Damascus-based exile, who secured a promise from his opposite number, Bashar Al Assad, to work to "eradicate terrorism."

The United States had been strongly critical of the role in Iraq of both Iran and Syria since its 2003 invasion.

But Maliki's Shiite-led government has friendly relations with Iran and, earlier this month, the prime minister drew White House criticism after he held cordial meetings with Iranian officials.

What does the Bush administration's irritation over al-Maliki's outreach to Iran and Syria actually mean when Bush and Cheney really like dictatorships rather than democracy?

Laura Rozen of War and Piece:

The WP's Peter Baker missed a few important insights in its piece on why Bush's democracy vision has stalled. The two biggest: Bush's vision of overturning tyranny and bringing democracy to Iraq has been dashed in massive sectarian bloodshed, loss of life, turmoil, insurgency, uncertainty and heartbreak and a massive devotion of US resources that might have gone to promoting grand things lots of places, and secondly, that in many targeted countries, promoting democracy would mean allowing Islamist groups, some designated as terrorist groups by the Bush administration, to prevail. The piece left out so many big examples of the contradictions -- Musharraf/Pakistan, Saudi Arabia whose corrupt royal family is so close to the White House and Cheney's office, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -- of where Bush has decided he isn't quite sure he really wants democratic realities to be realized, and he just may prefer the tyrant, as Cheney openly does in Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. While the piece would seem to promote a few voices blaming the stalling of Bush's grand vision on the bureaucrats in the U.S. government, it also tried to save itself from total ingratiation with the White House by naming responsible the office of the vice president's "little-girl crush on strongmen." But how did it miss how corrupted and stalled and conflicted is the vision at the very top of the U.S. government -- with the president himself -- and the realities the president has found himself confronting? Bush is now using all the Sunni tyrants, the autocrats, royals and propped up, hardly a two of them democratically elected, to counter Iran, for instance. Bush have a hard time with the policy? Congress may be interested to know due to the $30 billion in military aid to those states it's being asked to approve by the Bush White House.

The U.S. government may be in serious trouble if and when Pakistan's military dictator falls. Same the hideously corrupted Saudi royal family, so personally close with Bush and Cheney. They don't seem to have too much use for democracy when it comes to their friends, the corrupt autocrats. It's hard to understand how the piece skipped such big glaring points and contradictions, as if Bush's pure longing for democracy in the world had not been sabotaged by nothing so much as conflicts of interest going to the very top, and U.S. national security interests defined by the very top. How would we know if Bush were really serious about democracy? If he told Riyadh to stuff it. That's never going to happen, so we can rest assured that Bush is quite content to live with the art of the possible, with a very high degree of realism, and any griping about the bureaucrats is something journalists should know better than to accept as more than a wink-nod excuse for the president's own decisions to compromise his vision of promoting democracy.

I don't know... I don't think Bush ever tried to smear democracy around the world. I think saying that gave him an excuse to activate wars to protect our freedoms, to pervert the Constitution, to deny Americans their civil liberties, to amass more power for the White House.

I really never have gotten the sense Bush gives a fuck about democracy.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

How to avoid the finger of blame... point at somebody else.

Italians discover huge arms deal headed for Iraq:
Their discovery led anti-Mafia investigators down a monthslong trail of telephone and e-mail intercepts, into the midst of a huge black-market transaction, as Iraqi and Italian partners haggled over shipping more than 100,000 Russian-made automatic weapons into the bloodbath of Iraq.

As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command -- a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

The purchase would merely have been the most spectacular example of how Iraq has become a magnet for arms traffickers and a place of vanishing weapons stockpiles and uncontrolled gun markets since the 2003 U.S. invasion and the onset of civil war.
The private contractors are out of control:
There are now nearly as many private contractors in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers — and a large percentage of them are private security guards equipped with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bullet-proof trucks.

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.

Not one has faced charges or prosecution.

There is great confusion among legal experts and military officials about what laws — if any — apply to Americans in this force of at least 48,000.

And the Pentagon can't keep track of our own weapons:

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of the weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting US forces in Iraq.

The report from the Government Accountability Office indicates that US military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

And weaponry from the Iraq/Iran war is still available... weaponry that we probably sold Saddam:

Old Iran-Iraq war era land mines were used in about 15 percent of the roadside bombs that exploded or were detected in northern Iraq during January, according to Navy Lt. Sarah Wilson, an explosives officer based in Tikrit.

Many of them were believed to have come from this border area.

"All of that unexploded ordnance, minefields and shrapnel _ it's still out there," said Lt. Col. Ron Ward, 49, who helps train Iraqi guards.

So how can Bush say this with a straight face?

U.S. President George W. Bush said Thursday he believes Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will explain during his visit to Iran that delivering weapons to the hands of Iraqi militants is a destabilizing measure, with consequences.

Bush held a news conference at the White House before taking a long weekend at his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

"His message, I'm confident, will be to stabilize, don't destabilize," said Bush.

"He knows that weapons being smuggled into Iraq from Iran and placed into the hands of extremists, over which his government has no control, all aimed at killing innocent life, is a destabilizing factor."

Have you checked out the foreign fighters in Iraq, Georgie? Most of them are from your pal's country, Saudi Arabia. Your pals are killing our soldiers, George. What are you going to do about it?

Right. Blame Iran.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

I say Sunni and you say Shiite

Let's call the whole thing off:

BAGHDAD - Two Sunni leaders who took public stances against al-Qaida in Iraq were attacked Saturday, in a sign the terror network may ramp up retaliation against local chiefs who oppose it.

Meanwhile, a powerful roadside bomb killed the governor and police chief of a southern province that has been torn by fierce fighting between Shiite factions. The country's prime minister urged residents to show restraint and not launch reprisals.

The flurry of attacks hinted at the complex challenges facing Iraq, from both Shiite militias and Sunni extremists, who often target not just Americans but also their own sects in vicious internal battles.

The United States has pointed to an anti-al-Qaida alliance of local Sunni leaders as a sign of turnaround, but the attacks showed the high risks local leaders face by joining.

So the very shaky U.S. backed al-Maliki's Shiite government which had Sunnis resigning out of the so-called Iraqi Parliament because the Shiite government is being shored up by Sunni-killing Shiite death squads and al-Sadr which our military promptly attacked while al-Maliki was out of Iraq visiting Shiite Iran to start meaningful diplomatic ties which really freaks Sunni Saudi Arabia who is sending their radicalized Sunni youth to attack Americans in Iraq yet Saudi Arabia has been promised an immense delivery of jets and weapons by the United States which made Russia promise Iran a boatload of weaponry as well which makes no sense to weaponize the Middle East because it is so volatile but it makes perfect sense to Bush to sell weapons to the country that supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers so they can claim part of the Iraq that we invaded because of 9/11 but had nothing to do with 9/11 while we ignore Afghanistan which is returning to the Taliban which harbors Osama bin Laden and probably will destablize Pakistan who has nukes.

It's becoming clear to me now...

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Al-Maliki on the edge

Will he be able to keep his job? Or is he already finished? Al-Maliki makes connections with Iran and Turkey:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with officials in Iran on Wednesday to seek help in reining in violence in his country, reaching out to a nation the U.S. accuses of fueling Iraq's turmoil by backing Shiite militants.

It was al-Maliki's second visit to Tehran in less than a year, coming days after U.S. and Iranian experts held talks in Baghdad on improving Iraq's security.

Al-Maliki and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate his government are closely linked to predominantly Shiite Iran, and he has struggled to balance those ties with the United States, Tehran's top rival in the region.

The U.S. has recently stepped up its allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militiamen, but the Iraqi government has taken a low-key stance without outright backing the American claims, which Tehran denies. One al-Maliki adviser, Sami al-Askari, said last month that the government "doesn't rule out" Iranian arming of militants.

[snip]
Before arriving in Iran, al-Maliki traveled to Turkey and agreed to root out a Kurdish rebel group operating from northern Iraq. But he said the Iraqi parliament would have the final say on efforts to halt the guerrillas' cross-border attacks into Turkey. Iran also faces problems with its Kurdish minority near the Iraqi border.

Turkey has threatened to stage an incursion into northern Iraq unless Iraq or the United States cracks down on rebels from the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, that have set up bases there. The envisaged counterterrorism agreement is aimed at forcing Iraq to officially commit itself to fighting the rebels.

Iraq, which like Iran is majority Shiite, has managed a difficult balancing act between Tehran and Washington since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, trying to maintain good relations with its powerful neighbor while not angering the Americans.

The U.S. has accused Iran of providing money and weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran denies the charges and argues that the presence of U.S. troops is destabilizing the region.

Washington and Tehran have held three rounds of talks on Iraqi security since May, and al-Maliki told AP he would push for these talks to continue at an ambassador level.

Looks like he's making every attempt to keep Iraq together but then:
... Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - whose days in office are surely numbered - might want to to be remembered as the man who brought democracy and justice to Iraqis; the man who rooted out terrorism and killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Instead, Iraqis will remember Maliki as a selfish, sectarian politician who divided the country as never before, between Shi'ites and Sunnis. They will remember the death squads that flourished under his regime, the targeted assassinations of Sunni notables, and they will see him as a stooge of the Americans who was unable to fulfill any of the promises he made when coming to power in May 2006.
Maliki's problem is that his government is not constitutional, as his cabinet no longer represents all parties that are seated in Parliament. Thirteen out of 37 ministers have walked out, and more are likely to follow soon.

The first to abandon him were six Shi'ite ministers from the Sadrist bloc in April. They objected to his relationship with the United States, and his failure to secure a timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq. They were followed by Sunni Justice Minister Hashem al-Shibli from the Iraqi List that is headed by former prime minister Iyad Allawi.

This week, five Sunni ministers from the Iraqi Accordance Front stepped down, along with Sunni Salam al-Zoubai, who was deputy prime minister. They claimed this was because Maliki had not responded to any of the 11 demands they had made, which included greater decision-making for Sunnis, and a political amnesty for Sunni prisoners.

Then came the resignation of nine senior officers from the Iraqi Army, including Baker Zebari, the commander-in-chief. All of them were objecting to how the prime minister is running affairs.

After discussing the politicians who are jockeying for position to take al-Maliki's seat, the writer of this article, Sami Moubayed (a Syrian political analyst) goes on to say:
The pro-US Arab states have been very blunt in opposing Maliki, because of his relations with Iran and his well-known animosity toward Sunnis. Recently, they turned down an offer by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to support the Maliki cabinet.

[snip]

One cannot help but recall Maliki's first speech to the Iraqi people, broadcast in April 2006 when he was still prime minister-designate. He said, "Our Sunni brothers, by their participation in a broad alliance, have begun to carry responsibilities in the political process ... which will dry up the sources of terrorism. Fighting the insurgency will be my government's priority." He said he hoped to do so by creating "a white front" of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds and that he would create a non-sectarian government to ward off accusations made by observers claiming that he was "too Shi'ite".

Maliki then addressed the Sunnis directly by playing down fears that Iran was interfering in Iraqi affairs. He thanked neighboring countries such as Iran for sheltering the Iraqi opposition during Saddam's era, saying, "But this does not mean any country can meddle in our affairs." Gratitude did not mean security interference, he added. Earlier, Maliki had said, "The weapons must be in the hands of the state. Their presence in the hands of others [militias] will be the start of problems that will trigger a civil war."

Rather than collect arms and root out militias, Maliki did the exact opposite. He will leave office amid a civil war - a very ugly one - that is largely due to his own doing.

The more Bush demands the 'Iraqi government' do something, the more it unravels. Heckovajob, Georgie!

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Paying off the Sunni to undermine the Shiite government

Run by the U.S. chosen Shiite leader al-Maliki whose Parliament has just had the Sunnis walk out on it...

Do I have it right? We are paying bribe money to insurgents who are killing our soldiers who are trying to prop up a non-existent government to give it time to stand up so we can leave.

This must have been thought up by Georgie.



Update: We also can't find a um.. few .. you know... guns...
The US government cannot account for 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to an investigation carried out by the Government Accountability Office.

According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces."

The weapons disappeared from records between June 2004 and September 2005, as the military struggled to rebuild the disbanded Iraqi forces from scratch amid increasing attacks from Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

...Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, spokesman for the US-led military in Iraq, said the Americans were working hard with their Iraqi partners to improve accountability and increase the security of weapons.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Shocked U.S. officials realize that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers

Came from Saudi Arabia. 'Hey!', said one official. 'How long has this been known?'
Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the Iraq war.

[snip]

...Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, "That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not."

[snip]

Of course, the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. Last fall, King Abdullah warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's Shiites if the United States pulled its troops out of Iraq, American and Arab diplomats said.

Several officials interviewed for this article said they believed that Saudi Arabia's direct support to Sunni tribesmen increased this year as the Saudis lost faith in the Maliki government and felt they must bolster Sunni groups in the eventuality of a widespread civil war.

Just why are the Saudis our 'friends'? Oh... never mind....

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Update: Driftglass says it best.