Posted on 04/24/2006 12:56:05 PM PDT by neverdem
The selection of a compromise prime minister in Iraq is a major victory for that country’s fledgling political class, and for the Bush administration. Purveyors of doom on Iraq now have some explaining to do: If the country is in the midst of a full-scale civil war fatal to our project there, how is it that elected representatives of the major factions were able to sit down and hammer out an agreement on the top positions in a national unity government? Iraq pessimists act like they have a special immunity from ever having to recalibrate their view of the conflict, as they instead move on to the latest iteration of their metaphysical despair.
The deal on the prime minister brings within reach the Bush administration's longtime goal of creating a government that includes all Iraqi factions and gets Sunni parties into the political process once and for all. The theory is that this will reduce violence by dragging elements of the Sunni insurgency into legitimate politics as well. Nice theories don't always work out in Iraq, as we have learned over the last three years. But this one has a chance of success. Immediately after the war, the Sunnis didn't have the political leadership of the Kurds, who had governed themselves for ten years, and the Shia, who quickly rallied around Ayatollah Sistani. No one claiming to speak for the Sunnis had any real legitimacy. But the Sunnis made the strategic choice to participate in last December's elections, and now they have political leaders with real roots in their communities and sway over the men wielding guns and IEDs.
The negotiations over a prime minister were messy, dragged on too long, and represented a loss of momentum from the triumph of December 15 elections. But the final result is welcome. Former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari, who two months ago had narrowly won the endorsement of the Shia parties to stay in office, is out of the job. The Bush administration viewed him as weak and incompetent, and so did the Kurds, the Sunnis, and even many Shia. It is a bit of a mystery how he managed to pull out his victory among the Shia parties in the first place. He was backed by the thug-cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who engaged in a power struggle with the U.S. over whether the prime minister would stay in power and — crucially — lost. The Shia coalition slowly realized that Jafaari was a non-starter given the opposition of the U.S. and Kurds and Sunnis, and picked another candidate, Jawad al-Maliki. This outcome is an important signal to the Sunnis: If they play in Iraqi politics, they can make a difference.
Maliki’s virtues shouldn’t be exaggerated. He comes from the same Islamist Dawa party as Jafaari, and has been cool to the U.S. But he is an Iraqi nationalist — an important quality given the dangerous Iranian influence in the country — and has a reputation as an experienced, skilled politician. He obviously has significant challenges ahead, foremost among them forming a government over the next 30 days in a very volatile political environment. It is crucial that clean and effective officials be put in charge of the ministries of defense and interior. If progress has been made in reconstituting an Iraqi army, the police are still in disarray, infiltrated by Shia thugs. Iraqis are much more comfortable opening their doors when the Americans come knocking than when the police do. That has to change. The Shia militias, who have contributed more than their share to the sectarian violence of late, will have to be put out of business eventually. This would have been easier to do a couple of years ago, but if militias can be defanged in Afghanistan, the same can happen in Iraq.
The political process is Iraq is the key to the country's political future, which is why the deadlock in recent months was so discouraging. But it now looks like the Iraqi politicians were employing their usual MO of teetering on the brink of catastrophe before pulling back. They have a real chance now of forming a government that is legitimate (some people set off fireworks in the streets of Baghdad to mark the breakthrough) and inclusive. But even if the national element of the insurgency weakens, the foreign jihadists aren't going away, and will continue their savage attempts to foment a civil war. The problems with Iraq's economy and infrastructure, exacerbated by the violence, will also endure. But as long as Iraqi leaders are willing to compromise, and — however haltingly — to point the country forward, the catastrophic collapse sought by the terrorists will not happen. And victory, in the form of the establishment of a decent, stable government capable of defending itself, will remain in sight.
This fact cannot be stated enough - Great line -
Good post. The imagined Iraqi civil war is evaporating.
Of course, this will not be spotlighted as such by the MSM, but it is without any doubt the best possible news from Iraq in some time. Here we have a nationalist who doesn't "suck up" to anyone, including Iran or the West! Couldn't have asked for a better candidate, IMO.
A Major Victory (Iraq)
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, both have elected governments, and the Emperor was never put to trial.
I guess that wasn't victory enough.
Quote: "Iraq pessimists act like they have a special immunity from ever having to recalibrate their view of the conflict"
They do, its called the "new tone" immunity. It allows the Iraq pessimests to move the goal posts constantly without any consequence.
Eventually they are coming home. But, even if everything was going great guns in Iraq right now, would you want them coming home, from Iran's doorstep? Not me. I have a feeling they will be needed in Iran.
We have no strategic business having troops in Germany. Especially since 1989. Korea, once the little chia-dictator leaves the planet will most likely become one shortly after. We will have no need of troops in Japan or Korea after that.
The war against the Saddam regime is long over. Why are we still there?
Not me. I have a feeling they will be needed in Iran.
Interesting. Why didn't we nuke the Soviets in 1947? China after Thanksgiving, 1950? North Korea NOW?
For you, the only victory is defeat. But you won't get your wish.
For you, the only victory is defeat.
Sure, lets leave Japan and Korea, and just leave all of Asia to fall under the Chinese sphere of influence.
Why didn't we nuke the Soviets in 1947? China after Thanksgiving, 1950? North Korea NOW?
Sure, lets leave Japan and Korea, and just leave all of Asia to fall under the Chinese sphere of influence.
OK, I'll play. Ummm... After 1945 we had to stand on the German neck a few years to make sure no Nazi's came back.
You're an idiot.
Why piss all over a great news thread?
Yes, that is why the LameStream Media has all but ignored that development.
Bringing Saddam down was prologue. Keeping Iraq from going the way of Afghanistan in the 90's and becoming a haven for terrorists is the real struggle. We just moved up the timetable so we could deal with it on our terms and not be caught by surprise after a palace coup, sudden death at the top or insurrection by Shiites that would depose Saddam when we weren't expecting it.
Sorry for asking a simple question. Go ahead and enjoy. I have actually been quite polite in my questions and yours is typical of the response.
I get it. I'll leave you to your good news. One last question before I go, do you get all happy everytime another "number two" to Zarqawi is taken out, and if so at what time do you begin to ask yourself, "How many number two's does this guy have?"
Bringing Saddam down was prologue. Keeping Iraq from going the way of Afghanistan in the 90's and becoming a haven for terrorists is the real struggle.
Notice that the "Iraq civil war" story now has disappeared, with no followup about how wrong the media was. They are utterly disgusting.
That won't happen for years, unless they are forced out early.
That said we don't need more then 30,000 troops for logistics and advising.
My apologies. It won't happen again. ;^)
That said we don't need more then 30,000 troops for logistics and advising.
LOL!
Depends on how often he eats.
(sorry, I couldn't resist)
ROFLMAO, hopefully not too many more meals.
Iraq will now have a government. While not the 'final' victory, it qualifies as a 'major' victory.
Iraq will now have a government. While not the 'final' victory, it qualifies as a 'major' victory.
Simple, if we leave Iraq too soon and it is conquered by a unfriendly regime, as Iran or Al Queda they could then take many small ME countries like Kuwait, and the UAE that are friendly to the US. These countries are very rich because of their oil reserves and we are dependent on some. We import more than 60% of our oil supply. A oil supply disruption world wide would probably start a world war. We have 3% of the worlds oil but use 25% of the worlds supply. How many countries do you think we should fight at one time.
"How many number two's does this guy have?"
Simple, if we leave Iraq too soon
Iraq has a parlimentary system of government. Getting a government is a 3-step process. First, the Iraqi people vote for their representatives for a slate of candidates put forth by the party. Second, the party that gets the most votes designates its leader as Prime Minister, but he must be able to form a coalition if that party does not have an absolute majority -- this was the sticking point in Iraq. The Shia party that got the most votes failed to form a coalition, and the Prime Minister designate would not step aside. Now he has. Once the cabinet is formed, Parliment can meet (Step 3).
2- Every time one of these guys that are not Bin Laden or Zarqawi gets taken out
and then we should dump our garbage there for 1000 years. The "good people" of Iran have had enough time to enter the civilized world. They have the government they deserve.
Thank you for the info. It sounds like a pain in the a$$ way to run a government but given the numerous factions in Iraq and the muslim propensity to settle every problem with a gun or a bomb, it's probably the best type of government for them. Sounds like it forces them to work together.
and then we should dump our garbage there for 1000 years. The "good people" of Iran have had enough time to enter the civilized world. They have the government they deserve.
It means nothing to me.
We are taking out the "role-models" that little wannabe terroristas look up to.
BTW, it should be pointed out that continued instability in Iraq is a good thing, since it means that we still need to base troops there and are a major player in the ME.
Note that world terror is on the run, and nearly all the countries quietly funding and supporting it have come over to our side, including, to some degree, Iran and Syria. This is working out to plan geo-politically. Domestically however, most voters are confused and have forgotten the lessons of 9/11. We'll see how it imacts the elections.
Your daughter should not enlist unless she is prepared to go anywhere anytime for any length of time. My son will be home from Iraq on the 30th of this month. Its the end of his third combat tour. The Gulf war, Bosnia, and Iraq. Some wars in history have lasted a 100 years. This has been a small war with few causalities but there is still no time clock where you can punch in and out.
If it has to be explained to you at this late date, then either you've been living in a cave for the last ten years or you're just an obstinate liberal. I hope it's the former.
We are fighting a Global War on Terror. It will not end anytime soon, so the short answer is yes. We have a volunteer military. If one does not want to be sent to a war zone, they should not enlist.
The current front is Iraq. We were told on 11-8-01:
"We are at the beginning of our efforts in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is only the beginning of our efforts in the world. No group or nation should mistake Americans' intentions: Where terrorist group exist of global reach, the United States and our friends and allies will seek it out and we will destroy it."
April 17, 2002:
In the second phase of the war on terror, our military and law enforcement intelligence officers are helping countries around the world in their efforts to crack down on terror within their borders. Global terrorism will be defeated only by global response. We must prevent al Qaeda from moving its operations to other countries. We must deny terrorists the funds they need to operate. We must deny them safe havens to plan new horrors and indoctrinate new recruits.
Because the Iraqi government wants us there and the Mission isn't over. We are still killing AQ, which has declared Iraq as the frontline against the US. Remember those guys? The ones who declared war against us in 1996 and attacked us repeatedly culminating with 9/11.
Iraq is part of the WOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.