Posted on 12/12/2006 1:22:34 AM PST by cookcounty
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Major partners in Iraq's governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved.
The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence.
The new alliance would be led by senior Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who met with President Bush last week. Al-Hakim, however, was not expected to be the next prime minister because he prefers the role of power broker, staying above the grinding day-to-day running of the country.
A key figure in the proposed alliance, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, left for Washington on Sunday for a meeting with Bush at least three weeks ahead of schedule.
``The failure of the government has forced us into this in the hope that it can provide a solution,'' said Omar Abdul-Sattar, a lawmaker from al-Hashemi's Iraqi Islamic Party. ``The new alliance will form the new government.''
The groups engaged in talks have yet to agree on a leader, said lawmaker Hameed Maalah, a senior official of al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI.
One likely candidate for prime minister, however, was said to be Iraq's other vice president, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite who was al-Hakim's choice for the prime minister's job before al-Maliki emerged as a compromise candidate.
News of the bid to oust al-Maliki, in office since May, came amid growing dissent over his government's performance among his Sunni and Shiite partners and the damaging fallout from a leaked White House memo questioning the prime minister's abilities.
This may well be exactly what we (and the Iraqi's) need. Mookie needs to be put down.
this is long overdue.
No one can ever govern savages. USA should have known that.
Some of these young kids, by themselves, know more about Iraq than the Baker-Hamilton Committee and all their staff will ever know.
Somebody had better govern them. Left to themselves, they will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. And they will use them. Against your family.
This will shift Sunni backed and initiated violence against Shiites to street gang Shiite (al-Sadar) and Iranian backed Shiite and initiated violence against Sunnis. This will also increase Shiite-Shiite violence, because, like the Kurds, everyone wants their share of the oil and the power.
Never mind what I said, this sounds much better!
Muqtada al-Sadr controls a 60k strong militia, any moves to totally exclude him and his 30 supporters in the Iraqi parliament isn't likely to quell the violence, it's likely to ramp it up several notches into a full scale civil war. Bush is taking quite the gamble here, if we are seen as aligning ourselves with Sunni interests, Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Sistani is likely to break ranks with us, and then the shiite is going to totally hit the fan. Considering the current lack of American public support for this war, I think this is going to be one more in a long line of strategic blunders over there. The 'old man' Baker is starting to look wiser all the time.
You've hit the nail on the head. Hussein had to go and a new gov put in. Sharia style rule is out of the question. Why not try democracy? It might fail, but it might succeed. However Al-Sadr and his militia must be crushed. Hopefully he gets a bullet in the brain.
Giving birth is always messy, the same can be said for politics.
To bad our military and the POTUS can't emulate Hollywood and wrap up their programs in nice hour and a half movies. This would be a better fit for the attention span of the American citizen.
Their ratings would improve to boot.
"No one can ever govern savages. USA should have known that."
remember 2003 was a campaign year, and the anti-war groups were dictating against violence in war
I think the real gamble is in delaying the ultimate showdown with the Mahdi army. Every day we refrain from taking on the hezbollah of Iraq, we risk allowing Moqtada al-Sadr to get stronger. There will never be peace, stability, and reconciliation in Iraq until the radical Iraqi party of god is destroyed, and you have to cut this serpant off at the head.
We showed weakness and vacilliation when we refused to finish off the Mahdi Army back in 2003. Dan Senor, of the CPA, said that at the time that Sadr was instrumental in having pro-American Ayatollah al-Khoe murdered, Sadr only had a handful of supporters. When we failed to take him out, his numbers swelled. When the Sadrites attacked us in Najaf, our heroes mauled the Mahdis, but once again we lacked the resolve to finish the job. Consequently Sadr with his forces in disarray was co-opted into the political process where his thugs have continued to multiply in the streets of Sadr City, and throughout the shiite strongholds of southern Iraq.
There is a lesson here and it can be best summarized by the old Fram oil commericial, "you can either pay me now, or pay me later."
The US military can achieve any achievable goal anywhere on the planet at any time.
To install a Jeffersonian democracy (Yes--I tend to agree with what Robert Novak said BEFORE the war), which took 1000s of years of a good cultural philosophy (a Religion where women are more important than goats and sheep) intelligence, experience, compassion, empathy, blood, sweet, tears and suffering to develop, and give it to a culture that hasn't developed politically in at least 800 years is probably not achievable over the short term. Therefore, it should have been stated BEFORE the war that this would be a second "Cold War" to civilize the uncivilized world and the "powers that be" could then decide to be for it or against it. Speaking of about 40 years, there are strong parallels between liberals "taking control and managing black America" and Iraq.
I used to say "make fat boy Al-Sadr disappear", to avoid the whole martyr issue. But killing him, even though it will lead to riots, is fine too. We should have gotten rid of him 3 years ago.
Just like Iran? Big progress we are making there, right? Iran is making nukes right in our face, and what are we doing to stop it?
What will happen to us if we leave Iraq?
I still think deposing Saddam a very creative solution to a very tough problem.
The Middle East has seen a freely elected government right smack dab in the middle of countries run by dictators, theocrats and whackos.
This has to have opened their eyes to what is possible. Whole new paths and future possibilties have opened up that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
The other option would have been to continue seeing terrorism as a police matter, best left to the United Nations.
the most..ok, one of the most...rational posts. the troops themselves say the exact same thing!
Articulate and accurate post!
The only government I'm aware of is Bahrain.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6171567.stm
and politics there still involve clans, tribes and societal hierarchy. Actually, these 3 sentences......
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
--Reverend William J. H. Boetcke
are some of the main problems the Middle East has at an individual level. I think it will take them generations to recognize this and generations to overcome it. I hope I'm wrong.
I'm looking forward to this dialogue.
"The 'old man' Baker is starting to look wiser all the time."
Stab them in the back and leave them in the dirt "Baker" has already smashed US credibility once with the previous insurrection under Saddam.
You would think he would get a new playbook. But when he's cashing those check from the Saudis, what does he care if he can still fool the fight people?
or even "fool the right people"
--if we are seen as aligning ourselves with Sunni interests, Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Sistani is likely to break ranks with us, and then the shiite is going to totally hit the fan. --
But the proposed new bloc would be closer to Hakim's "mainstream Shiites" (in a manner of speaking), and Sistani would be more likely to SUPPORT it.
The 60k number I've got from here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4395367.html, though I would agree that a significant % of that estimate are probably merely hangers on who would disperse if any serious attack was mounted against Al Sadr.
Most likely the same thing that's going to happen if we stay beyond the 15 month withdrawel timetable provided in the ISG report - a full blown civil war once we leave, which I think is inevitable at this point. There's already been mutterings from some Kurd leaders that they have no intention of sharing any of their future oil revenues with the Sunnis, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Shiites feel the same way. To the Shiites this is now payback time, now that they are the majority, they want the spoils to which they were cheated out of during Saddam's reign. Whatever fragile federation Bush manages to cobble together will fall by the wayside once our troops are gone. Feel free to pick my argument apart if you think you can.
If he in fact was working for the Saudis, he would be doing exactly what Bush is doing now - trying to create a federation of these 3 disparate groups to protect Sunni financial interests in a proportionate share of the future oil revenues. Instead he wants us to cut our loses at this point because the other options appear futile - something the Saudis definitely don't want us to do, as then they themselves would be drawn into this quagmire to defend their Sunni brothers interests over there.
Sistani's only interest is reconciling the various Shiite political factions into one - he isn't interested in any power sharing arrangement with the Sunnis or Kurds, he fully expects Iraq to emerge from this with the Shiites firmly in control.
To install a Jeffersonian democracy, which took 1000s of years of a good cultural philosophy (a Religion where women are more important than goats and sheep) intelligence, experience, compassion, empathy, blood, sweet, tears and suffering to develop, and give it to a culture that hasn't developed politically in at least 800 years is probably not achievable over the short term.
Therefore, it should have been stated BEFORE the war that this would be a second "Cold War" to civilize the uncivilized world and the "powers that be" could then decide to be for it or against it.
How very true...except that "the powers that be" didn't bother to mention that this could very well be a LONG HOT WAR with a very small army.
"The 'old man' Baker is starting to look wiser all the time."
With the Baker plan, do we just have to sell out a free Lebanon and Iraq to Syria and Iran, or do we have to officially deny the holocaust as well?
Thank you FRiend for the compliment!
Baloney. Sistani is a bitter rival of al-Sadr, who has worked very hard to to depose Sistani. Many Shi'ite leaders, including Abdul al-Mahdi, are backing this plan. And Baker is an idiot. His committee wouldn't even visit Iraq.
If we leave Iraq now before we achieve victory, the consequences will be more horrible than the worst nightmares that we have ever dreamed.
Fortunately our only Commander in Chief and our President understand this very well and he will not order us to leave before complete victory.
In a previous times the colonists in North America and Australia were considered 'savages', con men, and neer-do-wells. How'd it turn out for them?
Sorry I forgot to copy you.
Thanks for laying it on the line. I fear Americans just don't get it.
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.