Posted on 06/05/2008 1:59:12 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The debate over immediate security conditions is taking a back seat in Iraq now as the debate over long-term fixes, particularly the U.S.-Iraq agreement, takes the lead.
The national scope of this debate goes beyond the talk of politicians who are trying to use their position on the agreement for electoral campaigning and peoples talk in the streets to Friday prayer sermons. Interestingly, the issue has also attracted curiously broad attention from Arab and regional leaders and media. Most notably, in his first speech following a crisis that brought Lebanon to the brink of a new civil war and on a day no less than the anniversary of his victory in the south, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah dedicated a significant portion of his speech to the U.S.-Iraq agreement. In Iran, hard-line cleric Ahmed Khatami also denounced the proposed treaty in an earlier Friday sermon, warning Baghdads government that signing the agreement would be a betrayal of the Muslim world and particularly of the Shia faith. This frenzy with which Iran and allies scramble to preempt the agreement has a downside their speeches embarrassed their allies in Iraq, making them appear as mere puppets.
Its neither strange nor ironic that the pro-Iran extremists have made such a fuss about an agreement whose terms are yet to be fully made public rumors and exaggerations of half-truths are enough to make the public in a place like the Middle East feel uneasy about any given issue. Its enough for an aide of Sadr to tell fanatic followers that the treaty would grant the U.S. control over 99% of Iraqs riches to make them take to the streets to denounce the agreement. This cleric didnt need to find facts to back his argument: the crowd is easy to convince, thanks to widespread ignorance; sentimental rhetoric is more attractive to them than facts, numbers, and science.
Like I wrote a moment ago, some politicians have already begun using their positions from this agreement for electoral campaigning. Former PM Ibrahim Jaafari emerged with a new political alliance with supposed backing from Iran and Ayatollah Sistani. He showed his true colors too early when he made his main theme that the agreement is bad and our neighbors dont like it. By neighbors I can only think of Iran and Syria, as I dont see a reason for any other neighbor to be upset with the agreement.
I personally dont have a full text of the agreements draft but Ive always been a proponent of establishing a strategic alliance with the U.S. For our government, I hope that accepting or rejecting it would be based on its impact on Iraqs interests.
Will Iraqis accept the agreement? No one can tell at this point, and this is the difference between democracies and non-democracies. Had the question been posed in Iran or Syria, it would take one mans word to offer an answer. I am pleased to see that our government is dealing pragmatically with the issue and is seeking the opinion of countries that have experience with long-term U.S. military presence. The government sent delegations to Germany, Japan, and South Korea to listen to what they, not the mullahs, have to say about it.
If not for the lack of information about this agreement, the clergy in Najaf wouldnt have considered calling for a referendum on it. The ignorance of the public as to the content of the agreement makes it easy for a cleric to manipulate the outcome of such a referendum and still make it look as if it was the people who made the decision. All he needs to do is issue a fatwa that tells the simple, faithful citizen that his or her vote today could make the difference between hell and heaven. Such a disgusting exploitation of the trust of people who are just beginning to learn the alphabet of knowledge!
The political map when it comes to positions on the agreement looks something like this:
As to PM Maliki and whats left of the Dawa Party (Jaafari took part of the party with him when he split), the man is being very careful here. Hes trying to make a choice between two sources of power, and its indeed a difficult one for a Shia Islamist. On the one hand hes got the political achievements he made on his own as a statesman and his recent successes in terms of security and reconciliation; on the other theres Shia unity and the blessings of the Najaf clergy.
The scale is very delicate and I think Maliki will wait for it to stop before he makes adjustments to his position. However, these adjustments are unlikely to move him far away from his current position and I see that ultimately the agreement will be signed, if with some modifications. Sorry, Tehran!
Mohammed Fadhil is PJM Baghdad editor. His own blog is Iraq the Model.
fyi
bump
New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq [update: #72]
Not if we can help it. I know are choices are abysmal this year, but vote smart, folks.
We can't let the last five years be wasted. Our troops deserve better.
thanks Ernest.
Painfully Inadequate [Sowell on the Election]
NRO | 5 June 2008 | Thomas Sowell
Posted on 06/05/2008 7:17:44 AM PDT by Rummyfan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2026445/posts
At the end some people on my thread were eager to say it was all wrong. I think the report I posted was correct but got out too soon, requiring some public backtracking to not provoke the political backlash this new article anticipates.
Smokescreen notwithstanding, I think post-war Iraq will shape up as discussed yesterday.
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.