A Partnership With Iraq.

Washington Post ^ | June 15, 2008

[Kaslin]

The Shiite government signals a desire for an alliance with the United States. Shouldn't that be welcomed?

THOUGH IT was hardly noticed in Washington, Iraq's Shiite-led government sent a powerful message to Iran and to the Middle East last week. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose coalition is often portrayed as an Iranian client, traveled to Tehran for a meeting with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The ayatollah bluntly declared that Iraq's "most important problem" was the continuing presence of U.S. troops. He pressured Mr. Maliki to stop negotiating a package of agreements with the Bush administration that would delineate a "strategic framework" between Iraq and the United States and provide for the deployment of U.S. forces beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of this year.

Mr. Maliki refused. He assured his Iranian hosts that Iraq would not be a launching pad for an American attack on Iran. But he pointedly told a press briefing that negotiations on the strategic partnership would continue. He repeated that commitment on Friday, even after warning that the talks had "reached a dead end." In effect, the Iraqi prime minister was saying that his country does not want to become an Iranian satellite but an independent Arab state that would look to the United States to ensure its security.

This would seem to be an obvious U.S. gain in what, according to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as well as President Bush, is the urgent task of countering Iran's attempt to dominate the Middle East. It means that Iraq, a country with the world's second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm.

[Williams]

No nation openly agrees to let us use their territory to attack another nation. Such action is an act of war and always requires an individual decision at the time. Iraq doesn’t exist to be used by us to attack Iran. That does not make them “ungrateful” They didn’t exactly ask us to invade them whether it brought them some good things or not.

[Yardstick]

In the future, expect leftwingers to hold pro-American Iraqis in the same kind of contempt that they hold, say, pro-American Miami Cubans in. Every Iraqi they encounter or see on TV will be a reminder that they wished for failure and defeat and suffering for Iraq but did not get it.

[Allegra]

Or our ships or our long range bombers. There are options for destroying Iran’s military.

Yep.

And WTH is Jack Murtha doing on this thread? ;-)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Yes,...good news it would seem...thanks.;

[PhilDragoo]

We don't need Iraq to attack Iran. And we don't expect a public statement from Iraq in this regard--compare to Pakistan.

Syria lost its North Korean nuclear program--and we had plausible deniability.

What we have accomplished in Iraq is twofold:

One, we tied up the Islamist enemy and killed his leadership and 20,000 of his fighters--simultaneously preventing another strike on CONUS;

Two, we have made an ally of an enemy--all through the steadfast performance of the American fighting man, and the American commander-in-chief.

Iran will have its toys broken and its mullahs pwned at a time of our choosing.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Nicely said....The Future Iraq

***************************EXCERPT***********************

The WaPo notices in today’s editorial a signal lost on much of the MSM over the last week. The fact that the new government of Iraq stood up to Iran and signaled that they DO want a partnership with America. Just on their terms:

************************SNIP*********************

The WaPo goes on to wonder why the Democrats have stood in lockstep with the leaders of Iran in denouncing the US-Iraqi agreement before the thing is even written.

“It’s pretty clear their intentions are that we put in a basing system in Iraq that parallels the Korea-Japan history,”

~~~

The history of every single outside occupation of Iraq over the last thousand years argues against that logic.”
-Sen. James Webb

The history suggests that it can’t be done….so why even try says the Democrats. Sure, it may be impossible but at least friggin try! In the end their mission is to make it appear that Bush wants to stay in Iraq forever, that way Obama can look good when he says he will bring them all home.

The WaPo continues:

If the United States were to make a formal commitment to defend Iraq from external aggression, congressional consideration and approval of the pact would be appropriate. For now, the biggest risk is that Tehran and its allies will pressure Mr. Maliki into backing away from a partnership with Washington. In that case, Iran would hasten to substitute itself as Iraq’s defender and strategic ally, with momentous implications for the rest of the Middle East. Surely this is not what the Democrats want.

Surely you jest?

This is exactly what they want. How else to blame Bush for it?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Post #26 was from the Flopping Aces Blog....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And iran's Proxy...al-Sadr is not doing well:

From the Strata Sphere Blog:

Sadrists Movement Is Dead, Pulls Out Of Elections

******************************EXCERPT************************

the Sadrist movement is now limping off the Iraqi political stage, too injured from a self-inflicted wound of extremism to survive by popular support:

The movement of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said Saturday that it would not take part in provincial elections this year, one day after it formed a new paramilitary group to fight U.S. troops.

Sadr is clearly a spent political force.

[Marine_Uncle]

May I repeat Phil's statement:
"Iran will have its toys broken and its mullahs pwned at a time of our choosing."
I would only add, then I have to get ready for work... the longer it is postponed, the more Iran will ultimately loose.

[sono]

Bush should go to Baghdad one more time.

[Grampa Dave]

Travis McGee predicted this result years ago re al Qaeda thugs rushing into Iraq to be destroyed like moths attacking lanterns/candles:

“What we have accomplished in Iraq is twofold:

One, we tied up the Islamist enemy and killed his leadership and 20,000 of his fighters—simultaneously preventing another strike on CONUS;

Two, we have made an ally of an enemy—all through the steadfast performance of the American fighting man, and the American commander-in-chief.

Iran will have its toys broken and its mullahs pwned at a time of our choosing.”

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest. Iran is trying to get through “spontaneous demonstrations” and negotiations what it couldn’t and can’t achieve through military and paramilitary means. In this it has partially and temporarily succeeded.

[G8 Diplomat]

Yesterday Karzai said he'd send troops into Pakistan. Maliki has been putting the heat on the Mahdi Army for weeks now, determined to defeat them, and now tells Khamenei to cool it with the "get the US out" talk. Funny how the Middle Eastern politicians have more brains than our own.

Prior to the Iraq/Afghan invasion, you could say that our three worst enemies were the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. But after the invasion, you see all these pictures of grateful Iraqis and Afghans waving US flags and hanging out with our troops. (And in Iran's case, they shout "Death to Ahmadinejad" at protests and say they would welcome US airstrikes). They appreciate what we've done for them, while the Dems complain about it. They're more supportive of America than many people in our own country! Perhaps our three best allies are the people of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

[PhilDragoo]

Webb is sick.

As an author, he distorts culture to inject his polymorphous perversity into the story.

As a veteran, elected representative, father of an American warrior, he can barely contain himself from a physical assault on POTUS/CinC.

Hey, Jimmy Webb--if God had wanted man to fly, He'd-a given 'im wings!

Let Macaca be a lesson: a slip of the tongue gets you a sawed-off psychopath where you coulda had a patriot.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Agreed!

[HonestConservative]

JUst another example of the Marxist demrats taking the same point of view of our enemies.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Traitors.

Picture Jim Webb as vp.

[gonzo]

Howdy! Long time, pal. Must be an election comin’ up ............. FRegards