Who Are the Iraqis?

Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, despite owing his job to Bush and McCain, presented Obama with a big fat bouquet. His assertion, in an interview with Der Spiegel, that American forces should leave Iraq “as soon as possible,” and preferably on the 16-month timeline proposed by Obama, was just what the messiah ordered — effectively tossing McCain under one of those metaphorical buses the 2008 campaign seems to produce by the fleet.

Now, let me be clear about my biases. I have been a supporter of the surge but not an enthusiastic one. I’ve always thought it necessary but insufficient in a broader war that cannot be won in Iraq alone. The surge’s main proponents prioritize something I couldn’t care less about, namely, Iraq’s emergence as a functioning democracy — the theory being that the security forged by an increase in U.S. combat forces gives Iraqis the “space” to make difficult political choices.

Personally, I don’t see a country that imposes Islam as the state religion and makes sharia a foundational part of its legal code as a democracy. And even if I could get beyond that, it’s just not that important to me. The American people would not have committed a single soldier to Iraq for the goal of Iraqi democracy. The war on terror is about defeating jihadists and their state sponsors. That was the purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein. The measure of victory in Iraq is not the form of Iraq’s government. It is whether what we leave behind is a stable ally of the United States in the very bad neighborhood from which most of our enemies hail.

Bias number two: I have never been a Maliki fan. I see him as a Shiite fundamentalist and operative of the Dawa party which the United States once regarded as a terrorist organization — the sort of thing that happens when an outfit bombs an American embassy, as Dawa (working with Iran and Hezbollah) did in Kuwait in 1983. At the time, Maliki was exiled in Syria (after a year in Iran) running Dawa’s “Jihad Office.” Despite being sworn enemies of Saddam Hussein, Maliki and Dawa opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion which has put them in power. The Iraqi president condemned Israel and declined to criticize Hezbollah during their 2006 war. Though he has recently taken the fight to Iran-backed militias, he often appears quite cozy with Tehran, which has spread its tentacles through Iraq during Maliki’s stewardship.

The anti-Maliki drum keeps beating. I said it on another thread, but repeat it: Maliki is on the same page as Bush or McCain on this issue: Phased drawdown of Combat troops with improving Security Situation, province for province, with US bases remaining. "When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" has been Bush policy since at least 2005! This is condition based and nothing new! Obama however wanted to withdraw combat troops at any given date without precondition 2003/2004/2005/2006/2007! He is now merely exploiting the situation that Iraq is relatively stable now.

Both the liberal Media for pro-Obama reasons, just as a disturbing quantity of right-wing commentators keep pushing the line that Maliki is in Obama's camp. If so why did he feel the need to dispute the comments!? Maliki is smart enough to know what is at stake.

Though he has recently taken the fight to Iran-backed militias, he often appears quite cozy with Tehran, which has spread its tentacles through Iraq during Maliki’s stewardship.

So he fights Iran's proxies, but he still is sort of an minion... DUH! Iran is the 900 pound gorilla next door to Iraq, and they won't go away! The Iraqis having little influence to how the West will deal with Iran, HAS to deal longterm with Iran. It is in our power to put down the Iranian threat. The Iraqis have to arrange with their neighbous.

I thought we were there because Sadam was a bad guy who we thought was building WMDs and to fight Al Qaeda not because Iraqis asked us in or something.

Maliki is playing both sides against each other, but I suspect he favors Obama for President so he will have a freer hand in the Middle East. Maliki is by no means a friend of the United States. If he is grateful for what American has done for Iraq, he has certainly kept it to himself.

The idea that his interview with Der Spiegel was just one big accident is not credible. We have the audio tapes of what he said.

"Personally, I don’t see a country that imposes Islam as the state religion and makes sharia a foundational part of its legal code as a democracy. And even if I could get beyond that, it’s just not that important to me. The American people would not have committed a single soldier to Iraq for the goal of Iraqi democracy. The war on terror is about defeating jihadists and their state sponsors. That was the purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein. The measure of victory in Iraq is not the form of Iraq’s government. It is whether what we leave behind is a stable ally of the United States in the very bad neighborhood from which most of our enemies hail."

EXACTLY!

Again, it doesn’t matter whether Iraq is a democracy. They have new Muslim democracies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories too. Perhaps you’ve heard: Hezbollah is now running one and Hamas the other. No one yet has demonstrated why country X’s being a democracy necessarily makes country Y safer from jihadists, especially given how adept jihadists are at exploiting the maneuverability afforded by democratic societies. And nascent democracies in which Iran takes a deep interest do not have a very promising track record — and won’t as long as we don’t have the stomach to confront Iran serious

“And nascent democracies in which Iran takes a deep interest do not have a very promising track record — and won’t as long as we don’t have the stomach to confront Iran serious”

Agreed again. The problem seems to be that at least for the past 8 years, and frankly, I think for the past 30 or so, the power elite in this country hasn’t had a clue what they are dealing with when it comes to Mohammedans and Mohammedanism. Its not like they haven’t been told or haven’t had the resources, human or otherwise, to become educated. They have simply refused and assumed that American exceptionalism and a sort of odd kumbayism would carry us through. Its arrogant and dangerous. The arrogant part I only care about to the extent that it is dangerous for us because it blinds this country to reality.

” and won’t as long as we don’t have the stomach to confront Iran serious”

“The Art of Diplomacy is saying “Nice doggie” whilst looking for a rock.”
Talleyrand
We have not been very artful!

This article is pure fiction. Nowhere is Shaira referenced in the Iraqi Constitution. In fact, the Iraqi Constitution specifically bans takfir. And establishing demccracy was a key objective as outlined in the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, the name of the operation contradicts this false premise.

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.