Posted on 07/28/2007 6:35:11 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
BAGHDAD (AP) - A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.
Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship ``difficult.'' Petraeus, who says their ties are ``very good,'' acknowledges expressing his ``full range of emotions'' at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes ``sometimes there are sporty exchanges.''
It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.
An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.
History shows that the strain of war often turns allies into uneasy partners. The reality of how these allies get along may lie somewhere between the worst and best reports about the relationship, one central to the future of Iraq and perhaps to the larger Middle East.
A tangle of issues confronts them, none with easy solutions:
- Al-Maliki, a Shiite activist who spent the Saddam Hussein years in exile, hotly objects to the recent U.S. practice of recruiting tribal groups tied to the Sunni insurgency for the fight against the Sunni extremists of al-Qaida, deemed ``Enemy No. 1'' by the Americans. His loud complaints have won little but a U.S. pledge to let al-Maliki's security apparatus screen the recruits.
- Aides say the Iraqi leader also has spoken bitterly about delivery delays of promised U.S. weapons and equipment for his forces.
- Petraeus, meanwhile, must deal with an Iraqi military and police force, nominally under al-Maliki's control, that often acts out of sectarian, namely Shiite, interests, and not national Iraqi interests. He faces a significant challenge in persuading al-Maliki to shed his ties to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who runs the Mahdi Army militia.
- On the political front, Crocker is grappling with the prime minister's seeming foot-dragging or ineffectiveness in pushing through an oil-industry law and other legislation seen as critical benchmarks by the U.S. government. Reporting to Congress in September, Crocker may have to explain such Iraqi inaction while U.S. troops are fighting and dying to give al-Maliki political breathing space.
First word of strained relations began leaking out with consistency earlier this month.
Sami al-Askari, a key aide to al-Maliki and a member of the prime minister's Dawa Party, said the policy of incorporating one-time Sunni insurgents into the security forces shows Petraeus has a ``real bias and it bothers the Shiites,'' whose communities have been targeted by Sunnis in Iraq's sectarian conflict.
``It is possible that we may demand his removal,'' al-Askari said.
A lawmaker from the al-Sadr bloc, who wouldn't allow use of his name because of the political sensitivity of the matter, said al-Maliki once told Petraeus: ``I can't deal with you anymore. I will ask for someone else to replace you.''
Such a request isn't likely to get much of a hearing in Washington, where the Bush administration presents Petraeus as one general who can improve the Iraq situation.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told Newsweek magazine the Petraeus-al-Maliki relationship is ``difficult.'' For one thing, the Americans retain control of the Iraqi military. ``The prime minister cannot just pick up the phone and have Iraqi army units do what he says. Maliki needs more leverage,'' Zebari said.
The prime minister has complained to President Bush about the policy of arming Sunnis, said the Sadrist lawmaker.
``He told Bush that if Petraeus continues doing that, he would arm Shiite militias. Bush told al-Maliki to calm down,'' according to this parliament member, who said he was told of the exchange by al-Maliki.
In Washington, White House officials who have sat in on Bush's video conferences with al-Maliki denied that exchange took place.
In a public outburst earlier this month, al-Maliki said American forces should leave Iraq and turn over security to Iraqi troops. He quickly backpedaled, but the damage was done.
``There is no leader in the world that is under more pressure than Nouri al-Maliki, without question. Sometimes he reflects that frustration. I don't blame him,'' Crocker told The Associated Press.
``We are dealing with existential issues. There are no second-tier problems,'' said the veteran Middle East diplomat. ``And we all feel very deeply about what we're trying to get done. So, yeah, sometimes there are sporty exchanges. And believe me, I've had my share of them.
``That in no way means, in my view, strained relations,'' Crocker said. ``Wrestling with the things we're all wrestling with here, it would almost be strange if you didn't get a little passionate from time to time.''
Petraeus called his relations with al-Maliki ``very good ... and that's the truth.'' But he acknowledged, ``We have not pulled punches with each other.''
In an interview with the AP, the U.S. commander noted that more than 3,600 U.S. military personnel have given their lives in Iraq, ``and where we see something that could unhinge the progress that our soldiers and their soldiers are fighting to make ... or jeopardize some of the very hard-fought gains that we have made, I'm going to speak up. And I have on occasion. And on a couple of occasions have demonstrated the full range of emotions.''
---
An associate said
The "hot" parts of this story come from anonymous, undisclosed sources. I don't dismiss probable conflicts and animosities between Maliki and Petreaus, but without verification and revealing the sources I it is rather dubious that Maliki threatened to get out Petreaus.
Let’s hope it is wrong.
Maliki is a Shiite first and an Iraqi second (if being an Iraqi is even that high on his list).
A man not afraid to call a spade a spade.
It's no womder they don't like him.....he's in this war to win it!
I think that is so snd he thinks they will have power even if the US leaves. It certainly would be a mess.
I believe this statement alone demonstrates the story is inaccurate propoganda. Al Maliki made a statement in which he said the Iraqis would be able to handle security and the Americans will be able to leave "whenever they like". The media tried to use this phrasing as proof we weren't needed and could withdraw, and Maliki quickly explained that wasn't what he meant.
Maliki's statement was never a call for America to withdraw immediately. This article is lying.
Petraeus is just doing what the Dems insisted he should. It was afterall the Dems who told us that we should put pressure on the Iraqi leadership.
hmmm.., that has a nice 'Roman' ring to it.
Correct. This particular statement by Maliki you are referring to was in Defense of the Iraqi Army, whose capabilties and successes are constantly belittled, denigrated and ridiculed by the Democrats.
Personally I believe that once the Sunnis joined with AQ to fight the US forces in the first 2 years of this war, we should have sided with the Shiites to wipe out the Sunnis for their treachery. The Shiites offered their militias to help our outnumbered forces but GWB turned them down because he wanted to create a multi ethnic democratic government. Given the brutalization of the Shiites under Sunni Saddam rule, it would be like asking holocaust survivors to work with the German people after World War II to create a Judo Christian government in Germany. Problem with our elites is they are too idealistic and not realistic. Clinton had nation building in Somalia and it failed, GWB is trying nation building in Iraq and it is not doing too well. If America wants an empire, it better burn their Wilsonian books and brush up on Roman history.
“The Shiites offered their militias to help our outnumbered forces but GWB turned them down because he wanted to create a multi ethnic democratic government.”
That’s ok, we are now arming the Sunni insurgents to fight AQ (which supposedly they are doing). That’s what Maliki is pissed about. Once AQ gives in, the Sunni’s will be back at us with the weapons we gave them. Lookup Blow Back.
We are pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don’t in that situation.
You can’t leave out of the picture that adhering to your proposal of fully cooperating with Shia militias in wiping out Sunnis would mean delivering Iraq on a platter to Iran, our other enemy.
Including the Sunnis (and all other groups) into Iraq is mandatory, and we are achieving this now... although after some years.
rarely do you see a “support our troops” bumper sticker
in our republican u.s. congressional and assembly districts.
people are fed up with the war.
rumsfeld, cheney, franks, tenet, bremer et al made humongous mistakes.
now this.
“The “hot” parts of this story come from anonymous, undisclosed sources.”
This bit from NPR just might reveal ONE of those sources....al-suneid
Weekend Edition Saturday, July 14, 2007 · Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Al-Suneid’s comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki’s inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11980818
and no, I’m not a fan of NPR......I searched for the “leave...” comment and this NPR thing came up.
NO, lets hope its right and that Petraeus has knocked some sense into Maliki. Maliki allowed Mookie to run wild over the country and help bring it to this precarious state. Only since we turned on Mookie has the situation appeared to improve. If taking out Maliki is the price of stability, so be it. Maliki has shown himself to be a weak leader and in the pocket of the Shia until recently.
I’m pretty sure he is Dutch-American.
There are approximately 9M Sunnis in Iraq. How many millions of them do you think we should kill?
If we just want to "wipe out" Sunnis, why rely on the weak reed of Shia Iraqis? It would obviously be more efficient to set up our own gas chambers and crematoria.
BTW, treachery is not exactly the right word. Iraqi Sunnis owe no allegiance to the US, and therefore by definition cannot treacherously betray that allegiance. They have every legal and moral right to fight against the occupation of their country, as long as they follow the rules of war, which unfortunately they do not. Probably because if they attempted to do so their survival time would be measurable only in minutes.
Translation: We want the Americans out of the way so that we can exterminate every Sunni in the country.
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.