Al-Maliki Lashes Out (Maliki to U.S."we can find friends elsewhere")

Don't smile then. Wow. That must be incredibly easy for you to say.

I don't get your meaning.

You complained that (someone, not sure who) was expecting you to "keep going at it with smiles on our faces". Frankly I'm surprised if you were "smiling" in the first place. But if you were, then feel free to stop. That's all I'm saying.

Is that "easy for me to say"? I guess so; it took no more than 30 seconds to type. What's your point? This discussion no longer seems to have one. Bye,

Showing his true colors.

I'll show you how easy it is to be an honest man and to face facts.

Do you deny that Petraeus' current policy is to arm the Sunnis and get the men running the insurgency against us for the last four years to pretend to be our friends and help vs. AQI?

No one realistically can, that is Petraeus' current policy.

Do you deny that Maliki opposed arming the Sunnis and said he would arm Iraqi militias if Petraeus went ahead with it?

No one reasonably can, he did oppose that policy and did predict or threaten that form of adaptation.

Do you deny that Maliki is courting Syrians?

Courting may be too strong a term, but the article posted shows that he is.

Do you deny he said we can leave whenever we like and he does not need us?

He certainly said the former, the second might be disputed as an inference from it. The least one can say is that he is rhetorically distancing his government from the US.

In case everybody forgot, the reason Sadr's bloc gave when they withdrew from the government was that they wanted to set a timetable for US withdrawal. Maliki has clearly moved toward, not away from, Sadr's position. As anyone with half a brain could predict, as a consequence of Petraeus' policy described above.

Is the US going to leave Iraq after the end of Bush's term?

Almost certainly. One, Democrats are favored to win the next election by at least 3 to 2, and the bulk of the party has made it clear for years they want to leave Iraq. Two, even congressional Republicans want to leave Iraq, and predict electoral rout if we haven't by the next election. Three, if one imagines a president Hillary staying for a while, the first major crisis or additional level of pressure, or drop in polling over the matter, would suffice to move her. Every Bush partisan who thinks his resolve has been essential must admit this - remove essential cause, remove effect.

Will there by a civil war in Iraq after the US leaves?

Almost certainly. While the Kurds would be willing to avoid one as long as they retain local autonomy, neither the Sunnis nor Sadrs faction of the Shia are willing to share power with the other. The present government has almost no support, since those two blocs withdrew. A new government might readily get one of them but will not get both. Hundreds of thousands of weapons are being imported by both sides to prepare. Iran is arming its friends. The US is arming the Sunnis. If you ask Sistani, he will say the former question decides this one - if the US leaves, he expects civil war on a higher level.

Will Iran back an internal Shia faction in that civil war?

Unless Iran is already a smoking irradiate ruin, yes. And it won't be, so yes.

Will the US jump back in to stop Iran, or stay out of it?

The US will not jump back in to intervene in a civil war on a higher level, facing a more determined opponent, after losing patience with a lower level of casualties, and under political leadership less wedded to the outcome. Whatever ills befall can and will be convienently blamed on Bush (and blame, not a way forward, will emphatically be the focus of US politics in the matter), and damage control will be the order of the day on policy.

Left to face only internal forces, will Iran lose?

Almost certainly not. The Saudis might support the Sunnis somewhat effectively, but they cannot match Iran's level of commitment or internal political support within Iraq. The resilence of the Sunnis to date are entirely a function of our own restraint in the conduct of the war, and our desire to reconcile rather than to crush them. Iran will have no such restraint and no such desire, and will crush them. And few on the planet, outside the Arab states of the gulf at least, will shed a single tear.

I do not have to like a single one of the above propositions to recognized the truth of the first set, and the likelihood of the second. Would it be great to avoid the second set? Sure. Are we avoiding them successfully on our present course? No. Iran has all the medium term trumps, and we are being beaten.

The first requirement of any kind of victory in war or politics is a sound strategy, and there are no sound strategies created in denial of the facts, or of real enemy capabilities, or of the real dangers faced. There is no power of positive thinking.

The surge is not in the process of saving everything, it is simply reducing our momentary military opposition by building up one faction of bastards who hate us, who will soon be fighting our only real allies in the country, who we have just alienated and driven into the arms of our largest enemy in the region. Nobody here can play this game.

“Answer the freaking questions already”

Why would I fall for your silly misdirections when you won’t even support your original claims?

“I’ll show you how easy it is to be an honest man “

Bwhaahaa. Tell me again about those (ficticious) quotes you attributed to Maliki.