Note to would-be imperialists -- my advice would be to stop trying to lamely spin away the content of what Nouri al-Maliki is saying and take the Andy McArthy route of deriding him as an Iranian stooge. Surely the US security establishment hasn't lost the ability to engineer a coup or whatever in a country currently under American military operation. Maybe Iyad Allawi would like to play host to American toops for 100 years.
« On Film | Main | Real Experts »
The Way Forward
21 Jul 2008 02:49 pm
Comments (26)
The very next question would be, why did we spent blood and treasure to protect an Iranian stooge? Was the success of the surge only to increase Iran's influence? I'd love to hear 'em squirm out of that one.
Derby's was better.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2ODA2YjVjZDA0M2ZhZTk2MWY5OWE5ZGFlYmI4ODE=
How exactly is this not empire again?
You're right, of course, debrazza, but we're talking about the GOP base, which is always receptive to demonization, and the media, which avoids fact-checking like the plague. I agree that this is where Sean Hannity-type Republicans will end up.
I'd also like to point out that I called this as soon as the story came out. *bows*
A nice summary of the Maliki denial bulls*** by Juan Cole. Yet more evidence (as if we needed more) that Republicans have no shame. They are the grand poobahs of truthiness.
Actually, the opening quote is about violence in Iraq:
Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.
I thought Gen. Petraeus, George W., McSame, and the MSM told us that violence was way down? I guess all statistics from now on are taken from the point of greatest violence.
Convenient starting points are becoming a GOP trademark, like McCain wanting to discuss his judgment on Iraq starting about a year and a half ago, not from his initial support of the war. It appears he also wants the clock on his Afghanistan views to start now, rather than back when he told us that going into Iraq wouldn't cause problems in our fight in Afghanistan. Nope, nothing to see here.
"Next stop, Baghdad." --John McCain, Jan. 2002
"...in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan." --John McCain, Nov. 2003
Yeah, it seems like the preferred face-saving talking point is that this proves the surge worked, which would be hard to reconcile with the claim that Iranian stooges have taken over in Iraq.
But I do think that amongst themselves, these folks are going to end up blaming Maliki, and the Iraqis in general, for torpedoing John McCain's electoral chances. Which may be unfortunate for the GOP, because that may help push off the GOP's necessary internal reforms for yet another electoral cycle.
Which may be unfortunate for the GOP, because that may help push off the GOP's necessary internal reforms for yet another electoral cycle.
No, it won't matter. When McCain loses, the GOP leadership will double down with something like "see, we should have put up a more conservative candidate." As a result, I could seem them running a far right candidate in 2012, and finally returning to some semblance of conservative views (actual conservative views, not the bogus neoconservative views in play today) around 2016.
Man, I think it's just heart-breaking that the Republicans can't adapt their policies to reflect the reality of the changes in Iraq.
I didn't call it publicly, Elvis, but I admit, when reading about this over the weekend, I thought "But isn't Maliki just an Iranian stooge anyway? And couldn't that be spun into a pro-Republican talking point (i.e., Obama agreeing w/Maliki = Obama agreeing w/Iran)?
Apparently the wingnut talking point virus can only be contained; it can never be completely eradicated.
LFC,
You could, of course, be correct.
Still, I am thinking if the GOP gets wiped out in Congress again this year while also losing the White House, it is at least possible the party might actually do a little soul-searching before 2010, if for no other reason than simple self-preservation. But we shall see.
Wait -- I thought we saw all the Purple Fingers showing that this was the most democratic march forward on the planet, one which only The Surge could preserve?
They've now decided that it isn't the magical purple fingered democracy we sent all those Surge troops to save?
If the surge is a big success, then it follows that the Iraqi
govt. is doing well, so chucking out Maliki just before the
US election would be very very hard to spin away.
Maliki is no fool, and realises that he is in a strong
position here, so why should he allow the US to push
him about. It would not surprise me to see stronger
statements from Maliki than he has made so far as we get
closer to November.
Brien said...
Derby's was better.How exactly is this not empire again?
I just read that little beauty, Brien. These people really ARE insane, and really do believe that we are owed control of a sovereign nation! Liberation was nothing more than a fig leaf to cover their real aim; install a puppet gov't, retain large numbers of U.S. military in country, control their foreign affairs, and control their oil.
For those of you who didn't bother following the link to John Derbyshire's rabid rant, here's the money quote:
We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell.
Shorter Derb: "Iraq is OURS!"
IIRC, Derbyshire said he'd like to retire to China.
And now he's going to lose Iraq, his #1 source of snuff-porn and Feelings of Superiority.
Heh. Time for little man to face the truth.
.
Obviously you can't trust the Iraqi Shiite politicians, because they will likely be friendly to Iran. What we need is a Sunni strongman who will act as a bulwark to Iranian influence, maybe even a strong adversary of Iran.
We could call him ... Saddam.
A right-wing friend of mine for the longest time could not seem to get past the syllogism that if Sadr is friendly to Iran, wants the US out, and opposes Maliki, then Maliki must be pro-American and anti-Iranian. But you do not hold hands publicly with people sending weapons to kill you -- so obviously it is and has been more complicated than that.
Here's a question for the neocons: if we leave behind a democratic Iranian-friendly government that votes against Israel in the UN, have we won by striking a blow for democracy? Hamas was elected, and we do not seem enamored with the democratic aspirations of the Palestinian people.
It's weird. The absolute best thing that could happen, from the Republican Party's standpoint, is for Maliki to tell us to go home. This would give the US a figleaf to withdraw in a relatively dignified and orderly fashion. Obama would lose his signature issue, and the Republicans would be in a stronger position. But they're so committed to their talking points they just can't seize the opportunity.
they're so committed to their talking points they just can't seize the opportunity.
Talking points? In 2002, Iraq was about beating the Democrats. In 2004, Iraq was about beating the Democrats. In 2006, Iraq was... oh. But that plane might land with cargo again, they so dearly believe.
And at least Derbyshire is an unabashed imperialist of the blimpish kind. So: who rules Iraq?
mike,
In the past when I have tried to nail down individual neocons on what constitutes "victory" in Iraq, they have snuck something like "pro-Western" onto the list of conditions--meaning, I suspect, an Iraq that would be pro-U.S., anti-Iran, and at least relatively tolerant of Israel.
Now it always struck me as ridiculous and in fact dangerous to make that part of the military mission in Iraq. But these folks (and here I am talking about rank-and-file neocons) seem to believe that such an Iraq will inevitably come to pass, as long as we just keep our military there long enough.
Nah. The most effective approach isn't to deride him as a stooge. Better to just call his comments "inartful" -- probably the most useful political euphemism of this election cycle.
As I've commented before, but with spelling corrected (blush):
Nuri Al Maliki = Ngo Dinh Diem
He should keep a very very close eye on his generals.
my advice would be to stop trying to lamely spin away the content of what Nouri al-Maliki is saying..
My advice would be to stop puffing up a weak PM now tilting back tho the Iranians that sheltered him and his DAWA Party - as the Iraqi Nelson Mandela.
The very next question would be, why did we spent blood and treasure to protect an Iranian stooge? Was the success of the surge only to increase Iran's influence? I'd love to hear 'em squirm out of that one.
Posted by debrazza
Debrazza, you sound shocked that the Bushies could make a mistake or be caught flat-footed by Arab backstabbing.
We do know that Maliki made this move rather impulsively, without consulting Kurds, Sunnis, or rival Parties that make up 80% of Iraq - as he sidled up to Iran and Muhoqua al-Sadr. Apparantly the Iraqi military was not consulted by Maliki, nor Joint Command.
The average Iraqi can see, after losing half a million people to the Persians in most Iraqi's lifetime - that Maliki wants the US to leave with Iraq unprotected by AF, Navy, most artillery and armor gone, without a single mechanized Army division to face his former Iranian hosts.
Yeah, he painted a big bullseye on himself since he has not agreed to distribute political power or oil revenue to Sunni, Kurds, or rival Shiites and his only protection against a coup is his guard of hundreds of now-backstabbed US-paid bodyguards, and his DAWA loyalists...
Chris Ford, who began the Iraq-Iran War?
Wait, wait, wait - chris ford, are you arguing that Malaki has stuck his neck out and is angering the Sadrists and the Sunnis by calling for an American withdrawal?
Are you nuts? Those groups have been calling for an American withdrawal for years.
And the moron racist contingent sets in painting the democratically elected ruler of Iraq - installed at great expense to the people of the United States - as a dangerous backstabber.
There were reasons why those who aren't idiots, those who aren't racists, and those who aren't sick fucks like torture supporter Mixner, thought that occupying Iraq was a bad idea.
The moment the Iraqi government asks us to leave our bullshit legitimacy becomes simply bullshit. Sure, we have no right to be there now, but at least we have the fig-leaf that we are there at the request of the "sovereign government."
What the racists and idiots are doing is exposing their "humanitarian" rationales as the same fiction that the "WMD" bullshit was. This is all about ownership. There is no question that the thug parade - and you know who you are - only cares about Iraq as a domestic weapon against the real enemy - Democrats - and as a way to enrich the war machine. No other consideration rates even a close second.
I've been writing in comments for a year, pointing out that the prime minister who American soldiers are dying for is a member of the same group, Daawa, that cooperated with Hezbollah in the eighties blowing up American embassies. In fact, the kidnappings in Beirut that precipitated the Iran Contra skullduggery began to get the Daawa 14 out of jail in Kuwait, where they were being punished for having tried to blow up the American embassy.
If you know this, you know that America is not and never will be winning in Iraq - there is nothing more to win. Disposing of Saddam Hussein was it - what the warmongers wanted was not winning, but conversion by magic of Iraq into a nice, white Christian state like Texas. In other words, they are nuts. That they've woken up to the fact that there is no tooth fairy is hilarious. It was like they didn't even get Basra, which they thought - milblogger to milblogger (all of whom have, of course, never served in the military in their lives, which is why they like to call themselves captain and such) was all about beating Iran - never noticing that it was one faction in Iran using its allies to beat another faction in Iran. Nobody is as blind as people who won't see. It does make me happy to see them jump up and down like Rumpelstiltskins, or spoiled four year olds at a party. But, of course, this party has been one of spilling blood by the gallon.
Now, reluctantly, it might just happen that the press will have to admit the obvious, and we can relate to Iraq, like we should be relating to Iran, as a country with which we share a few interests and disagree on others. We've installed a strong ally of Hezbollah in Iraq, for instance. Get over it. American Control of the Middle East went a long time ago, at the close of the Cold war. Waste a trillion, two trillion dollars, it doesn't matter - it ain't ever coming back.
Nuri Al Maliki = Ngo Dinh Diem
It WOULD have been possible for Bush to have selected an Iraqi General to run Iraq. . . back in 2004. But Cheney actually believed the B.S. about "bringing Democracy to the Middle East." They thought the grateful Iraqis would all peacefully accept the occupation and Iraq would quickly become a U.S. colony like Puerto Rico or Guam. Thus, they dissolved the Baathist party and the army. That ship has sailed. It's too late to start fomenting any coups now. It would instantly mean a region-wide war with both Iran and the militias.
Military dictatorship without Sadaam was always Bush senior's policy, so he tried to foment rebellion among the Generals, but, Sadaam was smarter and tougher than his generals. He always managed to sniff out any plot and shoot the generals who were negotiating with the Americans before they could act.
Today, the Iraqi factions can barely tolerate the weak Maliki government. There isn't a united military to establish iteslf as a governing force. Backing one militia group is bad enough when all they're doing is giving them power in a province.
But, the experience of Karzai shows it's not so easy to do this over the entire country.
Comments closed August 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Note to would-be imperialists ...
... enlist.
.
Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 21, 2008 3:08 PM