Nouri al-Maliki: Give us Guns – Troops can almost Go
UPDATED BELOW
Nouri al-Maliki continues to criticize the U.S. and to talk about a withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq:
America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday.
Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “dramatically� cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times.
In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time�. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation� in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses. Mr al-Maliki conceded that his administration had made mistakes over the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But he refused to accept all criticism over the execution. When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost.
Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.�
More:
Gordon Johndroe, the White House national security spokesman, conceded that some of Mr al-Maliki’s criticism was “valid�. The training and equipping of Iraqi troops would be speeded up, he said, adding that by “self-admission we have had to redo our training and equipment programme�.
Although Mr al-Maliki’s tone was measured throughout, he is clearly irritated at US criticism that he has failed to curb Shia militias. Robert Gates, the new US Defence Secretary, said that Mr al-Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, gave a warning that he was living on “borrowed time� and that American patience was running out.
Challenged on the point, Mr al-Maliki remarked acidly: “Certain officials are going through a crisis. Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the Government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi Government or American Administration. I don’t think we are on borrowed time.�
He also said that the criticism from White House officials will ‘embold’ the terrorists in Iraq and that the terrorists have not yet beaten the Iraqi government. He still believes, so he says, that the Iraqi government will be able to put the sectarian violence to a halt. He also denied having sympathy for the Shia militias. Lastly he denied that there is a civil war going on and he said that there will be no civil war in the (near) future either because “Sunni and Shia had lived in peace for many years.”
Whatever one thinks of his arguments one thing seems to be clear: the Iraqi government and the U.S. government strongly disagree on Iraq. That is – whether one supports the surge for instance or not – an incredibly bad sign. The U.S. is – rightfully – criticizing al-Maliki. Al-Maliki is – also rightfully – criticizing Bush, Rice, Gates, etc. In the meantime, both seem to refuse to take (full) responsibility for the chaos in Iraq.
Lastly, if al-Maliki wants the U.S. forces out… They have to go. No matter what Bush thinks about it. al-Maliki is the leader of a (somewhat) sovereign nation.
UPDATE
Bloomberg reports:
President George W. Bush failed to rally public support with his nationally televised speech announcing plans to send more soldiers to Iraq, as most Americans say they want Congress to find a way to stop the troop increase.
A new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows the public opposes Bush’s decision to dispatch 21,500 additional troops by a margin of 60 percent to 36 percent. Even so, there was little appetite for directly cutting funds for the buildup of forces as a means of thwarting the president’s plan.
And what about those who support Bush’s plans?
The poll also shows the potential saliency of the war in the 2008 presidential elections, especially for Senator John McCain of Arizona, a frontrunner for the Republican nomination. A plurality of self-defined moderates and independents, a key McCain constituency, said his advocacy of a troop escalation even larger than the one Bush has announced makes them less likely to support him if he runs for the White House.
Political suicide?
Some results:
Some two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Bush’s management of the Iraq situation, and the percentage of those who said the war hasn’t been worth it also rose to a high of 62 percent. Fifty-eight percent gave negative reviews to his handling of the fight against terrorists, an 8-point increase from last month.
While about two-thirds of respondents also said all American troops should be brought home immediately or within the next year, about the same number said a premature withdrawal would turn Iraq into a haven for terrorists.
Swelling opposition to the war has driven the president’s overall approval rating down to 39 percent, from 42 percent last month.
By a 51 percent to 41 percent margin, Americans want Congress to prevent Bush from sending more troops, though they are divided about how the lawmakers should exercise their authority. Just 25 percent said Congress should deny the president funding for the deployment. Twenty-six percent said the lawmakers should block Bush “through other legislative measures.”
Down, down, down the numbers go.
Also read Jules Crittenden’s take on al-Maliki.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Nouri al-Maliki: Give us Guns – Troops can almost Go”
“Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, gave a warning that he was living on “borrowed timeâ€? and that American patience was running out.”
So what? What’s the US gonna do? Remove Maliki from power and exchange him for a puppet chose by the US, maybe Chalabi? After all that talk about democracy in Iraq? How would that look in the eyes of the world? And how would Iraqis react? This whole idea of getting rid of Maliki is ridiculous. The Us made a serious error in promoting that misguided constitution for Iraq. Now it’s too late, they have to live with it. As the Iraqis have to, if they don’t chose to alter it (after all, Shiites and Kurds combined have a vast majority).
I think the “borrowed time” quote was meant to indicate that the US won’t continue to support the Maliki govt if it doesn’t step up to the plate, and I think that is the correct moral position for our govt to take. We are morally obligated to stay in Iraq in order to help provide a secure environment for the new elected govt to take hold, but only if that govt is doing it’s job instead of promoting more violence and instability through the militias.
At the same time, I can understand why Maliki might need to make statements like this for domestic consumption. I just hope that it’s also understood that the US couldn’t have (and shouldn’t have) given munitions to the Iraqi army under the circumstances of it being infiltrated by the Shi’ite death squads.
To clarify in my first paragraph above: what I’m saying is that the US is signalling that we will just withdraw our military and financial support for the Maliki govt if it doesn’t step up. I’m not saying that I think we will depose him or that we should get involved in that way.
The USA is big on Democracy. Maliki was elected democratically.
The curious thing I am finding in this is that Maliki is a Shia and the Shia are the majority and now he is demanding the USA withdraw. Its quite obvious that Maliki is already marching to the drum beat of the Iranians and Al Sadr.
This is a no win situation for the USA and its Allies and for the world. The USA is actually trying to defend the miniority SUNNI here at the expense of a stable IRAQ and yet IRAN is stirring up both pots to keep the stew boiling with only one thing on their mind…..Undermine the USA.
I suppose thats why its called a WAR. In wars the other side does things that make you mad, undermine your will and oppose your strategy. Its what wars are. And they have WON. They have spanked the USA. We should firmly plant our tail between our legs and get out now. No use keeping the humilitation going any longer then it has too.
What amazes me is that we press has not seen Al Sadr as setting himself up as the next Hezzbullah in IRAQ. The minute we pull out Iran will be passing out cash on the streets of every city and building the next Iranian empire. Good luck to us all. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and this Jihad will just be a passing phase in history.
The democrats had better hope their plan is better then Bushs because the consequence of Failure by their plan is way higher then Bush’s plan.
Iraq a sovereign nation didn’t carry much wait 4 years ago. Does America have a legitimate foreign policy interest in Iraq or not? If we do, then we’ll have to stay regardless of Maliki’s wishes. If we don’t, why are we spending over $100 billion on a deployment there each year?
The fantasy that Iraq is a sovereign nation was a publicity stunt by Bush. He wanted a success in Iraq before his reelection in 2004, so he declared Iraq sovereign – as though the word has no meaning. The Iraqi government is currently incapable of enforcing it’s rule in Baghdad without massive American assistance (nevermind Iraq). That’s the minimum criteria for actual sovereignty.
If we can leave tomorrow on a demand from Maliki, we can leave today on a demand from the Congress.
We are under no obligation to follow Maliki’s commands. We do, however, have to stay close to him despite significant conflicts of interest, in order to reduce those competing interests. In this case, we should assume (even if that means “pretend”) that his comments are intended for domestic consumption, and politely ignore the absurdly timed request.
This statement makes as much, if not more, sense if it was about comments made recently by George Bush. As “We” conducted and oversaw the Iraqi elections how can you say that we “are under no obligation to follow Maliki’s commands” regarding his country?
Steve, it would simply be stupid to do so. Maliki is indeed on borrowed time, as Rice put it. I am not saying we can bully Maliki, but nor can he bully us into arming his partisan (but improving) troops in and out of uniform. It’s a tenuous sharing of power right now.
Note that he did not tell us to leave. He’s trying to finesse a little something, and we don’t need to blow up his spot for doing so. But we don’t have to acquiesce, and it would be extremely coutnerproductive to do so.
I mean seriously:
“Please arm us to the teeth and then leave”…?
Starting today (or, hell, yesterday), let’s not handle this war any more negligently than we absolutely have to!
Why does this make me think of Warren Zevon (RIP)? Oh yeah (with apologies to Mr. Zevon):
Lawyers, Guns and Money
I was gambling in Baghdad
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this, ha
I’m the innocent bystander
But somehow I got stuck
Between a rock and a hard place
And I’m down on my luck
Yes, I’m down on my luck
[...] Maliki wants guns, not roses, not talk of rose petalled paths, not talk of defeat. Guns. Then get out. [...]
Its just another sign that democracy doesn’t work well in the ME. The countries that we consider moderate, secular states that are pro-Western are in actuality repressive- Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Where there have been democratic elections, we haven’t been able to deal with the results- Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. We want to be able to say that we removed a tyrant and put a democratically elected leader in power, but then we expect to be able to control that leader.
If Maliki were provided with money and arms without US interference would not ethnic cleansing on a grand scale ensue???? I don’t believe he wants to be head of a coalition national unity government-he wants to be head of a Shiite state, alligned with Iran. When we arrested the Iranians at their consulate in Northern Iraq —it was the Iraqis who complained as well as the Iranians.
‘
This is a wet dream. A lot of us would like to leave, but don;t want to be called quitters. The Iraquis ask us to leave. We oblige. We’re happy, they’re happy (for a while). It’s all good.
Yes biwah, a thinking person might think it would have been better if we’d never gone into Iraq in the first place…