biwah said: “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.”
…
“Starting today (or, hell, yesterday), let’s not handle this war any more negligently than we absolutely have to!”

Yes biwah, a thinking person might think it would have been better if we’d never gone into Iraq in the first place…

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

“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!

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.

biwah said: 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).