More

Iraq Elections: Prime Minister 'Fighting For His Political Life'

Iraq Elections Almaliki Fighting

REBECCA SANTANA   03/17/10 10:25 PM ET   AP

BAGHDAD — The man who has led Iraq for the past four years is battling for his political survival just as U.S. troops are getting ready to pack up and go home.

With about 83 percent of the votes counted from parliamentary elections, it's not at all clear that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will emerge the winner because a secular challenger is showing surprising strength. And a drawn-out battle of negotiations with rival coalitions is inevitable.

"Al-Maliki is fighting for his political life," said Joost Hiltermann, an analyst at the International Crisis Group. "He may well come out of this no longer prime minister. He may lose the elections, that is how close it is."

The prime minister, known as a hardline Shiite during his first couple of years in power, has more recently transformed himself into a law-and-order nationalist who has occasionally reached out to minority Sunnis. While trying to re-establish a strong central government – most notably by routing a Shiite militia that ruled parts of Baghdad and Iraq's second-largest city, Basra – al-Maliki has also alienated many key constituencies by governing with a heavy hand.

Al-Maliki campaigned with all the benefits of incumbency: easy air time on national TV, the ability to dole out favors to local officials in exchange for their support, and a record of helping stop some of the country's violence.

But the political bloc loyal to al-Maliki has only a slim lead over the secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, a Shiite who himself was prime minister from 2004 to 2005.

Allawi's anti-Iran rhetoric – and the many Sunnis in his Iraqiya coalition – earned him Sunni support in Baghdad and in Sunni-dominated provinces such as Anbar and Salahuddin.

Al-Maliki has been doing well in the Shiite south as well as in Baghdad, a city of 6 million people accounting for almost a fifth of the 325 parliament seats.

With about 12 million votes cast in the March 7 election, the prime minister's coalition has about a 40,000-vote lead over Allawi and is ahead in more provinces – an important factor considering that parliament seats are divided by province and not by the overall vote count.

The process of choosing the next prime minister could take months – a situation which could invite violence at a time when the United States has vowed to stick to President Barack Obama's timetable that calls for the withdrawal of combat forces by late summer and all American troops by the end of next year.

Once election results are final and the parliament is seated, the lawmakers will elect a new president. The president then tasks the bloc with the largest number of seats to form a majority government.

But even if the president gives al-Maliki the nod, it's not clear he could form a governing coalition and retake the prime minister's office. Almost four years in office have left a long roster of important people and constituencies angry with him.

Followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are still miffed at al-Maliki for ousting Sadrist militiamen from the oil city of Basra.

Another Shiite religious party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, blames al-Maliki for splitting the Shiite vote.

And the Kurds, who like the Sunnis make up about 15-20 percent of Iraq's population, have their own grievances. Those include disputes over who controls oil drilled in Kurdish lands, and the future of Kirkuk – a northern city claimed by both Arabs and Kurds.

The Kurds are widely considered crucial to putting together any government in Iraq. Allawi and other leaders practically sprinted up to the Kurdish city of Sulamaniyah in the days after the election.

The Kurds appear ready to drive a hard bargain for their support.

"The Kurdish coalition won't make any alliance with any bloc without a signed agreement in order to guarantee that our demands will be implemented," said Fadhil Mirany, a senior official with the Kurdistan Democratic Party. "We will form an alliance ... on the basis of what we get."

But a new Kurdish political party called Gorran – Change in English – has been eating into the two main Kurdish parties' political power base, possibly upsetting the unified front that has always made the Kurds a formidable political force able to throw their weight behind a single candidate.

Looking to shore up his Shiite support, al-Maliki has been making overtures to the Iraqi National Alliance, a wide-ranging Shiite religious alliance with Iranian backing. Al-Maliki was to meet Wednesday night with Ammar al-Hakim, a key leader within the INA, said Khudhair al-Khozaie, a candidate on al-Maliki's list.

"We are having meetings with most all of the blocs, but absolutely the closest bloc for us is the Iraqi National Alliance," al-Khozaie said.

But preliminary election estimates indicate that the largest bloc within the INA is led by al-Sadr, the unpredictable cleric who could just as easily break off from INA and throw his weight behind Allawi as he could behind al-Maliki.

"Muqtada al-Sadr is the dark horse in this race. He is not necessarily going with INA, he may make up his own mind and he seems partly more inclined to go with Allawi because he still resents al-Maliki for going after his militiamen," said Marina Ottoway of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

But she said Allawi might find al-Sadr "too dangerous" to include in his coalition.

If al-Maliki will have a hard time forming a government, Allawi may fare even worse.

Allawi drew on massive support from Sunnis, the favored sect during Saddam Hussein's reign who clearly decided that Allawi was their best hope at regaining influence. But that same Sunni backing can be a hindrance when courting the Kurds – both Kurds and Arabs claim the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and disputed provinces stretching from Syria to Iran.

If not Allawi or al-Maliki, could a surprise candidate be tapped to form a government? The prime minister was himself a compromise choice in 2006 to run the country.

Names being mentioned include Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a former prime minister who ran in the INA's coalition, and Ahmad Chalabi, the one-time Pentagon favorite who also ran in the INA coalition.

But Ottoway, the analyst, said in the long run it may come back to the two men battling it out right now.

"I just don't think there is going to be another prime minister than either al-Maliki or Allawi," she said.

___

Associated Press writers Katarina Kratovac and Mazin Yahya in Baghdad and Yahya Barzanji in Sulamaniyah contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 38
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewHubbard
blogger, just not for HuffPo
02:40 PM on 03/18/2010
On the front page, he's fighting for his life, on the second page it's his political life.

HuffPo headline writers, please be more careful.
11:11 AM on 03/18/2010
What Iraq needs more than anything is a stable legitimate government.

No matter who gets the most votes they will have to have a coalition government. And that will be very good, I hope, since it will require power sharing with as many different parties as needed.

Personally I would like the secular parties to prevail, but then my opinion is meaningless. It is up to the Iraqi people to decide.

I just hope there is a clear victory by one faction or another. So that the new government will be stable and legitimate.

P.S. The fact that the different Iraqi Parties are going to have to cooperate in a coalition government means that Iraq could teach the USA a lesson or two about democracy.
photo
Puller58
Man of Mystery
06:45 AM on 03/18/2010
I'm waiting for Maliki and the rest of the kleptocrats to grab the treasury and head for the border.
04:21 AM on 03/18/2010
Dont believe it for a second.

He's a shoe in and we all know it.

Democracy give me a break
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:33 AM on 03/18/2010
2) The Kurds are NOT "15-20 percent" of Iraq's population; they are, at best, 15% of the population -- and that's largely a result of this war, prior to which they were maybe 12-13% of the population -- well overrepresented in the "Iraqi" governments we have installed. The higher number is fed by NeoCon wishful thinking, as (once again), the Kurds are our favorites, most willing to divide their country in three (the easier to conquer).

3) I also seriously doubt that Baghdad's population is anywhere near "6 million," these days. After the 2007 Surge (the deadliest year of the entire war for Iraqis and Americans), the U.S. had unleashed air power (5-7 times the previous year's bombings) and Shiite death squads throughout Baghdad, adding MILLIONS to the number of Iraqi refugees, 80% of whom were women and children (after all, one of the principal aims of the surge was to "protect Iraqi civilians" -- well, murdered as the Sunnis were in the ethno-sectarian cleansing of Baghdad, I guess no one can ever harm them again...).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:32 AM on 03/18/2010
BOTCHED "FACTS:"

1) The Maliki government no-way, no-how "routed" Sadr's militia in Baghdad and Basra. Reports in the NYT and Washington Post at the time described a humiliating defeat of the U.S.-backed government forces. Thousands of IA soldiers and dozens of officers DEFECTED. The critical (OIL-port) city of Basra was thoroughly defended by the Sadrists (and Fadhila), to the point where ALL of the checkpoints a week into the campaign were held by their militias. The U.S. military ended up leading the siege of Baghdad's sprawling (2-million strong) Sadr City, but it's not as if we've knocked them out of their primary stronghold, where they are most beloved. Final point: It was MALIKI, not al-Sadr, who went to Tehran, hat in hand, begging the Iranians to host and broker a truce between his government and the Sadrists (game, set, and match to the Jaish al-Mahdi -- absolutely still present in Basra and Baghdad; and the only reason Moqtada is in Iran is because he knows the U.S. will simply MURDER him, as we've attempted TWICE before, both times under flag of truce, if he remains in his country; he could resists Saddam, but not our drones).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:32 AM on 03/18/2010
Besides which, if (as the article correctly notes) Sadr defects to Allawi's block (showing solidarity with the Sunnis, as his organization has repeatedly done during the occupation -- a healthy sign of nationalism and unity, one WOULD think -- then they would likely have a majority, AND the new government... with Allawi as the new P.M., since the U.S. has turned Sadr into the Devil himself, simply because he's been asking for an EXIT DATE since the early days of the occupation -- forget the fact that he's actually the most popular Shiite figure in Iraq, after Ayatollah Sistani, and that his organization has provided health care, education, and security to millions of Shiites... while Iranian SCIRI, our pal, for some reason, has been running death squads throughout Sunni areas, torturing prisoners at their Interior Ministry, and advocating dividing the country into THREE, which no sane Iraqi wants...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:32 AM on 03/18/2010
Finally, most recently, Maliki let that notorious liar and Iranian agent, Ahmed Chalabi, run the office that REMOVED over 500 Sunni candidates from participating in the most recent (3/10) elections -- denying them legitimate (i.e., peaceful) means to share power, and virtually guaranteeing another round in the temporarily halted/low-burning CIVIL WAR (not remotely over, as every serious political grudge has been deferred or kicked down the road, since the occupation began: OIL revenue, federalism, Kirkuk, etc.).

2) The reporter repeats that tired line that the Kurds are "crucial" to forming the new government. This line is popular among the U.S. establishment, because the Kurds are easily the most U.S.-friendly faction in Iraq... only it's simply not true, not numerically or otherwise. By all accounts (a recent AEI panel, Amb. Hill, our military spokesmen), the Kurds are on the outs with most Iraqis, having seriously overplayed their hand over the past several years. Reportedly (though who can be sure in this chaotic post-election environment), they didn't actually fair too well in the last election.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:31 AM on 03/18/2010
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS:

1) I'm hard pressed to find any actual examples of al-Maliki "reaching out to minority Sunnis;" quite the contrary! Maliki made a liar out of Petraeus (and the AEI-designed "Surge" strategy, which co-opted the entire, 100,000-strong Sunni insurgency, which we put on the U.S. payroll in 2007 and 2008 at $300/month/insurgent, effectively paying the insurgency, yesterday's "terrorists," to chill out in the lead-up to the 2008 election, here in the U.S.). Petraeus and Zalmay Khalilzad essentially promised the Sunnis that we would get the Maliki government to reform the draconian de-baathification (the bastard child of Paul Bremer and Ahmed Chalabi, largely credited with helping birth the insurgency in the first place). Instead, the Accountability and Justice law passed by the parliament only created a new wave of purges. The Awakening Movement was NOT brought into the Iraqi Security Forces, as promised; instead, Maliki launched a campaign to assassinate more than 600 leaders of the Awakening Movement that the U.S. credited with reducing the violence in Iraq to manageable levels (as well as the presence of foreign jihadis -- never more than a few percent of the resistance in the first place; most Iraqis were simply resisting a foreign occupation characterized by a ruthless drive to control, and loot, Iraq's wealth).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:30 AM on 03/18/2010
4) While al-Malaki was indeed the "compromise choice" following the previous parliamentary elections, the article neglects to mention that it was the U.S. who compromised, forced to reckon with (boogeyman) al-Sadr's block -- the one indigenous, IRAQI, Shi'ite block, not beholden to Tehran -- whose block had outperformed EVERY SINGLE OTHER BLOCK: the Sadrists effectively WON that election (and then we pressured Malaki, eventually, to launch a military offensive against the man who put him in office -- more on that later).

5) The article makes NO MENTION of the chaotic election and post-election environment, the charges of trashing ballot boxes, taking them home, etc. (or the purge of Sunni candidates by the IUG).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:30 AM on 03/18/2010
2) Current P.M. al-Maliki has not just been "governing with a heavy hand," reports in the NYT suggest he's been deploying the Iraqi Army to settle political scores and improve his "Law" party's chances in the election Iraq just had. His Interior Ministry has been torturing prisoners. His mode of governing has increasingly been compared to that of Saddam Hussein, the dictator America ostensibly set out to replace... and he is VERY close to the government in Tehran.

3) Chalabi is not merely the "one-time Pentagon favorite," he is THE primary source of false intelligence that led the U.S. into war (the supplier of "Curveball" intelligence, if anyone remembers that trainwreck); he was a White House favorite, too, despite the CIA and State Dept. warnings that he was a CHARLATAN; and he has been identified by our current U.S. ambassadors and OIF commanders from Petraeus to Odierno as an IRANIAN agent, betraying the U.S. to Tehran, and regularly meeting with Tehran and groups we officially deem "terrorists."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
x1jodonn
12:29 AM on 03/18/2010
This article is full of glaring omissions, mischaracterizations, and botched "facts:"

GLARING OMISSIONS:

1) Iyad Allawi is not merely a "secular challenger" and "himself a prime minister from 2004 to 2005" (whaddaya know!); he is the former head of the Iraqi National Accord, the sister organization to the Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmed Chalabi) -- both organizations created by Western intelligence agencies in the 1990s; neither group remotely representative of Iraqis (each filled with Western-schooled exiles many decades removed from Iraq), both instrumental in providing the bogus case for war in 2002 and 2003. Furthermore, several years ago, The New York Times quoted two former CIA operatives' assertions that Allawi ran a terrorist CAR and BUS-BOMBING campaign, trying to destabilize Saddam's regime in the early '90s, targeting civilian sites, including movie theaters, etc., in Baghdad -- which made his selection as INTERIM P.M., pushed by the U.S. and CPA, all the more ironic, since it was just such a terrorist campaign that was throwing Iraq into turmoil at the time (itself a response to the U.S. death squads, the "Salvador Option," employed by Sec. Rumsfeld). Finally, he was a very unpopular P.M., in his short stint, widely seen as a U.S. puppet.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
TXfemmom
Grandma with eye on the future
12:10 AM on 03/18/2010
Allawi, secular as we can find in that area, along with the Kurds could kick dirt in the face of the Shites and Iran and make the Shites eat sand. My bet is that Allawi and the Kurds will take the day and The Shites and Iran will be furious.
11:12 AM on 03/18/2010
Now there is a great idea.

Lets bring back the Civil War.

What, there hasn't been enough blood shed for your tastes yet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zanubiyah
10:57 PM on 03/17/2010
It probably would be noted that all of the candidates are 'fighting for thier political lives", not just al Maliki. Even if al Maliki wins the Prime Ministership, his power will be greatly diminished, because unless something changes, his margin of winning is pretty weak, and not representitive of the greater Iraq. So, in essence, American influence through the Iraqi government has been weakened.

Of course, this might be touted as an excuse to stay there in a military capacity, as we can see the media playing the role, fearing violence, and somehow Americans are going to stop it if they stay. All the Americans are there for really is to protect the oil...well the western oil interests, and whoever the puppet is in the government. All of this under the guise of 'democracy' They could care less about the average Iraqi citizen, as they have so well proven over the course of the occupation.

There is no such thing as a free and fair election when there are 100.000 plus foriegn soldiers on your soil, and the proposed leader of your nation protected by them.

I wonder if the Iraqis pick the 'wrong man', how the occupying forces will react. I guess we dont have to look far on the map to find out what they will do.

...and of course, the secularist will 'help Americans pack" and leave them alone.
11:16 AM on 03/18/2010
This Administrations best hope is to get our troops out of Iraq ASAP.

I have no clue what the long term plans are, but it would be political gold to get all the troops out by 2012.

The best hope for that is a stable Iraq government. So I think US policy will be pointed more in that direction than in ensuring a long standing presence in that country.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:25 PM on 03/18/2010
Shhh, Dont ruin the narrative.
Obama is there forever stealing oil, and all Iraqis who are working for a stable government are puppets.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
10:34 PM on 03/17/2010
We'll see how it goes. Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki as done a very hard and thankless job for a long time. It's a job which needed to be done by somebody, but that man was sure to be denigrated as a puppet by resistors and to be lectured by American representatives simultaneously. I can only commend him for filling his shoes for all this time. I'm glad to hear a secular candidate has a lot of strength in Iraq. Iraq deserves so much better than they've had in recent decades.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
10:36 PM on 03/17/2010
"Mookie" (Moqtada al Sadr) will obviously continue to have a lot power in Iraq.