It's All Maliki's Fault, Not Our Own

Whenever the going gets rough in Iraq, which is quite often, Washington plays the blame game. It's the fault of Iraqi parliamentarians, who have hit the beach for four weeks this summer. It's the fault of the Iranian government, which has supplied militias with highly lethal roadside bombs. But most often U.S. officials prefer to blame the man on top: Nuri al-Maliki. Even Hillary Clinton jumped on Iraq's hapless prime minister, suggesting that parliament should dismiss him.

No doubt Maliki is a sectarian leader whose interests may not entirely align with Washington's. He's also the kind of guy you wouldn't want to get behind at
the doughnut shop for fear he'd take hours to decide on glazed or no-glazed. But in his defense, he holds a position with little power, as the Iraqi constitution stipulates. An expert on Iraq told me last year that even if Joseph Stalin were installed as Iraqi prime minister tomorrow, he wouldn't be able to pass a bill or bring about any form of a power-sharing arrangement. Maliki is not even the senior leader of his own party, Dawa, which itself is not even the most powerful Shiite party in Iraq (SCIRI is). And frankly, this blame-game has a familiar ring to it: A few years back, former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was Washington's favorite scapegoat. Before him, it was interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Do you see a pattern forming?

All of this talk of dumping Maliki may ultimately lead to a changing of the guard in Iraq. But there are few options that Americans may find palpable. One discussed option would be the appointment of Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Western-educated moderate Shiite politician. Another is the installation of strong man, what some have described as Saddam without the mustache or Saddam-lite. Allawi's name has circulated as a potential candidate but his own reign was plagued by allegations of corruption and human rights abuses. Indeed, there are precious few Iraqi politicians out there with the kind of can-do leadership skills to break the necessary heads to get anything done in Iraq. Saddam killed off anyone with even a shred of political showmanship or who posed a threat to his throne.

Yet with all this talk circulating of a coup in Iraq, as Juan Cole reports here, American politicians should be careful what they wish for. The sacking of Prime Minister Maliki could usher in an undemocratic regime in Iraq. But more likely, his dismissal would simply result in some other sap to take his place, and in a year's time, Washington, beset by Iraq's lack of political progress, will once again be asking for the new guy's head.

Comments

[NABNYC]

And speaking of Vietnam, didn't we keep secretly sponsoring coups to overthrow one guy and put in another, pretending that the identity of the colonial puppet we installed would somehow make a difference?

This reminds me of an old story, re-told in film and writing many times. Rich man owns island or retreat, brings someone to the retreat, sets them loose with only their wits to try to survive, rich man with guns and night vision binoculars tries to hunt down and kill the "visitor." Very sick story. But nonetheless, much like what we've done in Iraq.

We've blown up the entire country, forced millions out, killed untold numbers, destroyed homes, stopped the economy dead in its tracks, then we stand back and say: "I just don't know what's wrong with those Iraqis."

Psssssssst. It's not the Iraqis who are wrong. It's us.

[baylaw73]

Funny, I thought the idea of bringing freedom and democracy was so the Iraqi people could figure this out for themselves. If there were one central unified government, and one discernable rebel group threatening them, I could see the rationale for supporting the gov't. But that is not the case, on either end. It is a total catastrophe (sp?). Mess-O-Potamia, to rip-off the Daily Show. The only way to explain continued involvment is that the U.S. doesn't have what it really wants yet. What that is, one can speculate, but I think a puppet gov't and a sweet oil deal are probably two big things.

[JimR]

I know he was freely elected by the people, but nobody is happy with the job he's doing and he is leading his country to ruin.

So in conclusion, President Bush needs to go.

[populist101]

Great commentary - it's clear that our criminal politicians are looking for yet another scapegoat. I wonder when they'll run out?? Probably never.

As most readers here (I assume) already know, the reality of this war is much different than what Bush portrays. It was immoral, unconstitutional and financially ruinous from the day it started.

Continuing the killing won't change that one bit.

The time to end this madness is now. Not next year or next month. Today, not tomorrow....now.

That's my rant. Read on if you'd like:

"Top-Ten Reasons to Get out of Iraq. Now!"
http://www.populistamerica.com/top_ten_reasons_to_get_out_of_iraq_now

[dissolvethecorporation]

It doesn't matter who is to blame, what role the US had in creating the sectarian strife or how long it takes them to achieve a unified government. The bottom line is: It is not worth another American life! Our reputation cannot get any worse, so whatever the result, GET OUT NOW!

[altohone]

Hillary and the DLC types joining the neocon fray for another regime change in Iraq exemplifies the GOP/DLC ideology.

The occupier will dictate who can lead even if it violates democratic principles.
The occupier can preach and blame.
The occupier will arm and fund the opponents of the government and call it a success, yet expect the government to be strengthened.
The occupier won't provide security or services, won't take in refugees, but will demand generational contracts to control natural resources.

Hillary has the occupier imperial mentality.
Hillary is willing to blame the victims for failing to govern a country we helped destroy... a country we won't let them govern.

[oldpotsmuggler]

A year from now Bush will not be trying to replace whoever replaces Al Maliki. There won't be any need to. We'll be close enough to the end zone then for him to just somersault in.

If the goal was really to lower the heat, we would go with Al Sadr, since he is the power behind the current throne, and will be the eventual head of state. The biggest knock against him is that the U.S. would have no more influence in Iraq. However, one thing we need to have learned by now is that we are getting no sweetheart oil deals no matter what we do, or who we choose.

Now that we've got everybody armed to the teeth over there, we don't really have to worry about anybody trying to get rid of the other two major groups. Some blood will be shed to improve negotiating positions, but deals will end up being cut. What we have created is literally "deal or die".

Al Sadr would, from all appearances, pull more votes than anyone in Iraq if there were a way to let that play out. His private militia is said to number 60,000, which means he has more true fighters than the rest of the government. If this was a matter that Bushco wanted to put to rest, finding a reasonable can and would be done.

That, however, is not where we are going, and anyone that thinks otherwise is simply delusional.