Will Maliki Get The U.S. Out Of Iraq?
As I write this, the United States Senate is many hours into a remarkable all-night session debating how to end the Iraq war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called this marathon session to highlight the Republicans' obstructionism on putting together a reasonable plan to end the slaughter of U.S. troops in Iraq. Republicans, of course, decried the all-nighter as merely a political stunt.
They're right. It is just a political stunt. But it's a doozy!
I must admit, I never saw Harry Reid as all that effective a "cheerleader" for Democratic positions, especially when it comes to such momentous issues as ending a disastrous war. When Reid was elected Majority Leader, I did have my qualms. His dry-as-toast and completely un-charismatic television presence led me to this conclusion. But tonight, I congratulate Reid for his success at getting good media coverage and shining the spotlight on exactly who is responsible for delaying the end of the war -- the Senate Republicans.
Especially since some of those Senate Republicans (many of whom face re-election next year) appear to be getting just a tad bit nervous about continuing to back President Bush's ill-conceived war.
Right after Bush announced his escalation strategy this January, I wrote an article on ending the Iraq war, which I must say has so far been fairly prophetic. I ended the article with the following:
So while a few Republicans are jumping ship now on legally meaningless concurrent resolutions, by summertime it will be a full-scale rout. Republicans will have the time and distance from Bush to say, "Well, we tried the surge, but it obviously didn't work. It's time to bring the troops home." Some of them are already saying this publicly in one way or another: "If the surge isn't working by summer or fall, I won't support it any more." As time goes by this summer, more and more of them will abandon Bush, publicly.
It's impossible to tell from this distance what form this will take, but at this point, Republicans in Congress are going to have had enough — and they're going to tell Bush in no uncertain terms to "declare victory" and start bringing troops home. And to bring enough of them home by election day that they have a prayer of keeping their jobs.
Sooner or later, a delegation of congressional Republicans is going to knock on the White House's door, and tell Bush that "it's over." But until the pieces are in place for that to happen, the soldiers are not going to start coming home.
Now, as I see it, we are currently at the stage described in the second paragraph of that excerpt. But all the pieces are not quite in place for the third paragraph, which -- in my humble estimate -- will not happen until September, after Petraeus' report.
Much has been made in the media, in the past few weeks, of "Republican senators breaking with the President on the Iraq war." This is because they've given a few speeches, given a few interviews; and otherwise generally put forth the impression that they're "jumping ship" on Iraq.
But they aren't actually "jumping ship" quite yet. Talk is cheap, but watch closely how they vote in the next few weeks. They're still going to give Bush until September before they openly defy him by voting reliably with the Democrats on "end the war" bills. Oh, sure, they may toss one vote or another over to the various Democratic proposals -- but always when they already know the Democrats don't have the 60 votes required to move anything forward.
So why are they publicly "talking the talk," if they are not prepared to "walk the walk"? Listening to their public statements and reading the tea leaves to divine their meaning has led me to the following conclusion: they're sending a very personal message to Bush. The message is really a warning, and it has two aspects to it. Firstly: "You've got one last chance to get out in front of this issue, to be a leader (in other words), and to announce a change in strategy that we can vote for -- because it originates from a Republican president. Or else we're going to vote with the Democrats in September, and they will score those political points, not you." And secondly: "You, Mr. President, don't have to face the voters next fall. We do. If we're still in Iraq on election day next year, the rout of 2006 is going to look like a Sunday School picnic, and Democrats will capture the White House and vast chunks of Congress as well. We are not going to allow that to happen. You have already destroyed your presidency over your incompetent handling of this war, but we will not let you destroy the entire Republican Party as well."
Of course, this message is going to fall on deaf ears in the Oval Office. Bush is just too stubborn to let his divine vision for Iraq fall apart before he leaves office. Also, he's not real big on the concept of admitting mistakes. He's betting his "legacy" that he can veto everything that comes to him, and continue the war up until Inaugural Day 2009. Then, if a Democrat gets elected, it will all fall apart on their watch, and he can go on deluding himself that it all would have worked out fine... except for those meddling Democrats.
The problem for Democrats, which I have been pointing out repeatedly, is that they need 60 to 70 Republican defectors in the House, and 17 or 18 in the Senate. Which is why what Harry Reid is currently doing is indeed nothing more than political theater. Reid knows he doesn't even have the 60 votes necessary to end debate, much less a veto-proof "supermajority" of 67 votes.
That may change in September, but getting 17 or 18 GOP Senators (the difference is whether Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, who is still recovering from a brain injury, is able to vote by then) is going to be tough to do. Only 21 of them are up for re-election next year. Getting a veto-proof majority in the House may be easier to do, but we need supermajorities in both houses in order to end the war.
One hopeful sign is that it's still only July, and Republican Senators are already publicly disavowing the war. This is earlier than I would have guessed. I didn't expect so many of them (and such high-ranking ones) to be chomping at the bit before their August vacation. This is a good sign that more and more of them will follow them in September (only 8 weeks from now), after Petraeus gives his report.
But it still may not be enough. Without a solid block of 67, Bush is going to veto anything that comes across his desk.
This is where the Maliki scenario comes in. Maliki said something awfully strange last week, and then almost immediately backed off from it. He basically said that the Iraqi military is fully capable of taking over "any time" if U.S. forces should leave Iraq. Then he (slightly) modified it (after pressure from Bush, assumably) to say that -- possibly by the end of this year -- they'll be fully ready to take over, should the Americans start leaving.
Now, reading Maliki's tea leaves is tough for many reasons. There's a language/translation barrier, to begin with. And then there are two huge filters to what he says -- first from the Iraqi media, and then from the American media. So it's not as easy to discern what exactly he's up to, from this remote distance.
But if you put yourself in Maliki's shoes, you can understand a few things he must be thinking right now, and guess at some of the pressures he's having to deal with.
In the first place, he's not stupid. He can see CNN and other American media, and he knows what is going on in Washington, D.C. He's doing some tea-leaf reading himself. And he knows that there's a strong possibility that American soldiers will be waving goodbye for good to his country -- in the very near future. Even if the details aren't clear, the general picture is definitely getting clearer: American troops are about to start going home.
Now, we (as Americans) are free to ignore what happens in Iraq after U.S. troops leave. Once the television news media decide "Americans aren't getting killed anymore, Iraq's no longer a story," then they are going to get out of Dodge, too.
Maliki doesn't have this luxury. He has to plan for what happens next in his country. Part of that is showing confidence in the Iraqi military, and another part may be his desire to have influence on exactly how the U.S. packs up and leaves. Maliki has also been complaining recently about getting more powerful weapons for his Army than just machine guns. He could be thinking about all of that American war matériel and whether we're going to take it with us when we leave -- or whether he can convince us that it'd make more sense for us just to leave it there for him to use. There's a lot of tanks, helicopters, and armored vehicles lying around in Iraq, and it's safe to assume Maliki is currently eyeing them all, with the thought of talking Bush into leaving them behind, for him to use.
Then there is Muqtada al-Sadr, who controls Maliki's biggest bloc of supporters in the Iraqi parliament. Maliki's political "base," in other words. Al-Sadr is not shy about what he wants -- a firm deadline for Americans to leave Iraq. He will continue to pressure Maliki into demanding such a date from America.
Now, so far, Maliki has resisted. He has toed the Bush line, and pretty much repeated the White House talking points he is given. Which is why what he said last week is so interesting. If Maliki were to make overtures to congressional Democrats (without the White House being included) on the issue of fixing a firm date for withdrawal, Bush will undoubtedly be furious.
Or perhaps... if Bush is smart... he won't. Because this could be the perfect answer for all concerned: Maliki, al-Sadr, Bush, congressional Democrats and Republicans, the U.S. military, and the American public.
If Maliki burns this bridge, and publicly starts calling for a withdrawal timetable or schedule for American troops, then our involvement with the Iraq war will be over. Not immediately, but indeed inevitably.
Because Bush will then have the political cover he so desperately needs. Bush was asked at a press conference earlier this year what he would do if Maliki asked us to leave, and he unequivocally stated that Iraq is a sovereign state, and that if they asked us to leave, then we would. So he's already on record supporting this basic concept.
Which he should -- because it is going to be a lifesaver for him. He's being backed into a corner now by a Democratic Congress, and the prospect of an unsavory open revolt within his own party. There aren't a lot of good ways out of this situation for him, politically.
But if Maliki actually asked us to leave, then Bush could shrug his shoulders, and resignedly declare: "We tried to give Iraq a democracy, but now they want us to leave, so we have to leave;" and then, when it all fell apart, he would have a better scapegoat to blame for the resulting fiasco than even the Democrats: the Iraqis themselves screwed it up. This would be Talking Point Number One from the White House, from that day forward.
A close friend of mine (who is much more willing to give credence to wild conspiracy theories) believes that this is all a Machiavellian plot from the White House itself: that they told Maliki to test-market the idea of "the Iraq army can take over any time," and that they prearranged with Maliki that they would immediately disavow it from Washington, just to see how the American media reacted. That when Bush finds it most politically advantageous, he will demand that Maliki ask us to leave. Then Bush can throw up his hands, say "Oh, well, we tried," and then get out.
A few years ago, I might have believed it, too. But, at this point, I just don't give that scenario much credit. Karl Rove just ain't the political genius he is cracked up to be, in other words. Tom Toles' recent funny sketch notwithstanding.
But whoever is pressuring Maliki -- and for whatever reasons he had for saying what he said -- this may be a small and almost unnoticed foreshadowing of the real trigger for ending the American involvement in the Iraq quagmire. If the decision to set a withdrawal date came from Maliki, and not from Democrats on Capitol Hill, it would be easier for Republican politicians in this country to go along with such a plan.
While the spotlight is on the Senate this morning -- and will be for a few more weeks to come -- perhaps we should be paying closer attention to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Because he might just be the one who gets America out of Iraq.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
>the spotlight on exactly who is
>responsible for delaying the end
>of the war — the Senate Republicans.
I disagree, shock though it may be... :D
The Democrats could have ended the war weeks ago by simply letting Bush's VETO stand..
While the Republicans surely do get the blame for the starting of this war, the blame for it's continuation completely and unequivocally lies with the Democrats..
They had the power to stop the war and they chose to continue it...
Michale.....
Also, something else for you to consider..
The Senata "Pajama Party" is simply a facade so that Democrats can say, "Well, we tried" and then go back to their full funding and support of the Iraq War..
Michale....
Chris,
Here is my take on it:
1) Bush is NOT leaving Iraq no matter who calls for withdrawal. It is not going to happen, UNLESS, the Hydrocarbon Law AND SOFA agreements get signed. Then, and only then, will Bush let our military leave. I've said it for how long now? Those two items were *the* primary factor for the war in Iraq and the evidence, while not "conclusive", cannot be dismissed (see the fact that during Cheney's Secret Energy Meetings they had maps of Iraqi oil fields).
2) Right now, we are basically arming *every* faction, Sunni, Shi'ite AND Kurd. I brought this point out in my Daily Kos diary; we are playing every side against the middle, just as we did in the Iraq-Iran war. Why? Simple... chaos in Iraq gives us the *cover* to stay UNTIL those two above items get signed AND keeps EVERYONE too weak to fight our occupation both militarily and politically.
3) The Iraqi's would *love* us to leave. However, as I've pointed out, Maliki has zero power, zero control, and zero say. Gen. McCaffery's after-action report is quite clear on this matter; Maliki is a puppet figurehead who is at best not trusted, and at the worst, hated, by every faction in Iraq... except... the United States who put him in power. My #1 question still remains; who were the people that INITIALLY bombed the mosque? Consider Sunni's and Shia's were marrying each other before the invasion, and a power vacuum wouldn't have disintegrated THAT quickly between them on its own. So, take your pick; Kurds, CIA, (insert your clandestine group here).
4) The ONLY resort Bush has left is to keep us in Iraq until 2009 and HOPE he gets his two pieces of paper before he leaves office. Even if he doesn't, you can best your last dollar the next President, no matter what Party they belong to, will push for those same two pieces of paper. America has tried to get these since the 1950's and since Bush decided to invade, the chance to actually have them is too good to pass up for ANY President now that we are actually there. Conclusion... even in 2009... we aren't leaving Iraq. If we left, the ruling clerics would step in, just as they had to in Iran in 1979, to stop the violence, chaos, and restore order. The Iraqi Parliament would likely disband, though, they may go to an Iran model with a President figurehead... and we just aren't going to allow that to happen.
But that isn't what should scare the h*ll out of you. As the Middle East goes further into chaos (especially if we attack Iran), the new cold war starting with Russia (who will back the Middle East when push comes to shove, btw), and China owning most of our debt... WWIII is now, once again, becoming a viable fear.
The Iraq Withdrawal Bill has been scuttled:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QF34Q80&show_article=1
Michale.....
Under the WTF heading....
IRAQ WITHDRAWAL BILL
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---52
====================================
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---47
========================
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Notice something funny????
The **ONLY** Democratic Senator to vote NAY was none other than Harry Reid...
Michale.....
Disregard last...
What a crazy system we have where you have to vote AGAINST a bill now so you can vote FOR the bill later.. :^/
Michale.....
Michael Gass -
Actually, to tell you the truth, your whole post scared the hell out of me. I sincerely hope you're wrong, especially at the end, but the logic of your argument is compelling. Even if it's not actually WWIII, we still could see $10 for a gallon of gas in this country if things deteriorate further in the Middle East (and especially if Darth Cheney attacks Iran).
For everyone, what Michale is referring to in his posts is the fact that there's a Senate rule which says something along the lines of: "If the Majority Leader (or maybe it's the 'sponsor of the bill', sorry, I'm doing this from memory) votes against a cloture motion which fails to get 60 votes, then he can bring it back up for a vote later on. If, however, he votes FOR cloture when it doesn't get 60 votes, then he can't ever bring it back up for vote again."
Yeah, the Senate has some crazy rules, it is true.
-CW
Yes, it's true.. You can paint a very logical and very horrifying scenario if the US attacks Iran..
But I can paint an EQUALLY logical and MUCH MORE horrifying scenario with a nuclear-armed Iran..
This is very clearly a choice between the lesser of two evils...
Michale.....
Michale,
Iran has not attacked anyone since the Iraq-Iran war... and even then, that was a war based on border dispute. Why people believe Iran is going to unilaterally go after the world if they get the bomb is beyond me.
They have threatened what every other nuclear country has threatened... RETALIATION... ie... DETERRENCE.
Iran is ZERO threat.
Chris,
This was a war of resource; oil.
Now, figure that we have already hit peak oil. Bush/Cheney would have known this from the time they hit office (again, go back to the Energy Task Force)... and the Middle East is the single biggest oil concentration.
Remember when we tried to coup Chavez? The oil companies trying to get into the Caspian Sea reserves? The oil companies moving into Africa?
What do you think is going to happen when... not if... WHEN... we have our bases in the Middle East, oil is $6 a gallon in the U.S., and Europe, Russia, and the rest of the world can't even afford it? When Russia and China need that oil and we have it under our thumb?
We can predict WWIII based on that alone...
@Michael
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up the "IRAN is all peace and love" side of things..
>Iran is ZERO threat.
Yea... Tell that to Israel, who the Iranian president threatened to "wipe off the map"...
Let me put it into a different context for you.
You are a black man living on a street with your family... Your neighbor is a vulgar and bigoted redneck who has stated publicly that all colored people should be lined up against a wall and shot...
But he has never attacked anyone to date...
You now learn that your neighbor is putting together an arsenal of highly lethal weapons...
Now, I ask you...
Are you just going to sit there and let your neighbor compile all these lethal and offensive weapons, after he has publicly stated many times that he wants to wipe you and yours off the face of the map??
The fact that you claim IRAN is a "zero threat" simply shows that you have not grasp one of what the situation is in the Middle East...
I am sure Austria and Poland made the same claim about ole Adolf Hitler in the mid 1930s...
As far as your issue re: "It's all about Oil"....
Well, no duh... Oil is the lifeblood of every civilization these days...
Put it another way... If all the oxygen on the planet was generated from one or two specific locations on the planet, wouldn't you want to make sure that said oxygen would continue to flow without interruption??? Of course you would...
If you think oil is not too important in your life, try living for a DAY without it.. I bet you that you can't....
Michale.....
Michale,
What did the U.S. threaten Cuba with during the Cuban missile crisis?
What did Russia threaten when they shot down our U2?
What did Israel threaten Iraq with when Saddam launched Scud missiles at them?
What did N. Korea threaten... and has never done?
Don't give me BS...
Don't give me fearmongering...
MANY nuclear countries have "threatened" the very same thing... and only ONE has ever DONE it... US.
It was the US that pulled the coup in Iran in 1953. It was the US that tried to coup Chavez. It was the US that coup'd Chile. It was the US that coup'd Guatamala. It was the US that intervened in Haiti REPEATEDLY.
Quit telling me how much of a threat Iran is... and KNOW what a threat we HAVE been that is PROVEN.
Michael,
Before I even read your response, let me first apologize for using the term "ignorant".. It was uncalled for...
As to your post, the simple fact is nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious fanatic is a recipe for disaster. Yes, I know that Bush has 'em to, but hay.. Whatcha gonna do??
As far as being a "threat", it's always the crooks and scumbags that consider the "cops" a "threat"..
Like it or not, the United States is the world's policeman.. That's a simple fact of existence in today's world.
If terrorists like Almajahenda (sp) and Chavez consider the US a "threat" then I think that is a GOOD thing...
Michale.....
Michale,
The world's "policeman"?
Well... let us then how the "police", using the same actions of our government, would treat YOU.
First, you would be accused of a crime you never committed with no real evidence and trumped up evidence that fails upon closer scrutiny.
Next, you would have your house surrounded and told if you didn't give up the contraband you don't have, you will be shot on sight. Those are your choices; give up what you don't have, or, die.
Then, you can't leave your house or you'll die, and you don't have the contraband you are accused of, so you are now in a no-win situation. All you can do is hunker down in your house and wait for the invasion you know is coming.
And yes, it comes. Your front door is kicked in, your wife shot, kids taken into custody and then disappear, and you are arrested.
You are then taken to a kangaroo court, found guilty with no evidence whatsoever, and executed.
That is what our government did to Iraq as the "world's policeman".
Iran hadn't even done anything when Bush labeled them an Axis of Evil. And here you are crying about how Iran's President THEN started making threats to the very powers who had ALREADY pulled a coup in their country ONCE, was OPENLY calling for regime change again, and had ALREADY threatened HIM?
You need to get a grip on reality.
When a cop pulls you over on the road and cusses at you, you don't like that. When a cop beats you for no reason, you sue for everything they and the city have got. You don't like police that do that to you... but you are cheerleading if we do it to someone else.
In my world... that is called being a hypocrite.
Iran hadn't done anything??
So, I guess that lil old Hostage thing where our citizens were held for over a year doesn't count in your eyes as "anything"??
You are clearly one of those "America Bashers" who feel that the US is responsible for every bad thing in this world and has never done a lick of good in it's entire history.
Unfortunately, that is a completely untrue and irrational attitude. Even more unfortunate is that people with this attitude will not be swayed by logical and rational argument.
So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Michale.....
Michale,
Your "rational and logical" argument is that after living under a brutal dictator for 25 years, the Iranian's had no reason to take back their country and hold American's hostage in order to keep us from militarily invading them as they did so. And that because they did so, back in 1979 for christ's sake, we can, in 2002... 23 years later... still demonize them.
Yeah... you are SO logical and rational!!!
Let me be perfectly clear about this....
NOTHING justifies terrorism...
Even the commission of terrorism doesn't justify terrorism in response..
The adage that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is just so much bullshit....
NOTHING justifies terrorism...
ANY good or noble aspect that ANY cause may have is completely and 100% negated by the commission of an act of terrorism...
NOTHING justifies terrorism...
It's really THAT simple.....
Michale.....
Michale,
Uh huh... so if NOTHING justifies TERRORISM... when you moving out of the United States since you feel any act done in the past is justification to continue hating? When? Tomorrow?
Because the Sons of Liberty... you know... OUR FOREFATHERS WHO SET THE EVENTS THAT LED TO REVOLUTION IN MOTION... were TERRORISTS in the eyes of the British.
So, now we know you hate America, our forefathers, and think people should be able to change our regime anytime they wish, invade us... which puts you at risk... so when are you leaving?
One corrupt government labeling a group as "terrorists" doesn't MAKE the group terrorists..
It is the actions committed by the group that determines the label...
So, this being the case, please detail (and citing your sources) the actions that you claim the Sons Of Liberty committed that would earn them the label of "terrorists"...
I look forward to reading your response...
Michale.....
Michale,
WOW... how fast did it go from "NOTHING" to "err.. wait... I meant to say that only certain governments can use the term and errr... well"...
Can't you even present an argument that YOU'LL stick to? And btw... since you put "new parameters" that a "corrupt" government can't decide who is/isn't a terrorist, how then do you explain Bush calling Iran a terrorist regime when it was BUSH who used OUR government to invade Iraq on LIES?
Or... can I expect NEW parameters to your argument in the next response?