Bush Puts The Screws To Maliki
By Rick Moran Posted in Foreign Affairs | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Bush Administration in the past has rightly decried the leaking of classified information from intelligence sources whose motives may or may not have been largely partisan in nature. But the deliberate leak yesterday of a classified analysis of Iraqi's embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley should be seen in the context of statecraft and not necessarily the typical Washington bureaucratic game of "gotchya" - a difference that may be lost on some but is telling nonetheless.
Read on . . .
The audience targeted with this leak is extremely small. In fact, it is an audience of one - the Iraqi Prime Minister. The President will meet with Maliki on Wednesday in Jordan and the timing of this leak will not be lost on the PM nor will the words of Hadley, who makes up for a lack of elegance in language with a series of triphammer verbal blows that questions Maliki's fitness for the job:
The memo presents an unvarnished portrait of Mr. Maliki and notes that he relies for some of his political support on leaders of more extreme Shiite groups. The five-page document, classified secret, is based in part on a one-on-one meeting between Mr. Hadley and Mr. Maliki on Oct. 30.
“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change,” the memo said of the Iraqi leader. “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”
It has been apparent since June that the situation on the ground was getting beyond Maliki's control. That's why in August, CENTCOM proposed the current redeployment of tens of thousands of US troops to Baghdad, a strategy that has not worked, is not working and will not work until Maliki gives the go ahead for the United States army to crush Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Militia and until Maliki's promises about sending more Iraqi troops to assist the Americans in holding areas cleaned and swept by our forces are realized.
As for al-Sadr, the radical cleric has carved out an independent role for himself and it is becoming clear that he has little interest in cooperating with Maliki in tamping down the violence. Nor does he have any interest in having Shias share power with Sunnis and Kurds - something he has made no secret of from the beginning:
In describing the Oct. 30 meeting between Mr. Hadley and Mr. Maliki, it says: “Maliki reiterated a vision of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish partnership, and in my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so.” It said the Iraqi leader’s assurances seemed to have been contradicted by developments on the ground, including the Iraqi government’s approach to the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia known in Arabic as Jaish al-Mahdi and headed by Moktada al-Sadr.
“Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister’s office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq’s most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries — when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) killings — all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.”
Needless to say, these actions are 180 degrees in opposition to what the Iraqi government needs to be doing to assure the Sunnis that they will have a place at the table in any Iraqi power sharing arrangement. In effect, Maliki's actions are fueling the insurgency while he asks more and more of his American allies in helping to snuff it out.
And the aforementioned failure of Maliki to deliver Iraqi troops to the capitol to assist the Americans is just one indication of how tenuous Maliki's hold on power actually is:
The memo refers to “the current four-brigade gap in Baghdad,” a seeming acknowledgment that there is a substantial shortfall of troops in the Iraqi capital compared with the level needed to provide security there, in part because the Iraqi government has not dispatched all the forces it has promised. An American brigade generally numbers about 3,500 troops, though Iraqi units can be smaller. While Democrats have advocated beginning troop withdrawals as a means of putting pressure on Mr. Maliki, the memo suggests that such tactics may backfire by stirring up opposition against a politically vulnerable leader.
“Pushing Maliki to take these steps without augmenting his capabilities could force him to failure — if the Parliament removes him from office with a majority vote or if action against the Mahdi militia (JAM) causes elements of the Iraqi Security Forces to fracture and leads to major Shia disturbances in southern Iraq,” the memo says.
Not mentioned in the memo is one of the big reasons for that "four-brigade gap:" Iraqi troops refusing to serve in Baghdad by either mutinying against their commanders or going AWOL.
If the Prime Minister cannot even control his own armed forces, how much power does he really have? Couple this weakness with his accommodation of both the Mahdi Militia and the even larger Badr Brigades and it may be time to start asking why we should prop someone up who doesn't have a leg to stand on in the first place?
Good intentions don't mean squat. We have heard this empty suit of a Prime Minister talk for more than a year about what needs to be done to curb the insurgency, bring the militias to heel, clean up the rampant corruption in the ministries (where taxpayer monies are being shoveled down a black hole), affect a political settlement that includes a sharing of oil revenues with all parties, and bring the Saddamites who terrorized the Iraqi people for more than a quarter of a century to justice.
He has accomplished none of it. He has barely started most of it. He has, in fact, been an obstacle to achieving many of those goals. He has tried to play both ends against the middle with al-Sadr on one side and the Americans on the other and has satisfied neither and disgusted both. His efforts to reform the Interior Ministry to ferret out the independent death squads and militia members who have infiltrated the Iraqi Police Force have been for naught. And his efforts to unite the country politically have consisted largely of grandiose rhetoric with little in the way of concrete proposals that could be the basis for negotiations with the Sunnis and Kurds.
He gives off no sense of urgency, no realization that the patience of the American people is nearly at an end and that he and his government are in mortal danger of not only becoming irrelevant but also extinct. He continues to try and muddle through. And in the meantime, Iraq bleeds.
But he's all we've got at the moment. So the President will trundle off to Jordan and see if he can impress upon the Iraqi Prime Minister the absolute necessity for him to start acting. The time for pleasantries about uniting Iraq in brotherhood are over. It's time for the Prime Minister to get on his hind legs and fight: Fight the insurgents. Fight the militias. Fight the crime, the corruption, the sense of utter futility that has infected the population and has caused so many to lose hope.
I am not hopeful that any of Hadley's prescriptions will help the patient because what he really needs is a spinal transplant. But somebody has to get through to this man or Iraq will continue to devolve until it is a place fit only for gravediggers and gravemakers.
The Times even said it was someone in the White House who gave them the doc. Are you saying that there's a Democratic mole there?
This was a calculated effort to put pressure on Maliki ahead of the summitt on Wednesday and let him know that our patience has its limits.
Crude...but effective.
I was struck by the disconnect between the actual memo and the Times' analysis. To me, the memo read as a road-map for al-Maliki to stay in office, and while I'm not sure he can pull it off, there are a lot of constructive thoughts in there. And my sense was that Hadley has not dispaired of al-Maliki, and neither has Bush, hence this meeting. The New York Times, on the other hand, focuses exclusively on how the memo expresses doubts about al-Maliki and contains plans to replace him.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
read the whole memo yet so I can only respond to the comments in this diary. I will try and get to the memo later today.
First off I will speak to the political ramifications. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of leaking this brief right now is. The President is to meet with Maliki this week and chooses to release a slap in the fact to him right before his arrival? Al-Sadr is condemning the meeting and now the President decides to slap down Maliki. I don't see how this will achieve anything other than weakening Maliki.
As for the long term analysis it appears that we are stuck with an undesirable choice because the other choices are even less desirable. But I wonder if having a weak but somewhat pliable President is not the problem.
I don't think that any Iraqi President with close ties to the United States is ever going to be an effective leader. Too many domestic opponents will use that against him. And while it may seem desirable to take out Al-Sadr the question is, who replaces him and how much power does he get from an Al-Sadr martyrdom?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The thing is, flyerhawk, that it isn't a slap in the face to al-Maliki, unless you think a wake up call is the equivalent to a slap in the face. It's an outline of what he needs to do to stay in power, and I expect it is the agenda for the meeting that is taking place today.
The Iraqis do have a weak and somewhat pliable president. His name is Talabani. As the PM, we need someone who is able to do the sorts of things outlined in this memo.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Had they released this a month ago or a month from now I would say that it was simply a way to publicize the objectives of this administration in regards to Iraq and what Maliki should do.
But to leak in days before their meeting seems to suggest that the Bush Administration wanted to set the tone of the meeting.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But what came through was Hadley's disappointment that Maliki had failed in so many areas and was in fact, impeding progress in some.
And some of those suggestions are clearly non starters. Getting the Saudis to help with the insurgents? The die hard elements of the insurgency are pretty immune to importunings from anyone. They are the ex-Baathists who realize that unless they're granted immunity for past crimes, will be facing the same fate as Saddam. Reconciliation efforts by Maliki have hit a roadblock in Parliament because no Shia politician wants to be seen coddling the Saddamites.
As for buttressing Maliki politically by getting some secular moderates to back him - this is an intruiging idea but remember that the most of the Alawi's of Iraq have little or no credibility with the people. They are seen exclusively as America's tools - unfair but that's the reality of it. The secularists could use some help with party building since they are so far behind the Shia parties in getting organized - many of whom have been in existence for decades.
In short, Bush is going to Jordan to tell Maliki the clock is ticking on American involvement and that it's time to get moving on making good on his promises - if he can.
Seems to me that the "sectarian" violence we keep hearing about is arising from an internal split within the Shia. The Sunnis are nearly spent as a political and paramilitary force, except to the degree that the current structure of government keeps them in the picture. al-Sadr can only benefit from letting his militias keep making trouble, and it seems Maliki is operating not only against his own power-base but against practical reality. In other words, he can't succeed at the job we want him to do, which is to preserve the three-nation state.
Am I wrong about all this? It would take a rare statesman indeed to bring the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds together and hold them together long enough (20 years? 50 years? never?) for a functional federal state to coalesce.
What exactly is the Administration's rationale for the three-nation Iraq? Is it just to preserve the legitimacy of a territorial configuration that is less than 100 years old? (Who cares?) Is it to keep the Sunnis from making trouble since they have no oil? (The Shiites will crush them brutally- end of problem.) Is it to keep the Kurds from destabilizing Turkey? (I can see that, but isn't it a different problem?) Is it to keep an independent Iraqi Shi-istan from aligning with Iran? (I can see that too, but wouldn't it be better to attack that problem head-on by confronting Iran?)
Would probably suggest that Sunni paramilitary power hasn't exactly evaporated quite yet.
I think that eventually we will see a break-up of the 3 nation Iraq but this will occur after we leave. And it will likely lead to a lot of bloodshed and complete political turmoil in the region.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
A divided Iraq - easy pickings for Iran and Syria. Some federalism must survive or we'll have three or four Lebanons instead of the one.
I think Kurdistan can make a real go as an independent nation. Naturally this will be a big problem for Turkey. But it's hard to imagine Iran or Syria colonizing them.
The rump Sunni population in Iraq doesn't really seem to matter to anyone. Do you expect that Saudi Arabia or Egypt will heavily arm them to do guerrilla war against a Shiite entity? (Or perhaps Syria will do so, and go against Iran?)
Iraqi Shiistan will probably align with Iran anyway. (Or maybe not.) If that is really the concern, then why not make a deal to keep a small US force in Shiistan permanently, like South Korea? To the extent that Americans are getting killed by insurgents today, wouldn't that problem go away if there is an ethnic partition?
It seems self-defeating to me that we're putting so much energy into holding three scorpions together in a bottle in order to avoid different problems elsewhere.
From what I have see, the vast majority of the people of Iraq resent reporters whose first question is whether they are Kurd, Shiite or Sunni and that they consider themselves Iraqi first. They voted for a government with a very high percentage of all groups, incl Sunnis in the last election participating. The Sunni reps in the government have not left the government for "Montgomery" for their succeeding states.
The scorpions, it seems to me are a distinct minorities within the Shiite and Sunni communities and that even the Sunni scorpions are not representative of their community. The other scorpions are al qaida and Iran.
We can win the war only by going to the source, ie Iran, esp if Malaki hasn't the courage to take on the extremists in his own community.
But I do think it is well worth the effort to keep together a freely elected government that unifies the vast majority of the people across ethnic lines. And I don't the alternatives would be any less difficult in the different problems they would present.
What is called for is bold action by Bush towards Iran and or Malaki towards al Sadr.
Yes, we need "dialogue" with Iran, as in "reign in al sadr, stop fomenting violence in Iraq and stop the nuke plan or your regime ends before Christmas."
I just think it is worth defending the elected government chosen by the people. To honor what they risked their lives to put in place vs some new plan, not affirmed by the people, but rather "won" by the scorpions, that holds no promise of being any easier or "more stable." In fact, the kind of stability we would likely get is the kind that brought us 9/11.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
...on a sense that the people of Iraq themselves are more loyal to their ethnicities than to the Iraqi federal state. You're arguing that the reverse is true, and if you're right, then of course the gravitational pull within Iraq will be in the direction of a stable federal state. I'm entirely willing to grant the possibility, since I have no confidence whatsoever in the quality of information we're getting from Iraq. But that also means I have no way to be convinced of your argument!
You also argue that it's axiomatically good to give democracy a chance, and to honor the results of the popular elections. On this point I'm far less sanguine than you are, I must sadly admit.
You're also activating a concern for our own domestic security (meaning, we shouldn't let apparent "stability" lull us into being vulnerable to a new 9/11). But I'm not arguing for "stability" in the sense of Cold-war-style Realpolitik. It just seems to me that we're trying to avoid reality by encouraging Maliki (and his successors) to hold together a state that may not want to stay together.
I'll take a big risk here and make an analogy: look at how Czechoslovakia partitioned after the Velvet Revolution. It happened almost overnight, and peacefully. Of course you will rejoin: look at how Yugoslavia partitioned! Almost overnight, and bloodily. But there as in Iraq, it all depends on which gravitation is stronger among the people themselves: the ethnic or the multi-ethnic.
As I said above, it's certainly possible for a statesman of historic caliber to bring the three ethnicities together and coalesce into a state. But that man is not Maliki, and in any case the process will take much more time than we are willing to stay in the role of midwife.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I'll take a big risk here and make an analogy: look at how Czechoslovakia partitioned after the Velvet Revolution. It happened almost overnight, and peacefully. Of course you will rejoin: look at how Yugoslavia partitioned! Almost overnight, and bloodily. But there as in Iraq, it all depends on which gravitation is stronger among the people themselves: the ethnic or the multi-ethnic.
Yugoslavia was always a hotbed of ethnic dissent. It was bound together by an authoritarian who used harsh rule because there was an even worse dictator on their doorsteps. The moment that threat disappeared the hodgepodge of micro-nations that was Yuogslavia fell to their ethnic boundaries and squabbles.
People talk of putting a Federalist state in Iraq but I think our only hope in that regard is more of a consortium that would split oil revenues but with each group running essentially autonomously. The central government would really only serve as an arbiter for territorial disputes and to protect the oil assets, along with UN/US/NATO/whatever protection.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If the leak was deliberate (which it most certainly was, unless the Bush administration has sunk to an ineffable low of incompetence), I fail to see how it will accomplish a good of any kind.
Printing excerpts from Hadley's memo in a newspaper undermines Maliki in the eyes of both the U.S. public and Sadr's supporters. On the one hand the evaluation says he is "a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so" (so why should we continue supporting him?)and on the other it chides Maliki for taking steps to facilitate Sadr's efforts "to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad" (such that Sadr's supporters will now have no doubt whatever that Maliki is a U.S. puppet should he deviate from his appeasement of the rabble-rousing cleric).
Couldn't the memo have been passed to Maliki privately? Or, better yet, couldn't the president have conveyed these themes to him personally? What good comes from leaking the memo (aside from making the NY Times happy for a day)?
Don't forget that the Administration is also thinking ahead to the blame game - "Who Lost Iraq" seems like a dumb question but they may also have wanted to get something on the record about Maliki's incompetence.
Too political? Presidents spend most of their second term thinking about their place in history - so this kind of speculation may not be too far off.
But also, it doesn't necessarily undermine Maliki any more than he already has proven to be a failure is some respects. This is due to his dawdling on several issues that he feels he can't move on without the approval or assent of al-Sadr or the Shia heirarchy. In this sense, it is letting him know that time is running out and he better MOVE.
although, sadly, it may help him out in the short-term, with respect to how the MSM perceives him.
Is Bush really trying to have a success in Iraq, or is he just trying to look good in the evanescent present?
In my opinion anyway
"President" Bush made the Chinese blink when our Military Aircraft was forced to land on Chinese soil, took action against the Taliban, Invaded Iraq with the knowledge of the tremendous risks involved and continues to try and salvage a honorable solution for the conflict. I don’t think looking good has ever really been a priority of this man. The compassionate conservative slogans, Harriet Miers, guest worker programs, etc aside, This President has had the largest set of Nads of any president since Harry Truman dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan. In fact I think I could make a case that Harriet Miers and the Guest Worker program have further demonstrated that this president does not make decisions to please the populace or raise his own Political Image for historical purposes. Right or wrong GW has proven time and again that it is his conviction not politics that have driven him, security of the nation not legacy. I will go further and predict that the historical Truth of the Rumsfeld departure will turn out as the absolute insistence of Rumsfeld himself not being able to stomach the distraction his continuance as SECDEF was causing this administration.
I am politically to the Right of this President. I disagree on policy issues, many not all. The left does not dishearten me because I know what garbage they wish to unleash on the American People and I am prepared to keep fighting to defeat them. I am disappointed by my conservative brethren who now are starting to sound just like the defeatist in the media and are starting to hint at a cut and run phase out of Iraq. I don’t have to watch CNN to observe that many Americans have no stomach to continue fighting; I can read from the typing fingers of many conservative bloggers the very same sentiments.
The saying - Keep your friend’s close and enemies closer may need to be revised. Maybe it is our friends/allies and fellow conservatives that we need to keep glued next to us. I sense that the right is following the left down the abyss. I pray that we again find strength to continue the struggle for freedom. I hope that the malaise going on in our own house is temporary. I was stunned by the defeat the Rubies took this election. I truly thought that the electorate was signaling that they were throwing in the towel with regards to the WOT. But is has been 5 plus years since 911, Americas attention span is half of that. Regardless we have to soldier on. So, I don’t think negative comments directed towards this Presidents motives are fair and I don’t think they lend anything to the discussion.
With respect
Mike
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
It was not I, you'll notice, who first raised President Bush's political/historical motives as an explanation for the leak of Hadley's memo. Mr. Moran did so in response to my post that I am mystified (still) by Bush's use of the ploy.
As for the inadvisabilty of rendering negative comments in general about our nation's forty-third commander-in-chief, let me state again that I firmly believe the Grand Old Party and the overall cause of conservatism have been dealt a severe blow by his administration, what with his oxymoronic "big-government conservatism," fiscal irresponsibilty, and sheer incompetence (which may be on its fullest display in Iraq). I hasten to add that I am not alone in this regard (e.g., Bruce Bartlett's Impostor -- a good read), and I also reiterate that the sooner conservatives realize how much their/our principles have been betrayed by George W. Bush, the better.
Thank you for a very civil reply
Best regards and a very early merry Christmas
The President has big nads and does what he thinks is best.
-and-
The President has damaged the cause of conservatism.
Both true.
What has conservatives still mystified and upset is we all fell into the same trap of assuming a tough Republican was a conservative. Many still think he is.
He's not. We all went along for the ride, expecting every day for him to pull a conservative rabbit out of his hat. Face it, none of us on this forum (I think) has any experience with both houses and the executive in Republican hands. We all assumed that he/they would do what we thought should be done - since a 'conservative' congress and President were in power.
Each time something didn't happen (or did, like the Rx bill), we assumed it was a just political tactic to shore up his support, when in fact it was something he wanted done.
Since the masses didn't protest en masse, Congress shrugged and went along for the ride (they are our representatives, after all) and did what they know how to do: earmark
The President is what he is:
Conservative on Abortion, Gay Marriage, Taxes, judges, foreign policy and Big Goverment spender for multiple causes.
I think he's also a realist. If America is not willing to fight any longer, he'll pull back and do what he can to ensure another 9-11 doesn't happen, but he will not keep fighting a fight we wont support, even if it has to be fought. My guess is the administration believes they can interdict serious threats to Israel and the US and can wait for momentum to build for the next phase, under another administration.
We cannot take it further today (ie Iran) without the support of the American people. Unless, that is, we are willing to see real prosecutions in the media for treason and espionage and a whole lot more blood in the M.E. than we've seen thus far. I don't think the US is quite ready to go there yet.
It seems Muqtada AL-Sadr has just ordered a large number of Shi'ite political figures to quit the new Iraqi Government. He is now in rebellion. If Milacki doesn't want to start being known as merely Lacki, as in AL-Sadr's lackey, he needs to brand Al-Sadr a traitor and ask for US assistance in hunting him down.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I doubt that Iraq has the stomach for it and I can guarentee that the US electorate doesn't, but hey, we've already lost, might as well try something new.
It goes like this:
1) All Iraqis have until December 11th to turn in all explosives, machine guns, grenades (i.e. anything bigger than a pistol) to the local police station.
2) Starting December 12th, any male above the age of 14 possessing any of the above will be shot on sight.
Of course, it may be too late for this approach. It's the approach we should have taken while we were still in control of the whole country.
Gun control isn't going to do anything but disarm the good guys.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
If you try to divide them into three countries- there will be a REAL civil war on our hands. The bloodshed would be insane, and in the end you would have a sunni rump state supported by Syria and Al Queda and the Turks would probably invade Kurdistan. The Shia south would be an appendage of Iran.
This makes sense only to idiots like Joe Biden..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
that the NYT is in Bush's pocket. Is that what you mean?
If Bush has people leaking things to the NYT thinking it will be helpful, he's got some real problems.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.