In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Iraqi Prime Minister made no bones about the fact he wants US troops out of the country completely by the end of 2011, exactly as agreed.
"The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, he said, speaking at his office in a leafy section of Baghdad's protected Green Zone. "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."
According to the interviewer, Maliki went to some pains to say that he doesn't plan to let Iraq align with Iran either. Since Maliki is only Prime minister after an extremely questionable election and is relying on Iranian proxy Moqtada al-Sadr and the Shi'ite Bloc to stay in power, I'll be kind and say that last part is going to be difficult for Maliki to pull off even if he wants to - which I doubt.
After all, Maliki spent the Saddam years as a guest of the mullahs.
According to the interviewer, Maliki laughed out loud when he was told that U.S. Ambassador James F. Jeffrey keeps a frayed copy of the so-called Strategic Framework Agreement in his briefcase which calls for long-term cooperation in security, defense, economy, energy and culture, among other areas.
I can well believe it.
It's hard to fault Maliki for laughing, really. President Bush's frequently stated war goals in Iraq were to have a stable Iraq who would be democratic and an ally of ours in the so-called 'war on terror.' The goals themselves were absolutely farcical in terms of the reality on the ground and what our actual war aims should have been, and even at that we have only barely accomplished one out of three, stability. And it cost us 4,000 lives and a trillion dollars, much of which was wasted or stolen.
In the end, we didn't even wind up with the oil. The leases on the oil fields Halliburton was miraculously able to save after Saddam set them on fire went to China.
To repeat what I said more than two years ago, General Petraeus, his successor General Ordiano and our warriors achieved an amazing victory in defeating an in-country insurgency backed by unfriendly states to the east and north that acted as havens, bases and transit areas for our enemies.
That said, what their valiant achievement accomplished(aside from sending a notable number of jihadis to their just desserts and putting a fighting edge on our army) was to put the best possible face on a bad situation and allow America a graceful exit.
Now, even that victory has been wasted. President Obama's weakness, his failure to confront Iran and his obvious desire for the hastiest possible departure of US forces has ensured that Iraq will fall into the Iranian axis as soon as we leave.
Maliki, like the creature of the region he is is simply doing what comes naturally and gravitating towards wha the perceives as the strong horse. If we're not seen as that strong horse, the fault doesn't lie with Maliki.
The Iraq we established at such a cost is a Shiite Islamic Republic based on Sharia with a great deal of its leadership friendly to our enemies in Iran. It will no more be a 'ally ' of ours against our enemies than say, Saudi Arabia or Yemen and will limit their 'war on terror' activities to simply suppressing any dissident elements in their own society.
Res ipsa loquiter.
5 comments:
We want out by the end of 2011. The Iraqis want us out by the end of 2011. I think we are in agreement there. In fact, if the Iraqis told the US to leave sooner, we would no doubt do so. Furthermore Mr. Maliki is not going to ask the US to remain even if he wanted to because we wouldn't stay. As such, it makes no sense for him to request such a thing.
As far as the oil goes, we never wanted it any way. As such, the fact that China may get it does not concern the US government. Whether or not we should have tried to get this oil is another story all together but at least we should be able to FINALLY put to rest the myth that the US is out to steal Iraqi resources. Unfortunately we won't be able to. Since the US is going to vilified no matter what it does, we should just act in our best interest any way and let the chips fall where they may. Clearly we aren't going to get any credit for any good deeds.
Now as for putting a "fighting edge" on our army, I hope and pray you are right, however, it appears to me that all we've accomplished is to wear down our military to the point where even basic national defense will be problematic in the near term and pershpas even more so in the long term. Furtehrmore, with our weakened military and its outdated technology the Russians and the Chinese are now the dominant world powers and will be for the forseable future. India may be able to step in and challenge them but America cannot and will be unable to do so any time in the next few decades assuming the country survives that long.
Why would Iraq want to sign oil contacts with America. From the Iraqi perspective I can think of a number of good reasons not to. 1.) chinese technolgy is superior to American technology in this area. Also, the Chinese aren't bound by the ridiculous environmental regulations the Americans are. As such, they should be able to extract the oil cheaper than the Americans can. 2.)With the US government and the American people eager to exit Itaq the Iraqis will consider the Americans untrustworthy. 3.)America is almost universially despised around the world. As such, people won't do business with American simply because it is America. If America is going to change this, it must do SOMETHING to change the narrative.
I think the myth that the US invasion of Iraq was about oil should be put to rest now. In fact, one commentator called the results to date "a sharp slap in the face" to people who believe such nonsense. Unfortunately this myth will likely persist. After all Anti-Americanism must be retained no matter what.
Furthermore the US can't even protect its own interests. So much for the myth of America being some sort of super power. This myth should die to but unfortunately it will likely be retained. After all, if you want to vilify someone, make them out to be more powerful than they actually are.
The invasion was about protecting Israel, Feith should be in jail, Buchanan's "Whose War" nailed it and Bush administration member, himself Jewish, Phillip Zelikow admitted it.
Ha ha ha Anonymous! I KNEW one of you would crawl out of the woodwork sooner or later...and of course, you're always anonymous, like the gutless wonders you are.
At least Gauleiter Pat has the balls to put his name behind his stuff, and even I admit he's not wrong about everything..just most things.
Here's a heads up, Sparky, and believe it or not, I have heard this personally from people on the inside who ought to know.
The Israelis didn't give a crap about Saddam Hussein. They had already pulled his fangs once by bombing his nuke facility at Osirak a few years before Desert Storm ( thus saving a lot of American lives BTW, those pesky Jews)and would of had no problem doing it again.
As a matter of fact, they wanted to get in on Desert Storm as well, but Bush I was too concerned with his fake Arab 'coalition' and wouldn't give the IDF the 'friendlies' electronic code so their planes could join the party safely.
No,the Israelis saw the real threat, in Iran, and warned Bush II about it long before the news of Iran's illegal nuke program went public. It's not their fault Bush dropped the ball,or that Obama is more concerned about his golf game and making America a socialist state.
Dubbya invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father, because he miscalculated on Saddam's nuclear program , and because he got lousy information from Colin Powell and George Tenet, a Clinton holdover in charge of the CIA.
While Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted a quick, punitive strike, Tenet and Powell convinced Dubbya that Iraq would be a cakewalk and a showcase for 'Arab democracy'.
We both know which option Bush picked, and how it turned out.
Blame Israel if it pleases you ( and your kind always finds some way to work Jews or Israel in no matter what the subject, no?)but those are the real facts.
And frankly , I don't care if you're convinced or not. But I think it was helpful for my readers to hear it.
-Rob-
This is how every war we ever fight is going to turn out, as long as there is a Democratic Party with any kind of real influence in the legislative branch, as well as in the judiciary. What's more to the point, its not just the liberal wing of the Democrats. The Blue Dogs are only better by a few almost negligible degrees, if that.
Any time I see a young person talking about joining the military, I advise them against it, especially if they are relatives. The plain, awful truth is, if they are killed of maimed, their sacrifice will in the long run be for nothing.
The Democrat Party will see to that.
Somebody needs to seriously look into the prospect of turning the military into a fourth, co-equal branch of government, with the power to conduct their own operations when called to war, free from political interference by both parties. If that had been the case now, the Iraq War would have ended probably within five years tops, and in the interim, no politician of significant influence would have had the guts to try to interfere with their progress.
Post a Comment