What Will Maliki Do?

[jyl]

I am struck by how little enthusiasm the Iraq government is showing for the Administration's plan to commit 20,000 additional US troops to an intense effort to control Baghdad (the "surge").

Prime Minister Maliki appears to have opposed increasing US troops, escalating the US presence in central Baghdad, and US command over operations in the city. He had requested that US troops concentrate on patrolling the periphery of Baghdad, leaving the city proper to Iraqi Army troops. The Bush plan, which goes exactly against Maliki's wishes, is being forced on him, and while Bush says he has Maliki's personal committment to contribute the promised Iraqi forces and to take action against both Shiite and Sunni militia, we're seeing Maliki keep a pretty low profile on the whole idea.

Maliki's survival depends on the political support of Shiite militias (particularly the Sadr militia), and the Council is dominated by Shiites. Much of the violence in Baghdad is being caused by Shiite miitias and death squads. Maliki's government and the US have repeatedly clashed over whether US and Iraqi troops can go after Shiite militias. Maliki obviously wants to protect his Shiite supporters. Yet his survival also depends on US political support. And US patience is surely near the breaking point. Bush has said he'd stay in Iraq even if it were just his wife and his dog by his side, but if the "surge" fails, Bush won't get another chance to be "the decider" and Maliki's US support will disappear.

Poor Maliki! He doesn't seem to want the job anymore (he told the Wall Street Journal in Dec that he wished he could resign and serve the Iraqi people form outside the government) but he must fear that he wouldn't live a month outside the Green Zone.

So what will Maliki do, or try to do?

1. He could obstruct US plans, failing to send most of the promised Iraqi batallions and blocking US forces from key Shiite neighborhoods. (This is essentially what happened in the last US attempt to control Baghdad. That was the ill-fated "clear, hold, rebuild" plan which stalled because the Iraqis failed to "hold" neighborhoods that the US had "cleared".)

2. He could support and cooperate with the US, sending large numbers of Iraqi troops to aggressively hunt down Shiite militias in Shiite neighborhoods including Sadr City, and then keep the militias from re-emerging.

3. He could evade the US, and help his Shiite supporters do so, by convincing the key Shiite militias to keep a low profile for the next few months, hide their weapons and wait out the US "surge" while giving the US plenty of time to shoot it out in at Sunni neighborhoods. The result would look like option 2, except that there would be surprisingly little fighting between US/Iraqi troops and Shiite militias, but also few militia or weapons captured. Success would appear to have been easy, in Shiite neighborhoods. Then the militias, death squads, etc would re-emerge as US troops depart.

4. He could resign, and hope that he can keep an apartment in the Green Zone and therefore his life.

5. He could do something else (the other choice).

Your bet?

[jyl]

This is actually a pretty critical issue. 20,000 additional US troops in Baghdad will merely waste their lives if the Iraqi government and Army fail to do their part or, worse, actively obstruct US actions.

You see, most of the discussion about Iraq, on PPOT and in the government and media, assumes that the Iraqi government wants roughly what the US wants - to quell the sectarian killing and stabilize the country as a more-or-less democracy of three ethnic groups.

After all, the US government set up the Iraqi government, funds it, controls some of its operations, and Bush has praised Maliki profusely.

But what if the Iraqi government has a different agenda?

[Hugh R]

I heard a comment recently that I think sums it up there. The people in Iraq care about their tribe, Kurd, Sunni, ****e, not the country, that is some other thing that other people are trying to create. It does not matter to them.

[holtjv]

I think Hugh hit the proverbial nail on its head; tribal cultures don't really recognize borders; just their clans. Maliki has publicly stated that he didn't want the job and would not seek reelection. I think he's gonzo.

On the news shows this a.m., the surge supporters claim that the opposition's only solution involves defeat and that they offer no answer for victory. While they certainly have a point, the unspoken answer may be that there is no answer for victory.

Jack

[tabs]

I wrote about the breakdown of Iraqi society into clans and tribes months ago...

Maliki is going to obstruct the US effort because he is the puppet of Sadr and the Iranians. THe Iraqi govt could vaporize before our very eyes. The US on the other hand will hold a coup detate and will install Hakim as the new Iraqi PM. Hakim and Sadr are mortal enemies, and vie for power in Iraq. . The US military will bring Drang und Sturm onto the Shi!t Militias under Sadr. If Kurdish troops are primarily used there is hope.

Bush will make this work even if he has to kill every Iraqi to do it.

Bush has put the USs back to wall in the ME, its either do or die. Everybody thinks this is like Vietnam, NOT QUIET, the US hasn't had as much on the line since WW2 or the Cuban Missle crisis.

[jyl]

I voted for "obstruct", myself.

tabs, how much control do you think Hakim would have over the Iraqi military, if installed as the new PM by the US?

[tabs]

I think about 1/2 the Iraqi Military are also Militia Members and will be purged.. The ones that are going to used in Bagdad will hopfully be purged beofre they are deployed. If they use the Kurds, they will be effective and won't have a dual loyalty problem. Hakim has his own Militia, actually its called the Sadr Brigade.

The Dems are fools if they think that if the US draws down troop levels the iraqis are gona step up. The reverse is quiet true there will be blood running in the streets, the Sh!!ts want the US to draw down. That is what the Dems seem to want, let the Iraqis kill each other on a wholesale level. Iraq will start to look like Somilia the only difference will be that Iran will be the major player in the country, which is something that the Saudis, Jordians and even Israel cannot tolerate. And if they go to war and the supply of oil from the Region is threatened the US, China, India, and Japan certainily couldn't stand taht and the US will have to go back in to stabilize the situation or risk a collapse of the World Economy. That means a bigger presence than we have now. Quiet frankly that is why Bush has deployed another Carrier group to the Gulf, to protect the oil production. We will wipe Iran off the map with airstrikes, everything that moves will be smashed if the Saudi and Iran goes to war.

The point being that the US is getting its back up against the wall and when that happens the kid gloves come off and the mailed fist of the US Military goes on. If U listen to the Dems rhetoric its getting very shrill, as they realize that the US is now btween a rock and a hard place, only they want to talk and not fight our way out. However Iran has not been condusive to Diplomacy.

[holtjv]

We'll know fairly soon, in either case. With one of the first buildups occuring in a Sunni neighborhood, ghalaziha? (being hit by shiites), the first test will be whether or not maliki will allow his brethren to be killed.

Then we'll have to see if they get smart and melt away again, only to re-emerge once things have settled down. No reason not to repeat the playbook against the US as it seems we have become predictable.

Iran is highly complex especially considering that ahmadinejad has less power than he projects. the moderates in Iran most definitely have power and are seriously pissed at their president--even the college kids are protesting his idiotic rhetoric.

Understatement of the year # 1: the answer to what will happen in the middle east lies in the history books.