Posted on 04/24/2006 12:56:05 PM PDT by neverdem
The selection of a compromise prime minister in Iraq is a major victory for that countrys fledgling political class, and for the Bush administration. Purveyors of doom on Iraq now have some explaining to do: If the country is in the midst of a full-scale civil war fatal to our project there, how is it that elected representatives of the major factions were able to sit down and hammer out an agreement on the top positions in a national unity government? Iraq pessimists act like they have a special immunity from ever having to recalibrate their view of the conflict, as they instead move on to the latest iteration of their metaphysical despair.
The deal on the prime minister brings within reach the Bush administration's longtime goal of creating a government that includes all Iraqi factions and gets Sunni parties into the political process once and for all. The theory is that this will reduce violence by dragging elements of the Sunni insurgency into legitimate politics as well. Nice theories don't always work out in Iraq, as we have learned over the last three years. But this one has a chance of success. Immediately after the war, the Sunnis didn't have the political leadership of the Kurds, who had governed themselves for ten years, and the Shia, who quickly rallied around Ayatollah Sistani. No one claiming to speak for the Sunnis had any real legitimacy. But the Sunnis made the strategic choice to participate in last December's elections, and now they have political leaders with real roots in their communities and sway over the men wielding guns and IEDs.
The negotiations over a prime minister were messy, dragged on too long, and represented a loss of momentum from the triumph of December 15 elections. But the final result is welcome. Former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari, who two months ago had narrowly won the endorsement of the Shia parties to stay in office, is out of the job. The Bush administration viewed him as weak and incompetent, and so did the Kurds, the Sunnis, and even many Shia. It is a bit of a mystery how he managed to pull out his victory among the Shia parties in the first place. He was backed by the thug-cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who engaged in a power struggle with the U.S. over whether the prime minister would stay in power and crucially lost. The Shia coalition slowly realized that Jafaari was a non-starter given the opposition of the U.S. and Kurds and Sunnis, and picked another candidate, Jawad al-Maliki. This outcome is an important signal to the Sunnis: If they play in Iraqi politics, they can make a difference.
Malikis virtues shouldnt be exaggerated. He comes from the same Islamist Dawa party as Jafaari, and has been cool to the U.S. But he is an Iraqi nationalist an important quality given the dangerous Iranian influence in the country and has a reputation as an experienced, skilled politician. He obviously has significant challenges ahead, foremost among them forming a government over the next 30 days in a very volatile political environment. It is crucial that clean and effective officials be put in charge of the ministries of defense and interior. If progress has been made in reconstituting an Iraqi army, the police are still in disarray, infiltrated by Shia thugs. Iraqis are much more comfortable opening their doors when the Americans come knocking than when the police do. That has to change. The Shia militias, who have contributed more than their share to the sectarian violence of late, will have to be put out of business eventually. This would have been easier to do a couple of years ago, but if militias can be defanged in Afghanistan, the same can happen in Iraq.
The political process is Iraq is the key to the country's political future, which is why the deadlock in recent months was so discouraging. But it now looks like the Iraqi politicians were employing their usual MO of teetering on the brink of catastrophe before pulling back. They have a real chance now of forming a government that is legitimate (some people set off fireworks in the streets of Baghdad to mark the breakthrough) and inclusive. But even if the national element of the insurgency weakens, the foreign jihadists aren't going away, and will continue their savage attempts to foment a civil war. The problems with Iraq's economy and infrastructure, exacerbated by the violence, will also endure. But as long as Iraqi leaders are willing to compromise, and however haltingly to point the country forward, the catastrophic collapse sought by the terrorists will not happen. And victory, in the form of the establishment of a decent, stable government capable of defending itself, will remain in sight.
Thank you for the info. It sounds like a pain in the a$$ way to run a government but given the numerous factions in Iraq and the muslim propensity to settle every problem with a gun or a bomb, it's probably the best type of government for them. Sounds like it forces them to work together.
and then we should dump our garbage there for 1000 years. The "good people" of Iran have had enough time to enter the civilized world. They have the government they deserve.
It means nothing to me.
We are taking out the "role-models" that little wannabe terroristas look up to.
BTW, it should be pointed out that continued instability in Iraq is a good thing, since it means that we still need to base troops there and are a major player in the ME.
Note that world terror is on the run, and nearly all the countries quietly funding and supporting it have come over to our side, including, to some degree, Iran and Syria. This is working out to plan geo-politically. Domestically however, most voters are confused and have forgotten the lessons of 9/11. We'll see how it imacts the elections.
Your daughter should not enlist unless she is prepared to go anywhere anytime for any length of time. My son will be home from Iraq on the 30th of this month. Its the end of his third combat tour. The Gulf war, Bosnia, and Iraq. Some wars in history have lasted a 100 years. This has been a small war with few causalities but there is still no time clock where you can punch in and out.
If it has to be explained to you at this late date, then either you've been living in a cave for the last ten years or you're just an obstinate liberal. I hope it's the former.
We are fighting a Global War on Terror. It will not end anytime soon, so the short answer is yes. We have a volunteer military. If one does not want to be sent to a war zone, they should not enlist.
The current front is Iraq. We were told on 11-8-01:
"We are at the beginning of our efforts in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is only the beginning of our efforts in the world. No group or nation should mistake Americans' intentions: Where terrorist group exist of global reach, the United States and our friends and allies will seek it out and we will destroy it."
April 17, 2002:
In the second phase of the war on terror, our military and law enforcement intelligence officers are helping countries around the world in their efforts to crack down on terror within their borders. Global terrorism will be defeated only by global response. We must prevent al Qaeda from moving its operations to other countries. We must deny terrorists the funds they need to operate. We must deny them safe havens to plan new horrors and indoctrinate new recruits.
Because the Iraqi government wants us there and the Mission isn't over. We are still killing AQ, which has declared Iraq as the frontline against the US. Remember those guys? The ones who declared war against us in 1996 and attacked us repeatedly culminating with 9/11.
Iraq is part of the WOT.
Thanks for the ping!
This is a step in the right direction. It seems like the nation is stabalizing a bit from where it was a couple months ago. The insurgency is running out of time.
This should have happened years ago.
Slap myself on the head. How could I forget that these are the only two things that can ever comprise a major victory.
Of course, when these two things happen, the folks who use those definitions for a victory now will then morph the definition so that victories, or even progress, are always impossible.
Frankly, I would rather see a consensual Iraqi government than Zarqawi's head on a stick. Even better, both.
But to denigrate the obvious and significant milestone this represents suggests that the denigrator is not interested in reality, but only denigration.
But to denigrate the obvious and significant milestone this represents suggests that the denigrator is not interested in reality, but only denigration.
It has...repeatedly.
YEAH! Take that! And that to every troll who has dissed me on this site for speaking the truth about Iraq.
EAT IT!! :-)
(I figured I'd take the mature approach...LOL)
That, once again, you remind us that you're not to be taken seriously. Not that it's any great victory anymore -- it's too predictable.
Do you work for CNN?
Do you work for CNN?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.