Posted on 11/30/2006 9:24:28 AM PST by jmc1969
AMMAN, Jordan — President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed the Iraqi prime minister on Thursday to disband a heavily armed Shiite militia blamed for much of the country's sectarian violence and were told by Nouri al-Maliki that controlling the group was no "big deal."
Bush and Rice repeatedly probed al-Maliki on his plans to deal with the Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the aide said.
"It is not a big problem and we will find a solution for it," the official quoted al-Maliki as telling Bush.
Al-Sadr is a key al-Maliki political backer and the prime minister has regularly sidestepped U.S. demands that the cleric's militia be disbanded.
At a news conference after their meetings, Bush declined to answer a question about the al-Sadr issue and deferred to al-Maliki.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Our Government may have done it before but as a policy of this administration the spread of democracy in the ME is the goal and will remain as long as President Bush is in office. Replacing one dictator with another will hardly bring reconciliation.
Then why has Al Sadr's group held such power for so long and created such mayhem??????
Is there a different colored sun on this guy's planet????
I agree with your assessment. There is an added, bitter irony to this situation. We have been bombarded by the media for the last several years with the conventional-wisdom mantra that "although our military and Rumsfeld did a good job toppling Saddam, they failed miserably to plan for the rebuilding".
This is an example of "the Big Lie" in operation. The fact is that just as our troops were putting paid to Saddam's regime in the summer of 2003, Colin Powell and the State Department, with their allies in the CIA, successfully wrested control of the post-Battle of Iraq rebuilding policy away from Rumsfeld and the DOD.
This led to debacles such as the disfunctional Paul Bremer consulship and consequent misjudgements such as the failure to kill al Sadr, our defeat at the "First Battle of Fallujah", and the failure to shut down the Syrian and Iranian terrorist resupply lines when the American people would have still supported it. The military was ready to go into Syria and take out the terrorist supply and training bases there, but the diplomats forbade it. As a bonus, if we had done that, we might have found some of those "non-existent" WMDs in Syria.
As I said, it's a bitter irony that Rumsfeld and our military leadership are castigated for failing to plan for the post-war rebuilding, when the truth is that their plans were quashed and Colin Powell and the diplomats are really culpable.
Sistani is getting ready to get on a plane to go to London for "health care" reasons - and never return.
Got pollonium?
there won't be a meal on his flight - he's going coach.
Understood, but it still works either way. See my post #43. There is no functional difference between the UN and the US State Department. Their goals and agendas are the same, and have nothing to do with the goals and agendas of the American people and their elected representatives.
>>Sadr is one big a-hole but he's not the only a-hole that has to be dealt with there.
Many of them in the State Department. And just to be clear, I just want them on the street, looking for an honest job, and not dealt with as Sadr needs to be dealt with.
Does that mean al Sadr gets to be the new "Shah of Iraq"?
thinking outside the box here, wonder what would happen if the Sunni and Kurdish areas of Iraq were to vote for partition and then voted to be combined with Jordan? Think that'd short circuit Iran's plans for Iraq's oil fields?
Nouri al-Maliki is a prominent member of the Islamic DAWA party that opposed Saddam, because Saddam was secular and DAWA wants to install an Islamic Govt.
The DAWA party is a Shia organization now Based in Iran. It is also funded by Iran.
When all the chaos is settled, the Iraq Government more than likely will be an Islamic state, like Iran. -tom
I dont think a rump ShiaIraqistan would allow Iran in, in any event. Theyd be primarily Arab and 10 million strong. They'd probably hook up with some Western ally ( the US probably)which would safeguard their borders. After all, Sadr and his followers are not even a majority in Shia/Iraq, and I doubt he'd vote to allow Persians run the show after all is said and done.
Besides, why would Iraq Kurdland join with Arab Jordan? Never happen.
Security for one. If they were given the same autonomy that they enjoy now why not? It'd tend to keep both Turkey and Iran at bay wouldn't you think?
Whats in it for Jordan? Kurdish oil? I doubt theyd get any. They didnt keep the West BAnk, I doubt they want a bunch or irascable Iraqis and non-Arab Kurds to complicate their monarchy. It would more than double their population and headaches
Vanderjerk and Iraq are not analogous.
Tell that to Vandy.
There's only one Decider.
Stop dreaming. The Iraqi governing Shia are already in bed with Iran. Guess who funds them? No, they're not going to let Iran take them over, but they are and will continue to be close allies of Iran. That's why this Iraqi democracy nonsense must stop.
Correct, and tragically, he decided wrongly.
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.