Maybe he's not. Never said he was. What I said was that it doesn't matter, or shouldn't, because we are there for our national interest, not his. If he's helping, great! If he's not, doesn't matter; our national interest still requires preventing Iraq from becoming a full-on terror haven. Maybe he's a traingulator or even an obstacle rather than an ally and that certainly affects the difficulty of our task, but it doesn't change our task. Why would it?
Please try to help me understand the logic: if Maliki doesn't do everything we want, then it's.... okay if Iraq becomes an AQ haven? and that's why we should pull out? Then what?
Basically, he and other supporters of the strategy are advocating an unlimited stay here.
I think you misread grossly, he is neither a "supporter of the strategy" per se nor is he advocating the US military stay there in perpetuity. Almost the opposite; as others have pointed out, a better interpretation is that he is now preparing for our exit, because he deems it inevitable and pending. And I'm not sure he's wrong to think so.
So we should keep dumping everything we have into solidifying a government that seems to have no regard for the work we're doing or the sacrifices we've made. You keep saying it's for our national interest. Great. The immediate effects of EVERYTHING we do here is for Iraqi national interests (interests that, enshallah, will jive with our own). You are saying that it doesn't matter if he's a roadblock. So we're going to keep pouring money and lives into this place, regardless if they're willing to accept the help? It's one thing for these people to be incredibly callous and ungrateful for what we've done for them (and they are), but it's a whole other thing to expect us to shrug it off and keep going at it with smiles on our faces.