Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Report: Iraqi factions planning to replace Maliki

posted at 10:41 pm on December 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Via the Captain. The Kurds, Sunnis, and non-Sadrist Shiites have had enough.

Major partners in Iraq’s governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved.

The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence…

[Sadrist MPs] said al-Maliki was livid at the attempt to unseat him.

“We know what’s going on and we will sabotage it,” said a close al-Maliki aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities involved. He did not elaborate.

So there’s the vaunted political solution which everyone (except me) agrees has to happen before the militias can be dealt with. In fact, Gen. Chiarelli told Time this weekend that he thinks the right deal could lead them to disarm voluntarily. He … doesn’t sound like he’s kidding.

Q. You can see a political deal is struck and these people drop their guns and go home?

A. Right now, I have to believe that’s the case. There can be no solution to Iraq’s problems without tackling the militias. And this has to happen soon. We had a chance to tackle the militias in ‘04 [after a U.S. crackdown against the Mahdi Army], but then people were so happy Moqtada al-Sadr agreed to join the political process that they never forced his militia to disarm.

In other words, he’s counting on a political solution to lead the militias to lay down their arms peacefully even though the last time we tried this, with al-Sadr, it led to him becoming the most powerful political and (para)military force in Iraq. It’s his MPs in parliament on whom Maliki depends for his majority, which is why he wouldn’t move against the Sadrists, which in turn is why we are where we are right now with rival parties organizing to oust him — all because the Mahdi army didn’t voluntarily disarm when they joined the political system.

Bush might, therefore, end up with fewer strategic options than he thought in terms of what comes next. WaPo says he’s trying to decide between securing Baghdad, focusing on Al Qaeda, and lining up with the Shiites against the Sunnis. If the anti-Maliki bloc pulls this off and isolates al-Sadr, he’s not going to take it well; Bush will have to respond, which means the Mahdi army and the Corps might at long last have themselves a little date with destiny sometime this coming year, God willing.

That’s as good as the news gets from Iraq right now, so enjoy it. But don’t celebrate too much: the leader of the anti-Maliki bloc is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite cleric who heads the SCIRI party and who met with Bush at the White House last week (probably to discuss this very subject). “SCIRI” stands for “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.” It was formed by Iran in 1982 to fight Saddam and has even closer ties to the mullahs than al-Sadr does. According to Wikipedia, “SCIRI supports the tenet of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that government should be controlled by the ulema (Islamic scholars)…”

The new prime minister is expected to come from the party, with al-Hakim as his eminence grise.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Interesting rumor. Change would be a good thing, but perhaps the real player in this drama is not anyone in Iraq, but in Iran. Iran is supporting the conflict in Iraq to their advantage. Take our their proxy and progress is made.

omegaram on December 10, 2006 at 10:49 PM

They’re right, of course. I liked Maliki coming in, and I thought he had what it’s going to take to straighten this mess out and that he was planning to do it.

Best phrase in the story:

non-Sadrist Shiites have had enough.

No matter how distasteful we find the situation in Baghdad, these people are living in it. I think the grand question from the get go has been when the survival instinct would draw Iraq and its people to act in their own best interest. This senseless slaughter isn’t it, by any measure.

I hope they’ve had enough. It’s about time.

Pablo on December 11, 2006 at 12:10 AM

Or, one might read the General thusly:

A. Right now, I have to believe that’s the case.
¶ There can be no solution to Iraq’s problems without tackling the militias. And this has to happen soon. We had a chance to tackle the militias in ‘04 [after a U.S. crackdown against the Mahdi Army], but then people were so happy Moqtada al-Sadr agreed to join the political process that they never forced his militia to disarm.

Keep in mind the prior q&a:

Q. With the militias — is there any kinetic component to dealing with them, or is it all political?

A. At this stage right now, it is political. But that could change.

Stephen M on December 11, 2006 at 12:18 AM

So it seems they’re going to divy up the country into three provinces with no unifying leader. How did this country come together in the first place? Oh yeah, Saddam. It was a good idea to get rid of Saddam and his awful offspring, but it looks like we need a unifying leader at the helm to bring the major factions together and we don’t yet have it. Perhaps Maliki isn’t the right man – though democratically elected. You know, put freakin’ Sadr at the helm. If that doesn’t sufficiently scare the hell out of them – to start thinking about unifying their damn country – then what will?

thedecider on December 11, 2006 at 12:32 AM

Please pardon my ignorance…what does this mean for our soldiers? What are the possible/most likely outcomes regarding the safety of our troops and violence directed at them?

JustTruth101 on December 11, 2006 at 12:34 AM

“We know what’s going on and we will sabotage it,”

My gosh, it didn’t take them very long to learn and emulate the U.S. Congress.

To paraphrase Churchill: Democracy is a bad form of goverment, but all other forms are worse.

pocomoco on December 11, 2006 at 12:43 AM

I want to BELIEVE

Iblis on December 11, 2006 at 1:03 AM

Your link to the CQ post is kerried up. It should be http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008673.php

bdfaith on December 11, 2006 at 1:47 AM

We should’ve let the Army finish the job when we went up against the Mooks. Our guys kicked their asses all over the place. Anybody remember the graveyard battle? It was all body count for the Mookies. Time for round two.

I was talkin’ to a dude on my plane last night who just got back from Baghdad (gave him a free beer) and he was tellin’ me that our guys are stackin’ up the sunni terrorists over there, but ya never hear about it on the news.

But we did hear about it when we fought the the Mooks. Why don’t we hear about how many sunni bad guys we kill?

Tony737 on December 11, 2006 at 8:06 AM

Tony737, you have to ask? Any semblence of success over there is not within the desired news ange of the Imperial News media.

Mike O on December 11, 2006 at 8:24 AM

My husband is a physician and is involved in international relief efforts on and off. He has been talking with colleagues in Lebanon who tell him that a looming problem is that just about all the health care professionals have left Iraq, along with most of the upper/middle class.

The question to me is not if Malaki falls, but when. I don’t know if it really matters as the government in Baghdad is pretty irrelevant to the situation on the ground.

Why don’t we hear about how many sunni bad guys we kill?

Well if you believe the ISG, the Pentagon has gone Westmoreland on us–on one given day this year, reported 70 incidents of violence when the actual field tally was over 1000. Also, most of the sunni bad guys are being killed by shiite bad guys (militias). I don’t want to think about how we would know that info.

honora on December 11, 2006 at 10:05 AM

The sooner, the better.

ptolemy on December 11, 2006 at 11:09 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.