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


Sunnis return to Maliki government, and the NY Times notices

posted at 4:49 pm on April 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

A week ago, I noted that the Sunnis that had left Nouri al-Maliki’s government last year in a huff had decided to return. A week later, the New York Times has reported on it, making it true. The Tawafiq has recognized the efforts of Baghdad to release low-level detainees and disarm the Shi’ite militias, two of their major complaints, although the Times just can’t seem to get over the Basra-defeat meme that has been so obviously disproven:

Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc has agreed to return to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s cabinet after a nine-month boycott, several Sunni leaders said on Thursday, citing a recently passed amnesty law and the Maliki government’s crackdown on Shiite militias as reasons for the move.

The Sunni leaders said they were still working out the details of their return, an indication that the deal could still fall through. But such a return would represent a major political victory for Mr. Maliki in the midst of a military operation that has at times been criticized as poorly planned and fraught with risk. The principal group his security forces have been confronting is the Mahdi Army, a powerful militia led by Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric. Even though Mr. Maliki’s American-backed offensive against elements of the Mahdi Army has frequently stalled and has led to bitter complaints of civilian casualties, the Sunni leaders said that the government had done enough to address their concerns that they had decided to end their boycott.

“Our conditions were very clear, and the government achieved some of them,” said Adnan al-Duleimi, the head of Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in the government. Mr. Duleimi said the achievements included “the general amnesty, chasing down the militias and disbanding them and curbing the outlaws.”

The recently passed amnesty law has already led to the release of many Sunni prisoners, encouraging Sunni parties that the government is serious about enforcing it. And the attacks on Shiite militias have apparently begun to assuage longstanding complaints that only Sunni groups blamed for the insurgency have been the targets of American and Iraqi security forces.

For students of American Civil War history, Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory. Maliki may not have won the battle in the first 48 hours, but he adapted to changing conditions and stayed on the offensive. He has taken control of Basra and Umm Qasr, and Moqtada al-Sadr has sued for peace in Sadr City as well after initially issuing an empty threat to end the cease-fire. This has all taken place in less than four weeks, a rather remarkable achievement for an operation described as above.

The return of the Sunnis to Maliki’s coalition will once again make this a true unity government, and this time Maliki appears to be heading in a more ecumenical direction. It has taken him a while to learn how to be a leader of Iraq rather than a leader of Shi’ites, but his transformation on Sadr has made him credible to all factions in Iraq. It even seems to have stymied the Iranians, who had backed Sadr through the Basra debacle that has him all but finished in Iraqi politics.

With the Sunnis on board, provincial elections on the horizon, and Sadr a laughingstock, the future of Iraqi reconciliation looks bright. We just need to remain firm in our commitment to keep provocateurs from any encouragement. Perhaps the New York Times can keep up with that story.


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:

Yeah, but gays can’t get married in Iraq so it’s a failure and we have to run away.

rbj on April 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM

There is also some homeless Iraqi guy living under a bridge in Tikrit, so like rbj said, we need to run away.

Bishop on April 24, 2008 at 5:03 PM

But such a return would represent a major political victory for Mr. Maliki in the midst of a military operation that has at times been criticized as poorly planned and fraught with risk.

And we can’t have that, can we?

mymanpotsandpans on April 24, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Remember, for a military operation to be a success in the eyes of the NYT, the causus belli must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the planners had to account for every single variable and scenario and be prepared to meet them. The exit strategy must have been articulated before the operation began, and events during the operation need to lead directly to that exit strategy. Oh, and no Americans get killed during the operation.

Kafir on April 24, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Even though Mr. Maliki’s American-backed offensive against elements of the Mahdi Army has frequently stalled and has led to bitter complaints of civilian casualties,

Oh, you mean that guy the AP interviewed in front of his crushed house that was knowingly being used as a weapons depot…?

CliffHanger on April 24, 2008 at 5:11 PM

The Sunni leaders said they were still working out the details of their return, an indication that the deal could still fall through.

fingers crossed!

pecan pie on April 24, 2008 at 5:13 PM

A week ago, I noted that the Sunnis that had left Nouri al-Maliki’s government last year in a huff had decided to return. A week later, the New York Times has reported on it, making it true.

Hmmm. If the NYT says it’s so, based on their track record, you’d better re-check your sources, just in case.

/sarc off

Seriously, they still think they are a news organization?

IrishEyes on April 24, 2008 at 5:15 PM

“A week later, the New York Times has reported on it, making it true.”

Actually, I was upbeat about this news last week but now that it is in the NYT, I question the accuracy and truthfulness of it. :)

Dusty on April 24, 2008 at 5:19 PM

The NYT manages to make every good news story sound bad. Did they work in the $3.50/gallon gas angle?

kirkill on April 24, 2008 at 5:20 PM

A base calumny on Grant’s reputation. He was uniformly victorious out West (Donnelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga anyone?) and was overall commander of all armies during the Army of the Potomac’s campaign against Lee in 1864-65 (Meade was the army commander.) That army’s goal was to engage Lee’s army, which it did, and treated none of it’s engagements as defeats. Chancellorsville and the Wilderness had similar outcomes, except that Hooker accepted defeat and Grant, refusing to, had Meade continue his advance.

flydiveski on April 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM

ok, clicked on the link. At least the NYT put a picture of a destroyed building where a car bomb went off. That adds so much to “goodness” of the progress.

kirkill on April 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Yeah, but gays can’t get married in Iraq so it’s a failure and we have to run away.

Gays can get married in Iraq. It’s just that their lifespans after they do would be measured in minutes.

Even that is better than Iran, where it would be measured in seconds.

Oh. Wait. There are no gays in Iran…

trigon on April 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Note to self: Don’t debate flydiveski on the Civil War. ;-)

kirkill on April 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM

I’m with flydiveski, Ed. Grant stands out as having never been bested in any battle. His worst moment he readily admits in his memoir, was the needless slaughter of Cold Harbor but he was never defeated. At Shiloah he was caught off gaurd but prevailed. In his releif of a beseiged, starving, Union Army at Chatanooga, amazingly, he was able to reverse into an absolute route, culminating with the storming of Look Out Mountain. His Vicksburg campain was easily the greatest feat of Generalship by any General of the entire war.

In truth, your attribution to Grant, better fits Lee, with the exception that until facing Grant, he won more than he lost and that of course, in the end, Lee lost the War as well.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on April 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Don’t worry that reporter will soon be laid off.

jukin on April 24, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

Huh?

Ed, you’ve badly mangled Civil War history here. Grant was consistently successful from beginning to end. He routed the Confederates in the western theater so effectively that it might be characterized as a near-total victory over all the major strategic points. Once called to the East, he may not have been as decisive, but he was definitely successful.

I regard him as one of America’s greatest generals.

Perhaps Ed was thinking of the North generally (or Lincoln as C-in-C), rather than Grant specifically.

Nessuno on April 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM

Nessuno, the strategy he attributes to Grant, best describes Washington’s in the War of Independence. Ironically, that seems to have been the South’s and Lee’s, chosen strategy as well. Conceding New Orleans essentially, in the same way New York was lost by Washington and seeking to employ a strategy of bloody, costly rope-a-dope, banking on the influence of copperheads and a loss of political resolve in the North, to ultimately prevail for the South.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on April 24, 2008 at 7:16 PM

I think someone needs to take a very careful look at the lady in the NYT pic–is it me, or has she starred in other, similar scenes? Which asks the question, is this fauxtography? I may well be wrong, but the face simply rings a bell.

irongrampa on April 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM

irongrampa on April 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM

You mean the woman from Lebanon who appeared in many pictures during the Israeli-Hezbollah 34-day war. She had two houses destroyed on her. No its not the same woman. The only way to prove it for sure is to examine in close up whether she has a small scar above her left eye. But no its not her.

aengus on April 24, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Ed:

We just need to remain firm in our commitment to keep provocateurs from any encouragement.

We’re going to muzzle Reid and Pelosi? Good.

irishspy on April 24, 2008 at 8:16 PM

For students of American Civil War history, Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant Lincoln, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

burt on April 24, 2008 at 8:53 PM

The Sunni leaders said they were still working out the details of their return, an indication that the deal could still fall through.

If they re still “working out the details”, then there is no deal, certainly not yet. And then, of course, even if there is an actual honest to goodness deal, as opposed to a “vaporware” deal, how long will it last, how long can Sunnis and Shiites “Can’t we all just get along”?

For students of American Civil War history, Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

And I suppose George W. Bush is Abraham Lincoln?

My head is spinning. I don’t think I can take the next fifty make it a hundred! years.

MB4 on April 24, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant Lincoln, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

burt on April 24, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Oh my God, now Maliki is Lincoln?

My head just spun off.

MB4 on April 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM

I just read this, and like you all, picked up on Capt’s mangling of Grant’s military reputation.

In Capt’s defense though, I think he conflated a few things.

I think Capt was conflating the Army of the Potomac’s incompetent leadership under McClellen and Pope, McClellen had the “slows” as Lincoln said, and he had to fire him because McClellen was a seditionist as well, who came as close as any American General in US Military History of trying a Coup d’Etat; he screwed up the Peninsular campaign, when he should’ve won, and when he was fired by Lincoln, and Pope took over, Pope sent one year doing absolutely nothing.

I wasn’t until Pope was replaced by Gen George Meade, that the Army of the Potomac finally managed to do something right, and that was win the Battle of Gettysburg. But Meade even screwed up that major victory, if he’d have pursued Lee and his Army south into Virginia, and destroyed them, he may have ended the war 2 years earlier.

I also think Capt was making a general comment about Grant; Grant was, frankly, a complete and utter screw-up, at EVERYTHING in his life, EXCEPT during his Generalship during the Civil War; he couldn’t hold a job prior to the Civil War, screwed up every civilian endeavour he ever tried, lost countless jobs and businesses, etc.

If the Civil War hadn’t of came along, and he went back into the Military, he would’ve been lost to history, and deservedly so.

And, if you examine his life, after the Civil War, including his Presidency, he was a complete and utter screw-up there as well, his Presidency is rightly viewed as one of the worst in history.

Like General Schwartzkopff during the Gulf War, who was pretty darn less than stellar officer his whole Military career, who was nothing but a “legacy” General, because of his father’s reputation, and when he got his “CINC”, he was deliberatly chosen to take over CENTCOM, because it was hoped he could go there, hang out for a couple of years, and retire in anonymity!

Then, lo and behold, along comes the Gulf War, and like Grant, he rose to the occasion for the first, and last time in his career.

Very interesting parallels between the two.

Anyway, I THINK that is what Capt was trying to say.

Dale in Atlanta on April 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Would someone please introduce Mr. Maliki to Mr. Gillette?

km on April 24, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Strike some kind of deal with this dude or kill him.
He’s just trouble waiting to happen.

johnnyU on April 24, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Dale, I’d have to be convinced of your story about Schwartzkopff. Even IF someone was given a fourth star just because they were a “legacy.” I’m not sure why they would get any CINC job at all.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM

blink, let’s just say I was a “military” officer who happened to be witness to that part of history.

First, let me say, that if you examine his combat history, Schwartzkopf was an incredibly BRAVE man, there is no doubt; though military officers in ALL services, who are “legacies”, clearly get favorable treatment in terms of Commands, Meritourious Medals (note, I did NOT say medals for valor, they are different things) etc., he WAS a brave man.

He had three Silver Stars, 3 Bronze Stars with “V”’s, 2 Purple Hearts, etc.

I do know of cases where Medals for Bravery were bogusly awarded to senior officers, there was an Admiral who was given a Silver Star for commanding a ship in the Persian Gulf during the beginning of the Iraq Invasion that comes to mind; and of course, there’s the infamous case of Lyndon Johnson’s Silver Star for being in an aircraft that flew within 100 miles of a combat zone; there’s also the fact that a young MacArthur over in France during WWI, he’d write to his mother from the frontline that he did something brave, and his mother would march over to see the Secretary of War, and pound on his desk, and say “My son deserves a Silver Star”, and they’d give him one; he came home from France as junior officer with SIX of them as a result, and his CMOH for losing his entire command in the Philippines, wouldn’ve NEVER happened to anyone else, his father was a CMOH earner from the Civil War, and the rules were different for MacArthur all around. John Kerry’s Silver Star and Bronze Star and at least two of his Purple Hearts are so bogus, it hurts, and I knew people who served over there with him, and who told me those stories TWENTY years before he ever ran for President!

But I digress, anyway, despite the fact that Schwartzkopf was a BRAVE man, he was not a highly regarded Officer.

And, he became the Deputy to the Joint Task Force that invaded Grenada, and so screwed up that, despite what you read “officially”, and I have dozens of friends that were there to see, first hand, that he was basically told by Army Leadership, fine, you’ll get your 4 star, but you’re retiring soon afterwards.

When he got his fourth star, there was a faction of Army leadership that wanted to force him out, and there was a faction that said he could never be trusted to have a “CINC”; and remember, back then, it was “CINCLANT” and “CINCPAC” were considered THE combat commands, the ones that were going to get to fight the Soviets and/or the Chinese, CENTCOM back then was considered the LEAST likely place where a war of any import was going to break out, and he was given his “CINC” to basically put him out to pasture, and retire him.

Now, can I “prove” it to you? NO, I cannot. Can I produce a written document, backing up all this, No, I cannot.

But, I was in the miliary back then, it was an “open secret” in certain circles, and the Colonels and Generals that I knew, “knew” it was the case, especially after his less than stellar perfmance during the Grenada evolution.

But, the “official” history has been written now, ever since his genuine, and deserved success during the Gulf War (note I didn’t say he faked that, or didn’t deserve that, because its not true, he got everything he earned out of the Gulf War, and deservedly so!) and as Julius Ceaser says “the victor writes the history, the loser reads it”.

You’ll encounter very few people these days, that thru hindsight, want to talk about it, or who would be willing to step up and say that’s the way it was; but that IS the way it was prior to the Gulf War.

General Swartzkopf never did any bad to me, and I wish him no ill will, but those were the below the surface feelings/currents/opinions at that time, prior to the Gulf War.

And as I said, he was a Brave man, no matter what, and I never heard not one single instance of him having Medals, especially Medals for Valor, that he didn’t deserve, unlike some othe famous cases I outlined above, so he deserves any amount of respect and honor for that. He was also well regarded by his own troops, especially when he was a tactical leader in Vietnam, and that frankly, is all that an Officer can ask for.

Now, that all said, I know full well, the “danger” of coming on this blog, saying anything even remotely critical of a “hero” like General Schwartzkopf; I’m going to be roundly attacked and catigated and abused for even doing this, so I know its coming.

I had the temerity, the other year, over on Capt’s original Blog, to rain on the parade of a Hagiographical account of old Joe Pa Paterno up in Happy Valley, because I grew up there, my whole family went to the University, going back to 1943, and I have many close friends, who have seen Joe Pa up close and personal, for over 30 years.

So, I made a mistake, and posted that he is not the “saint” and “god” that he’s made out to be, and I endured weeks of abuse from everyone, including Capt, for having done that.

And by the way, everything that I said about Joe Pa, was and is true, and he’s another one who has gotten to “write history” and obscure his past, due to his current successes.

Anyway, as a result, this is my LAST post on this topic; if you choose to believe it, fine, do so; if you don’t, fine, power to you. I’m not going to convince you either way, but just like Joe Pa, I KNOW what the facts are, and I stand behind what I’ve said about both, but in this forum, I’ll never convince anyone, and I’m not really in the business of trying to “prove” or convince” anyone, actually. In this forum, you can only post your comments, and move on, you can’t “prove” anything.

Anyway, hope that helps, for what little it is worth to you.

Dale in Atlanta on April 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM

And I suppose George W. Bush is Abraham Lincoln?

Why not? The Congress is still full of Copperheads.

trigon on April 25, 2008 at 12:25 AM

Judging by the calumny directed towards George W. Bush, he might be Lincoln. I don’t recall anything like it. (My memory goes back to LBJ.)

njcommuter on April 25, 2008 at 1:20 AM

Anyway, hope that helps, for what little it is worth to you.

Dale in Atlanta on April 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM

There is nothing like first-hand evidence.

Holmes on April 25, 2008 at 2:14 AM

There is nothing like first-hand evidence.

Holmes on April 25, 2008 at 2:14 AM

Touche, but that’s as good as it gets on this, I’m afraid.

Its your choice to believe, or not believe.

Personally, if I were you, I’d say “Okay, interesting tidbit, the guy was there he knows its true, but I he can’t prove it, so I remain a skeptic!”

I’m fine with that…

Dale in Atlanta on April 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM

blink:

Um, I think you meant to include, “CINCEUR” with respect to fighting the Soviets.

Ah, NO, I was clear, I said “CINCLANT” and “CINCPAC”, I know what I’m talkng about, “CINCEUR” even though in Europe, and right up against the Soviets at the time, still never carried the “panache” of being CINCPAC or CINCLANT, “CINCEUR” just like “CINCCENT”, were considered 2nd Tier; don’t ask why, and don’t try to explain it, to do that you have to understand the psyche of Flag Offices, and Military history and trandtion going back to WWII, if not before.

For some reason, CINCLANT and CINCPAC were considered the two Major, 1st tier “CINC’s”; who knows why, maybe CINCPAC and CINCLAND basically OWNED the US Forces, and farmed them out to the other Regional Commands, such as CENTCOM, who basically owned no forces of their own. CINCEUR was also that “European Command”, and had to overlap/share with NATO, and all that political crap.

Creme de la creme were the two US “coastal CINC’s”; just the way it was.

You know, I could tell, just from the way you wrote your first reply, that you just couldn’t help yourself!

“You were where? In the room …”

Ah no, and I NEVER said I was!

But I know people who literally were, or the next best thing to it, a half dozen at least, and interesting in different places and times, they all had the same story.

“I just don’t believe your unmitigating story.”

Ah, it doesn’t matter, what you believe, there is what you believe, and what I know, they don’t overlap; but that’s not my fault, that’s yours!

Again, you can choose to believe or not, and its irrelevant, as I’ve tried to tell you in 20 different ways, whether you believe it or not; and I’m totally aware that it wasn’t ONLY “Army leadership” that made that decision; I told you he had been deputy to an Admiral for a JFT, you figure it out from there.

“BTW, don’t confuse my skepticism with any type of attack on you….”

Fine, I don’t take it as an attack, but the dicussion is over; it can go no further from here anyhow.

I know, you believe, that’s the end of the discussion, actually.

Dale in Atlanta on April 25, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.