And yes, when I wrote the last post I was quite aware that SCIRI head Abdul-Aziz Hakim met Bush at the White House today. I just couldn’t figure how to fit that into the rest of the post there.
I am absolutely befuddled as to what the heck Bush thinks he is doing with this meeting. (Probably not as befuddled as Bush himself… “Who is this dude with a turban? Is he from Eye-Ran or where?”)
This BBC report tells us,
- The Associated Press news agency quotes Mr Bush as saying he told Mr Hakim “the US supports his work and the work of the prime minister to unify the country”.
“I told his eminence that I was proud of the courage of the Iraqi people. I told him that we’re not satisfied with the pace of progress in Iraq.”
This is such gobbledygook. Hakim has done very little indeed to “unify the country”– and it is SCIRI’s militia, the Badr Brigades, that has committed the very worst kind of atrocities against Iraqi Sunnis.
As I’ve remarked before, the Bushites (and most of the US media) seem intent on painting Moqtada Sadr as the main sectarian divider in Iraq, while generally overlooking the many ghastly crimes of sectarian hatred committed by the Badr Brigades. But Moqtada has, by all accounts, always been much more intent than anyone in SCIRI/Badr on keeping his lines of communication and dialogue open with Iraqi Sunnis. (Even though on several occasions he has apparently been unable to maintain the requisite level of internal discipline in this regard over all his scores of thousands of followers.)
And now, most recently, we have seen Moqtada working with Saleh al-Mutlak and others to build a new, cross-sectarian, national coalition.
Well anyway, Bush’s Iraq “policy” is in a completely direction-less, flailing-around tailspin. They grasp at straws. I suppose that this particular Hakim-related straw, whenever it was set up, was aimed at “sending a message to Maliki” to the effect that if he wouldn’t shape up then the Bushites had another favored candidate for PM waiting in the wings..
It is all pathetic, all tragic, and signifies nothing. (Except, so long as the US forces remain in Iraq, continued suffering for the Iraqi people and continued losses and traumas for the men and women of the US armed forces…. Regarding which, I have one main comment: “Draft the Bush twins!”)
Is he from Eye-Ran or where?”)
“Is he from IRAN” yes he is Iran Mullah Poppet before he came US Puppets but he still Loyal to Iran Mullah I think Bush meeting Iranian Mullah representative in his Oval Office…
Why the SCIRI leader should care to meet the GOP leader seems to me far more worth looking into than vice versa, even if the BBC thinks otherwise. So here, straight from the horse’s anatomy,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061204-7.html,
is the Rev. Mr. al-Hakím’s side of the press event, with a little emphasis added:
My meeting with President Bush today emerges from our shared commitment to continue dialogue and consultation among us and also on the basis of our conviction that the Iraqi issue is a mutual interest. It’s an issue that requires coordination between the two sides in a way that concerns both of us politically and from a security point of view and economic point of view, as well.
Therefore, our conversation today focused on ways to advance the work of the Iraqi government, the elected government, as well as to advance the whole situation in Iraq and move it forward. Also, we have discussed ways in order to provide all the necessities that the Iraqi armed forces will need, in terms of armament, in terms of trainings, in order to be in a position to assume the security file.
The Iraqi situation has been subjected to a great deal of defamation, and the true picture is not being presented in order to show a dark side of what’s happening in Iraq. We see the attempts to defame and distort the situation in Iraq not taking into consideration the democratic steps that that country has taken, writing the constitution and establishing a state that depends heavily on the constitution, that it is unified and that it is strong. There are attempts to show the sectarian strife in an attempt to weaken the position in Iraq.
The U.S. interests, the Iraqi interests, the regional interests, they are all linked. Therefore, it is very important when we deal with this issue, we look at the interests of the Iraqi people. If we don’t, this whole issue could backfire and could harm the interests of the region, the United States, and Iraq, as well.
Therefore, we believe that the Iraqi issue should be solved by the Iraqis with the help of friends everywhere. But we reject any attempts to have a regional or international role in solving the Iraqi issue. We cannot bypass the political process. Iraq should be in a position to solve Iraqi problems. We welcome any effort that could enhance the democratic reality in Iraq and protect the constitutional role of that state.
We have gone a long way to establish a democratic and pluralistic society in Iraq. We have given a great deal of sacrifice to achieving the objective. We cherish all the sacrifices that took place for the liberation and the freedom of Iraq, sacrifices by the Iraqi people, as well as friendly nations, and on top of that list, sacrifices by the Americans. We have now an elected government in Iraq, a government that is so determined to combat both violence and terror, a government that it is — strongly believes in the unity of that government and of that country and the society, a government that deals and will deal with all the sources of terrorism regardless where they come from.
==
A fair trade: the lame-duck GOP leader gets his photo-op to show that not all neo-Iraqis are ungrateful that Saddam is still gone, the talented leader of SCIRI gets a chance to implore the Crawfordite master class to please try to pretend a little harder that their neo-Iraq really is “democratic” and “constitutional” and “sovereign” and “independent.” (I.e., in practice to stop encouraging foreign and domestic Arab Sunnis unduly, undeserving minority that the domestic ones are.)
There’s no way to talk about such a show without shudder-quotes, but to admit that is not to agree that either SCIRI or the Republicans simply talk gobbledygook.
The leadership of both Crawford/GOP and of SCIRI/UIA appear committed to staying their accustomed courses: at Najaf, “democracy” still seems the best long-term bet, given the communitarian numbers; down at the ranch, the cowpokers remain bound and determined not to wade out of the Bushogenic swamp without something in the way of Success and Victory that can be paraded for Party purposes — or perhaps, at this point, only for dynastic and “legacy” purposes.
Neither crew puts simply stopping the troubles first, but what crew is there in sight that does that, for Pete’s sake?
Happy days.
(I’d have added this to the earlier comment if I had read it first.)
Today’s Los Angeles Times makes it pretty clear that poor M. al-Málikí and the Rev. al-Hakím are in cahoots along the lines suggested:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq5dec05,1,4285455.story
Iraq’s besieged prime minister hit back Monday at U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s characterization of the Iraq sectarian conflict as a civil war, accusing him of “burnishing the image” of former President Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime.
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki also rejected Annan’s suggestion that an international conference could help the country resolve dangerous sectarian divides and an insurgency that killed at least 72 more Iraqis in just over 24 hours.
“His call for an international conference on Iraq is a denial of the will of the Iraqi people,” Maliki’s office said in a statement. “The Iraqi government, which is founded on a constitutional basis, will not accept the notion of holding an international conference about Iraq that will reverse all the development in the political process and impose an international guardianship on the Iraqi people.”
Thanks for adding that, JHM.
What we are seeing seems to be an attempt to sideline Sadr and opponents of the U.S. occupation and replace SCIRI as the other bulwark, along with Dawa, of the Maliki administration. In other words, the principal goal at this point is to stop the Iraqi governmnent from calling for U.S. withdrawal. In addition, Hakim and SCIRI and Maliki are lining up with Cheney/Bush in rejecting international mediation efforts/the United Nations and in tilting toward suporting the Shiite side against the Sunnis. The Baker Commission, especially because Baker is an Arabist, is likely to support international mediation and not tilting toward the Shiites. In short, Hakim seems to be making a (cynical) tactical move to line up with Bush to get the SCIRI agenda advanced. It’s true that the Iranians want the U.S. to leave as part of any negotiation with them to help stabilize Iraq, but if Bush/Cheney oppose such negotiations, they are not going to happen. Short of a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, such as al Sadr and others are demanding, the likelihood is that any tactical shifts, such as Bush/Cheney, Hakim, and Baker are calling for, will lead to a worsening situation in Iraq.
All the tails wagging the American dog know what they want the dog to do and how they plan to get the dog to do it for them. Wagged by so many conflicted tails, however, the dog just shivers, shakes, and gets sicker. I think the Chinese have a proverb about some such situation as this which they call “Beating the Drowning Dog.” At this point in the play, the plot just sickens and only ugly canine metaphors come to mind.
Good point about the straws and drowning men, though, which image I did try to exploit in “Moving-target Mismanagement.” As for the several Shiite tails doing their own schismatic part in the wagging: since I already wrote an essay called “Too Good to Pet the Dog,” I thought I would title the Terza Rima verse version: “Managing the Mindless Mutt.” Those interested will know where to find the poems.
If we Americans don’t immediately (1) cut off funding for our occupation of Iraq, (2) revoke the legal authorization for our occupation of Iraq, and (3) punish the perpetrators of our occupation of Iraq, then Americans will stay in Iraq for “a long time,” until the tails all grow dogs of their own or we shed the tails that keep on beating us even as they hold our heads under water in the bloody bathtub we have made of Iraq. Come to think of it, I don’t know of any metaphor ugly enough to describe this needless history repeating itself first as tragedy, then as farce, and then as both.
I agree with John Raymond’s comment in particular concerning the US intent to sideline Al’Sadr and to avoid any demand for a timetable for withdrawal.
Raed Jarrar
last blog entry goes in the same direction. Al’Sadr fundamentalism is at time worrying, especially when his members hunt young student on a picnic, or target barbershops and liquorshops, however, right at this time, the reinforcement of iraqi nationalist feelings and the reaffirmation of anti-occupation stance and claim for independance seem to be the only way to counter an emerging civil war.
Al Sadr has already announced his coalition with Sali Al Mutlak; in the Western press it didn’t sound as a very large front, at least not as large of the one announced in the Rantisi article translated by Raed Jarrar. Personnally, I hope that they will manage to create this large front. Whether they will be able to gather the support of other arab countries remains to see, because the Arab League seems to be under Saudi/Egypt influence and thus is sold to the Americans.