Email This to a Friend
Iraqi Leaders Closely Watching U.S. Elections
As the U.S. presidential race heats up, the rhetoric coming from Baghdad changes.
Second, there’s the ever-changing domestic political dynamics in Iraq. Maliki has two distinct sources of power. On one side of the scale he has support from the U.S. for his government as well as support from the public in Iraq, which he gained from the undeniable improvement in security. On the other side of the scale there’s his alliance with the powerful SIIC and the clergy in Najaf. I still think that Maliki remains undecided as to which source of power he could rely more on — attempting to secure perpetual support from both sources is extremely difficult.
Relations between the Da’wa Party and the SIIC have gone through turbulent paths in the last few months — major disagreements have arisen.
Primarily there’s the issue of “Support Councils.” These are local paramilitary units made up of tribal fighters similar to the “Awakening Councils” or “Sons of Iraq” that were formed of Sunni tribal fighters in Anbar and Baghdad. Here Maliki and the Da’wa Party are in favor of having the government sponsor these units in Shiite-dominated provinces. This is a classic case of a security dilemma. The Da’wa Party does not have any significant armed wing. In contrast, their allies in the SIIC have one of the most organized and efficient militias in Iraq, the Badr Brigade. Now apparently Maliki is developing plans to buy tribes’ allegiance with state money. The SIIC stands strongly against this plan and has recently accused Maliki and his party — on the SIIC’s semi-official news website — of abusing the powers vested in the prime minister’s office for partisan purposes. Early signs of a rift between the two parties are already visible in Babil province, where the Da’wa Party is working with tribes to form a “battalion” of 1,400 tribal fighters.
The Da’wa Party used to rely on Sadr’s militias in the past when they were allies. This is no longer the case as Sadr’s Mahdi Army has been largely decimated. The SIIC and Maliki worked together to get rid of their former strong ally. Now that provincial elections are coming, Maliki has every reason to worry about the survivability of his Da’wa Party vis-à-vis the powerful SIIC during the coming election. The SIIC, as naturally expected, opposed Maliki’s plans to sponsor “Support Councils.” This opposition feeds back to make Maliki and his party even more wary of the SIIC’s intentions.
With uncertainty growing between the two suspicious Shiite allies, Maliki may have decided to once again seek American protection for the fledgling democracy in general and for his political future in particular. As for ordinary Iraqis and Iraq as a state, not much has changed. U.S. presence for a few more years and U.S. friendship in the long run remain essential to guarantee the realization of the Iraqi dream.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Omar Fadhil is PJM Baghdad editor. His own blog is Iraq the Model.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
7 Comments
1. Ex-fetus:From here it looks like Maliki has his eye on being Saddam the second. For that to happen, Iraq needs to become another 1 man, 1 vote, 1 time state such as happens to most proto democracies. Russia being a case in point.
Sep 30, 2008 - 9:50 am 2. ST333:For Maliki to get from here to there he needs to have an army and not have it be American. His problem is one of timing.
He needs to ensure that the army is loyal to him, but well enough equipped and trained to keep him in power. The fly in the soup is that as the US brings the Iraqi army up to speed, they become less ‘his’ army and more Iraq’s army.
Anybody else remember how much trouble it was to settle on Maliki in the first place? He needs to hold the elections and retire while he is still respected and slightly ahead.
If he does, in 100 years, he will known as the father of Iraq, IF the next A-hole doesn’t stage a coup. If the US Army can stay in Iraq another 10 years, the Iraq Army will be robust enough to stand with Iraq, not some politician with a glib tongue and great hair.
We need to stay engaged with Iraq. It would be a HUGE mistake if a ‘President Obama’ were to think of Iraq as “Bush’s War” and walk away from it without securing and nurturing a young democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs democracies to end these monarchies, theocracies and fascist regimes. Partisan Politics and war make terrible bedfellows. We need to be as close to 100% positive Iraq will be able to stand on her own before we completely pull out. The ultimate goal is an Iraq that can function as a productive member of the International Community like Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Sep 30, 2008 - 10:41 am 3. Marc Malone:My worry is not that Obama will walk away from Iraq. No, I think he’ll get duped by them, and then will refuse to admit he made a mistake and stick to his guns. Of whom does that remind you?
He’ll get involved, make the wrong decision, because he doesn’t think of right and wrong. They’ll propose some heavy-handed tactic, and he’ll support it, because that’s how he acts, too. Then Iraq will fall back into civil war, and our rep will be even more greatly damaged with the world. Good luck then getting allied help, or getting some third-worlder to take a gamble with us.
Sep 30, 2008 - 12:41 pm 4. Valerie:Obama won’t have to walk away from Iraq: he’ll be all prudent, while the Democratic national leadership will jerk all funding and even the most minimal support from the country as fast as possible. The wing of the Democratic party supporting Barack Obama isn’t acting like it has any interest in doing what’s good for the country. That’s why PUMAs exist.
Oct 1, 2008 - 3:48 am 5. Ex-fetus:If the Demonrats pull us out of Iraq, they will quickly learn that Iraq is NOT A WAR, but a campaign within a war. Iraq is also the main reason why there have been no attacks on the USA proper since ‘01.
Oct 1, 2008 - 10:16 am 6. kathie:Remember Osama originally declared that the war would be held in America, back in ‘93. Nobody paid him any attention until 9-11-01, which was a little late.
After Iraq was liberated Osama declared that the central front was Iraq, because he understands just how dangerous to Jihad a free and democratic Iraq is. He gets it, even if the clueless left doesn’t. So AQ has directed the bulk of their resources to Iraq. Where they got pounded into hamburger.
That is why there have been no major attacks on American soil since 9-11.
AQ still has a lot of life in them. They are both numerous and committed, so it take more then one campaign to win this war.
The sad thing is that Maliki made Bush look like a fool when Obama came back to the US and said that Maliki agreed with him that 16 months withdraw time was just fine. Bush had always said we would return on success. Maybe Maliki was just hedging his bets, but for sure, one President had given everything he had and we as a Country had and Maliki just hit him upside the head.
I understand Maliki wants to retain power, but putting all his eggs in the Obama basket and kicking Bush in the shins seems very unwise to me. Obama has had 95 positions on everything. The war was “imoral” from the beginning in his opinion, so do you think Obama cares what happens in Iraq? I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
Oct 1, 2008 - 4:44 pm 7. Fred:The recurrent problem is that Islamic States fed with hundreds of billions of dollars a year become problems. Iraq used to be a problem and can become one again.
We used to believe that poverty caused international trouble. Now we know it is prosperity in the wrong hands.
Sadaam and the Ayatollahs are alike in this way. Even the Saudis are a problem, but in different ways.
Oct 6, 2008 - 6:47 am