posted January 04, 2007 01:40 AM              

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday January 4, 2007
The Guardian

The embattled leader, Nouri al-Maliki, has said he no longer wants to be prime minister of Iraq, underlining the US's loss of control over events just as President George Bush is poised to announce his new strategy on the war.
Mr Bush is expected to announce early next week that he intends to increase the number of US forces in Iraq to try to contain the sectarian bloodshed that is now acknowledged to be the biggest barrier to a stable Iraq and that has worsened under Mr Maliki's watch.

But in a measure of the Bush administration's waning influence over events on the ground, Mr Maliki now says he would like to stand down as prime minister of the US-backed government.

"I wish it could be done with even before the end of this term. I would like to serve my people from outside the circle of senior officials, maybe through the parliament or through working directly with the people," Mr Maliki told the Wall Street Journal in an interview conducted on December 24 but published only this week.

"I didn't want to take this position. I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again," he said.

Mr Maliki's latest demonstration of his independence from Washington comes amid increasing frustration within the US administration at his inability - or unwillingness - to rein in the Shia militia leading Iraq's disintegration.

The polarisation of society under Mr Maliki's watch and the dangerous rise of the Shia militias was brought home this week with the spectacle of Saddam Hussein's execution taking place amid cheers for the radical cleric leader of the al-Mahdi army, Muqtada al-Sadr.

The US has been losing patience with Mr Maliki, as became evident last November with the leak to the New York Times of a memo written by the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. It asked whether Mr Maliki, a Shia who was an activist in the underground Dawa movement under Saddam's regime, could harbour sectarian sympathies despite his duty to foster national reconciliation. He was "either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action".

Mr Maliki fired back in his Wall Street Journal interview, saying US forces were hampered by their slow reaction time. "What is happening in Iraq is a war of gangs and a terrorist war. That is why it needs to be confronted with a strong force and with fast reaction."

The Pentagon made a step in that direction yesterday, saying US commanders expect to hand over full control to local authorities by the end of 2007. Major General William Caldwell, the main US military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters: "By the end of this year, the dynamics will be entirely different."

posted January 04, 2007 12:46 PM            

Certainly, the citizens of Iraq faced just such a possibility when they voted 3 times for representative government as opposed to rule by Islamic radical clerics. We've seen their purple stained fingers.

Every member of the Iraqi government is under constant threat of attack and murder..some have been.

So, your whining, your naysaying and your refusal to accept the majority will of the Iraqi people for a free Iraq says everything which needs to be said about you.

You are no friend of liberty and freedom. No friend of government by the people.

The only question in my mind is...what in the hell are you doing in a western nation with a representative government? Tucked away safe and sound and out of harms way while you would deny to others the very liberty and freedom you enjoy.

To make matters worse, you deride the very people who have been and are making liberty and freedom possible for those whom you are not fit to be mentioned in the same sentence.

posted January 04, 2007 12:58 PM            

what did he expect when he took office? That things will be all hunky dory? Sheesh...

As much as we all would like to think that the human race wants to be better than the animals, we still respond to the same stimulai. Promise the people a stable environment to do business in IF they comply with laws and not take to the streets at every chance they get.

posted January 04, 2007 02:02 PM            

Their presence atleast deters insurgents from pressing in and taking power from a weak Iraqi govenment. Its become a "damned if you stay, damned if you don't" senerio. If they leave, the insurgents take over and the U.S. gets blamed for allowing them to do so.

posted January 04, 2007 03:32 PM            

Xodian, my views are pretty much main stream American conservative...not ultra right wing.

posted January 04, 2007 03:44 PM            

quote:

---

Their presence atleast deters insurgents from pressing in and taking power from a weak Iraqi govenment. Its become a "damned if you stay, damned if you don't" senerio.

---

posted January 04, 2007 04:07 PM            

Do you mean "keep the peace"..like UN Peacekeepers kept the peace in Rwanda, in Africa? Or perhaps you're talking about the way the UN keeps the peace between Lebanon/Hezbollah and Israel...where so called "peacekeepers of the UN stood idly by while Hezbollah put in place the 6000 or so rockets they fired into Israel from the border area guarded by...UN Peacekeepers recently...when the UN Resolution required the disarming of all militias in Lebanon.

Is this fairyland thinking? It sure as hell isn't reality.

posted January 04, 2007 04:52 PM            

They are the most dysfunctional body on earth, the most corrupt, the most bungling and the most inept collection of petty dictators, despots and idlers ever collected in one building.

Name one major war/dispute the UN has ever successfully mediated. Success meaning the disputing parties met, agreed, went home and the UN, it's peacekeepers and everyone else went home and went about their business.

I would sooner consign myself and my family to the tender mercies of the Mob than the United Nations. The Mob has more honor.

posted January 04, 2007 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Their presence atleast deters insurgents from pressing in and taking power from a weak Iraqi govenment. Its become a "damned if you stay, damned if you don't" senerio. If they leave, the insurgents take over and the U.S. gets blamed for allowing them to do so.

---

Sadly im sure that what will happen in the end anyways

quote:

---

The U.S. shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

---

Yup i dont think they should have. Im glad people have such developed opinions because it seems a lot of times in GU everyone gets lumped into one category i.e. you dont think U.S. is the devil's army so u MUST support the war in Iraq and if you dont think the U.S. is responsible for all the deaths you must be a republican. Im glad we have some actual possitions here

quote:

---

I don't we would want another Vietnam but I just the wish the International Community would step in sooner...

---

Sadly other than like Britain and France there is no one to step in...Europe is SO messed up! I watch European journal and there is issue between Hungarian immigrants in Slovakia and super right wing government and so on in almost every nation and Russia is the devil's advocate either way. China doesnt wish to get involved for now and well the rest of the countries cant.

quote:

---

Do you mean "keep the peace"..like UN Peacekeepers kept the peace in Rwanda, in Africa?

---

Sadly UN peacekeepers arent allowed to get involved even when they are keeping peace. They arent supposed to shoot at anyone which is of much detriment to them.
.

quote:

---

I would sooner consign myself and my family to the tender mercies of the Mob than the United Nations. The Mob has more honor.

---

posted January 04, 2007 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Name one major war/dispute the UN has ever successfully mediated. Success meaning the disputing parties met, agreed, went home and the UN, it's peacekeepers and everyone else went home and went about their business.

---

Hmmmm, should I start with formerly civil-war torn Mocambique, where the semi-communist regime finally agreed to hold multi-party elections in 1991? (Therefore ending the war)

quote:

---

Are those UN interventions the kind of success stories of the UN you would envision for Iraq?

---

Yes, I would like to see the kind of success story seen in countries such as Mocambique. And by "success" I mean, ending the violence and war against the civilians...I know Mocambique still has a way to go concerning ecomonics but tis getting there. (And the rumor is they might've discovered oil there so who knows)