| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Khalilzad sez U.S. Patience 'Running Out' |
| 2007-03-26 |
| BAGHDAD (AP) - The departing U.S. ambassador said on Monday that he believed Iraq was heading in the right direction but cautioned that Iraqi leaders must understand that U.S. voters were increasingly impatient with the war. Based on our own push-polling. Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leaving his post after 21 months that had seen a massive increase in violence in Baghdad overall, declared that insurgent and militia attacks had decreased by 25 percent in the six weeks since the start of U.S.-Iraqi security plan on Feb. 14. Massive...overall? Sloppy, or is someone being clever? "I know that we are an impatient people, and I constantly signal to the Iraqi leaders that our patience, or the patience of the American people Aides to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have said that Washington has signaled that he must make progress on a series of benchmark legislative and political measures by June 30 or face a withdrawal of American support for his government. Not that the Dems will wait for that timetable. The United States has denied making the threat but Khalilzad was clear that al-Maliki was under heavy U.S. pressure to move rapidly on several issues, especially a law that would provide a fair distribution of Iraqi oil wealth among all ethnic and sectarian groups, a measure that is especially important to the White House. Didn't I read here that measure passed the Iraqi Parliment? Maybe the AP doesn't visit the 'Burg? He also said the Iraqis need to act on political and sectarian reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites, and on amending the constitution to make it more palatable to the Sunnis. Despite repeated promises of quick action from the Iraqis and heavy pressure from the Americans, those measures still await action in parliament. Yeah! You guys need to pass bills quickly, like our Democratic-controlled Congress! |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #6 The administration has been (unfortunately) been using the "good cop/bad cop" act for a long time, long before the ascendancy of the cretins in the House purportedly gave threats of pull-back more credibility. To very little effect. No doubt some immaterial little things have been solved that way, but the critical dynamics of the war aren't affected by such stunts. And there has been a consistent failure to distinguish what can be accomplished through pressure (some political deals, new constitution, etc.) from what cannot be (security improvements, other things central to the war and the political dynamics back here). The main problem in American "impatience" or general whininess about the war has been the violence, and the casualties, esp. of course Coalition ones. These challenges do not exist because the Iraqis sit by, while fully capable of solving security problems, and choose to do nothing. Thus, our holding our breath til we turn blue has zero impact on the key issues. It has always amazed me how many (incl. those who are more serious and informed about the war) seem to believe this silly premise. Dunno, perhaps Casey can point to some small issues which at some point in time were advanced through this "bad cop" pressure - whatever they were, if there were any at all, they weren't material to the situation, which is all that matters. The history of the last 1.5 years proves that beyond dispute. As for pressing them to satisfy Sunni demands in the political sphere, that's just the political side of our ill-advised attempt to magically solve a conflict that, like all real conflicts, must be actually solved through action, change, losses, gains, pain, etc. Only those directly engaged would know - but all external evidence is that Sunni "demands" WRT constitution, oil, etc. are simply something the political side scrambles to put on the table in order to have something to palaver about. The violence, and ruthless campaign of intimidation, continues apace and is not affected in the least by these practical issues. No surprise, as the Sunni violence is not rooted in a bill of particulars, it's rooted in an attitude (arrogance), a reasonable paranoia (they deserve the harshest treatment in return for their murder of millions and their ruination of the country), and fundamental stuff like clan, local Both the administration's venerable campaign of trying to threaten the Iraqis with a pull-back and the Dem's idiotic time-tables have not and will not produce squat - other than to marginally affect the calculations of some of our enemies for the worse. Jihadi: hmmm, see, the infidels are a weak horse, if we just hang in there victory is possible. Sunni rejectionist: hmmm, see, the Persians (Shi'a) will be abandoned by the Americans, our violence has paid off, with a bit more patience we can outlast the Americans and dictate acceptable terms to the Persians soon enough. At one point I thought that threading the needle of pressing the Iraqis to do X while not encouraging the enemy to do Y was a neccessary if risky move. In retrospect (and that is dated back to mid-2006, not today), it was clearly a mistake. Part of the larger pattern of way too much finesse, way too much theory, way too much graduate school/war college b.s., way too little tangible pressure on the primary enemy (Sunni rejectionists, to include whole communities where that's the predominant mood). Because the last item requires, ya know, violence, action, threats of violence, etc. That the Iraqis aren't/weren't ready to handle the situation in the lead/on their own isn't a surprise or a great crime on their part - but acting as though it were the case, and basing both our public and private maneuverings and strategy on such a premise was a disastrous mistake. It encouraged the ignorant impatience in the US electorate ("hey, they've had a new system for a whole two years, why can't they handle it for themselves, I'm sick of taking care of others") while yielding zero leverage on the Iraqis. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-26 15:51 |
| #5 I guess I was thinking of the draft hydrocarbon law. On February 26, the Iraqi Council of Ministers approved a draft hydrocarbon law. The next step is for the draft legislation to be submitted to the Council of Representatives for deliberation. So Congress insists they deliberate faster. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-03-26 12:40 |
| #4 1. I havent heard that its passed the Iraqi parliament? 2. Whats interesting is that Khalilzad is using the Dems as "bad cop" to his "good cop". Clearly the admin WANTS to have pressure on Maliki, but OTOH, it doesnt want to be tied down by anything the congress passes. A difficult needle to thread. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-03-26 10:52 |
| #3 Give it all to the Kurds just to piss off Turkey. :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-03-26 09:23 |
| #2 It would be fair if the Sunnis got nothing. And the Shia got zip. There's a concept whose introduction to MME is long overdue. It's called working for a living. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-03-26 07:53 |
| #1 a law that would provide a fair distribution of Iraqi oil wealth It would be fair if the Sunnis got nothing. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-03-26 06:57 |