First order questions, courtesy of TPM Reader MS …
I’ve noticed a pattern in the official and media portrayal of the situation in Iraq that I am curious if others have also noticed. Bush, ISG, and other “advice reports” all seem to assume that the official government of Iraq, as personified by Nuri Maliki, has the same intentions for Iraq that we do.
This assumption seems crazy to me as contrary evidence is everywhere. Maliki has repeatedly demonstrated favoritism toward the Shia and its militias and seems to be sponsoring — or at least openly tolerating — the Shia militias’ conflict with the Sunni militias. Iraq is making commercial deals with Iran openly, publicly, and in clear defiance of us. Maliki ordered our troops to take down the barricades we had constructed to rescue a kidnaped soldier in Sadr City, immediately after Moqtada al-Sadr pressured him to do so. Sadr even kidnaped all the bureaucrats in Iraq’s Education ministry in broad daylight. Can anyone seriously contend that was done without the official government’s knowledge and approval.
Here’s the point. If the true aim of Iraq’s official government is what is seems; i.e., develop close ties with the Shia community in Iran, annihilate the Sunnis, and establish an Islamic government, why are we continuing to assist them?
Without addressing this specific question, is there any substantial body of people in Iraq — south of Kurdistan at least — who wants anything remotely like what President Bush wants? What is our constituency?
