Via the NYT we find that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, has doubts about Maliki’s ability to quell the current violence in Iraq (Bush Adviser’s Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader):
“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change,” the memo said of the Iraqi leader. “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is 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.”
I must confess: I really didn’t need a leaked memo–that conclusion was pretty easy to reach. It is clear that Maliki is either inept, powerless, or complicit (or a combination of all three) in regards to the current circumstances.
The question in regards to the memo is whether it was leaked stragetically as a means of putting pressure on Maliki in advance of his meeting with Bush or whether it was leaked maliciously to sabotage that meeting.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (2)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 29th, 2024 at 9:25 am
I really didn’t need a leaked memo–that conclusion was pretty easy to reach.
I wouldn’t dismiss the significance of the memo since it further calls into question one of Bush’s fundamental flaws: his inability to accurately assess complex foreign policy situations and to understand the motives of the various actors in Iraq.
Bush has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for Maliki:
On the campaign trail in September, he said: “In Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki’s unity government is fighting al Qaeda and the enemies of Iraq’s democracy. They’re taking increasing responsibility for the security of their free country.”
In August: “a government has been formed, a unity government, headed by a good man named Prime Minister Maliki.”
In July: “I went over there and saw the man. Prime Minister Maliki. You know what I was looking for? I was looking for, do we have someone there who can set an agenda; somebody who can follow through; somebody who is dedicated to a government of, by, and for the people. And I’ve found a courageous man there. ”
In July: “He’s a guy who can set goals and follow through on those goals. He understands what needs to be done in order to succeed. And he represents the will of 12 million people who went to the polls.”
In June:”Prime Minister Maliki is working to build confidence in the Iraqi security forces, and he has a plan to do that….Prime Minister Maliki is promoting reconciliation among the Iraqi people….I was impressed with the Prime Minister, and I’m impressed by his team. ”
In June, he said: “The Prime Minister is a man of strong character; he has a clear and practical plan to lead his country forward.”
In May: “The new government is led by Prime Minister Maliki. He’s a Shia. He’s an Iraqi patriot who for years was part of the resistance to Saddam Hussein. He’s shown courage and wisdom by surrounding himself with strong leaders who are committed to serving all the people. ”
The fact of the matter–and anyone who has been paying attention to the issue since the Iraqi election can tell you–is that al-Maliki is a stalwart Shia who counts on Shiite cleric al-Sadr for his fundamental support and has not done anything substantive to quell ethnic discontent there.
If Bush’s foreign policy team is JUST getting around to realizing al-Maliki is ineffectual, it shows how out of touch they are.
The funny thing in the memo is the naievete placed on his “intentions” that “seem good when he talks with Americans.” Its obvious from Bush’s statements hailing al-Maliki’s “courage” that he is easily fooled by the Prime Minister. This shows Bush’s fundamental weakness as a leader.
November 29th, 2024 at 11:49 am
Treason and the New York Times
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one’s nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.