Do we have a detailed rundown yet from Kerry on his meetings with Maliki?

.

comments.

Even Dodd to a certain extent.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/12/on_the_ground_in_iraq.html

I'll keep digging.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/12/amalaki_moves_closer_to_kerry.html


But the others are right, that there wasn't any press release that came out that I'm aware of. For Syria, there was, but not with his meeting with al Maliki. Chris Dodd was with him, and he also didn't say a lot about his meeting with al Maliki while he did expound a lot about Syria (he was on Jim Lehrer this past week).

would like to compare impressions.


As I recall, Maliki wanted a timetable for withdrawal, too. I wonder if condemning Maliki is Hillary's way of bolstering Bush's position without having to SAY so.

while Iraqi politicians are "bickering". I suppose that's fairly general as to who he's talking about. But I think he's singled out Maliki as not having a lot of credibility.

Bush's surge. Hillary is helping Bush out a bit, perhaps returning a favor or looking for an excuse to fall back on herself.

with al Sadr. Weak, ineffective, can't keep his promises. I could go on . . . The fact is everyone is criticizing Maliki; I haven't read what Hillary has been saying -- maybe it's over the top.

I guess I think the Americans are to blame but the Iraqis, too. We're more to blame for the beginning, and they've really sucked in the last year.

A top aide to Al Sadr was arrested, as were 400 of his followers. Sadr went his own family away as he fears that they are in danger from the US and Iraqi forces that seem to be coming after him now. This will force some kind of a showdown in Baghdad.

Maliki is in an impossible position. He needs the militias to keep order. Yet the Saddam execution was badly botched and reflected very poorly on his government. So he also needs to get tough with the forces that are keeping him in power to pacify the Americans.

None of this is good. 2 months ago, Stephen Hadley, NSA for Bush, leaked that memo that said that Bush had no confidence in Maliki and thought he might need to be replaced. Then Bush backed him again, now, not sure.

Kerry said in SFRC hearings that part of the problem is Shia on Shia violence. That is implicit criticism of Maliki. Nothing explicit, but the implicit stuff is there blm.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/19/9117/97359

This is a public relations script written by a White House lackey. Bush orders al-Maliki to get with the program. Al-Maliki rails against Rice and the U.S. in public, but takes immediate action, rounding up 400 bad guys (of the tens of thousands of armed militia men in Sadr City, along with selected leaders). Al-Sadr makes a public statement declaring a holy month off to flee for his life, and consider what action to take.

In reality, this is a planned vacation for a few hundred Sadrists. Perhaps the selected fall of a less than favored Sadr loyalist. It plays well in the press, but does little or nothing to impact the military power of al-Sadr. He takes it easy for a month, until the pressure of the surge dies down. And then it is back to the business at hand. Purging as many Sunnis as he freaking-well can.

I come to my conclusions based on al-Sadr's past history. He has proven willing to fight both the Americans, and other factions, both Sunni and Shia, within Iraq. He possesses the strongest single fighting force in Iraq, save for the U.S. military (or so we are told). When he feels his interests are threatened, like when al-Maliki was on his way to Jordan to meet with the Bushies, he was willing to threaten a pull out from the coalition government (which does not exist without his continued support).

snip

The fact that al-Sadr is going on vacation, rather than fighting, indicates that he has a deal with al-Maliki to put on a show of "Oh the government is serious about a death-squad crackdown now." Imagine gangsters in Chicago during prohibition. You own the police force, but every now and then, for the sake of public officials, and the public itself, you have to agree to a staged raid on your operations. Everybody gets bailed out by the corrupt system, and it is on to business. And if the day ever comes when the system is really going to take you down without your acquiescence, you fight like hell.



It's just a theory, but it sounds pretty logical and typical for what has been happening in Iraq.

That al-Sadr and his militia will lay low and wait out the surge. They have the time Bush has not.

There is another diary at DKos today that talks about a McClatchey news story saying that the Kurds are deserting from the army and refusing to fight in any 'surge' against Baghdad. This is not good news for Bush, who thought he could order up a military while still disregarding the internal divisions in Iraq.

The Iraqis can simply wait us out. The NYTimes reported yesterday that a top US General sees the surge ending by late summer and those troops coming home anyway, as the beginning of a withdrawal. This is just providing cover for Bush to try and save what little dignity he has left.