Just who is in charge of the political process in Iraq - Iraqis or the Obama administration??

[bigtree]

The Guardian ‏@guardian 33m
US slaps down Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki after he accuses president: http://gu.com/p/4vjf8

The United States has thrown its weight behind Iraqi president Fuad Masum after he was accused by prime minister Nouri al-Maliki of violating the constitution.

As security forces massed in the capital Baghdad, the under-pressure Maliki made the surprise announcement on state television on Sunday night that he would be filing a complaint against Masum.

“I will submit today an official complaint to the federal court against the president of the Republic for committing a clear constitutional violation for the sake of political calculations,” said Maliki.

But US state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement: “The United States fully supports president Fuad Masum in his role as guarantor of the Iraqi constitution.

“We reaffirm our support for a process to select a prime minister who can represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people by building a national consensus and governing in an inclusive manner,” she said, echoing an earlier comment made on Twitter by deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs Brett McGurk.

“We reject any effort to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial process.”

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-iraqi-maliki-accuses-president


____ How does the United States get to claim some high ground in their manipulation of the Iraqi political process; claiming they know better what the 'consensus' of Iraqis is than the Iraqis do themselves? They can dictate the process just by virtue of this deployment of our military and still accuse Iraqis themselves of 'manipulation?

What right does the U.S. have to dictate the political process of a sovereign government in Iraq? How is a lawsuit in the Iraqi courts 'manipulation?' How is the U.S. military action and insistence not 'coersion?' It's Orwellian, in the extreme.

What the U.S. really wants is capitulation by the Maliki regime to the wishes of the U.S. occupiers who have their warships and planes poised to strike wherever and whenever they please in Iraq. It's no wonder there's strong and active resistance among many Iraqis to U.S. involvement.

One moment we're enabling Maliki into power by way of a devastating military occupation - the next, we're demanding that autocrat's removal behind the renewed force of our re-occupying, threatening military. Where's the democratic process behind all of that? How is demanding that Maliki just step down respecting the Iraqi democratic process?

This is a outrageous display of U.S. imperialism.

[TwilightGardener]

1. How are we "occupying" with next to no forces on the ground?

The US is not engaged in hostilities against Iraq, either. Our involvement in their political process stems from our offer to help them against ISIS if they form a more inclusive government. Our warships and planes aren't there to hurt the people or government, so your claim of coercion is crazy. MALIKI ASKED FOR OUR HELP. So did the Kurds. We aren't going to spend our money and risk our military personnel and assets so that Maliki can continue being Iran's toady while we bomb their enemies for them.

[bigtree]

2. are you not seeing the administration's ability to attack anywhere in iraq on a whim

. . .in the spur of the moment?

Did you miss that our forces are surrounding Baghdad?

It's a curious argument to downplay the force and power of our military forces arrayed around Iraq in one breath, and insist their superiority to the Iraqi defenses themselves in the other.

[TwilightGardener]

3. I don't think we have forces all over Iraq. But even if we did, we're not

attacking Iraq. That's not our intent or purpose. Anymore than we're attacking Japan or South Korea because we keep forces there. You seem to not be grasping what's going on.

[bigtree]

6. again, and I really don't think it's an argument, it's obvious on its face

. . .the U.S. is militarily dominant over the Iraqi forces; that made clear and evident by this deployment meant to 'shore them up' and in the insistence of supporters of these deployments that only the U.S. can effect the military goals there our government believes they need.

The open-ended deployment of U.S. military force, on warships with planes poised to attack by the air wherever and whenever president Obama pleases; the armed drones which operate far beyond Iraq as well as throughout the country which are reported to be launching day and night; the free movement of special forces throughout the country at the President and the U.S. military's whim' coupled with this nebulous order for airstrikes whenever the military sees fit - President Obama specifically declaring Baghdad, Irbil, and anywhere else our troops are opportunistically deployed for this opportunistic defense; all represents an overwhelming American military force arrayed around Iraq able to strike anywhere the President or the military pleases. That's coercion - that's manipulation as our State Dept. badgers the Maliki regime to just step aside in favor of yet another handpicked U.S. choice for the Iraqi leadership.

That's not just some benign exercise of U.S. force which is just chasing an insurgent group around, it's an imperialistic display and exercise of the overwhelming power of our military to effect what President Obama openly admits are political goals there. it's U.S. imperialism at it's worse, and no one should be surprised when many Iraqis resist that effort to impose our political choices on Iraqis - the same way they resisted and objected to Bush's imperialistic exercise of our military forces there.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Iraq is in danger of collapsing/rupturing along sectarian lines.

That's in addition to the ISIS problem/genocide. They're not worried about us invading them--they want our help. Their military is full of Sunnis and officers who hate the government and are deserting, they have Moqtada al-Sadr type Shiite militias roughing up people in Baghdad, it's turning to total shit in a hurry, and the political mess today is going to push them over the brink. You propose we do nothing and watch them turn into a failed state of extremists and warring factions, even when they ask for help?

[bigtree]

13. I'm not seeing where our country's interference is doing all this good you're claiming

. . . I'm not convinced. Maybe you'll have more success convincing someone else.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Well, we'll see how effective we are at pushing back ISIS and protecting

the Kurds/Yazidis and our American personnel. Northern Iraq is our focus, and yes, that includes oil fields too. If we start accidentally bombing the bejeezus out of civilians, they're going to regret our help. But otherwise, I think we're doing the right thing.

[IronGate]

22. The only reason ISIS is making such dramatic gains is because of the heavy combat

equipment seized from the Iraqi Army stores, IE, M-1A1 main battle tanks, APC's, up armored Humvees, self propelled Artillery, etc.
The purpose of the airstrikes is to degrade ISIS ability to conduct combat ops by destroying their heavy combat equipment, and supply the Kurdish Army with the anti armor weapons needed to counter ISIS armor.

[IronGate]

4. Our forces are not surrounding the Green Zone,

it's Iraqi forces loyal to Al Maliki.
Where did you come up with the notion that it is American forces?

[bigtree]

7. is that supposed to convince that the U.S. doesn't have special forces deployed throughout Iraq?

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 01:11 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . I'm not swayed by your reasoning. Iraq is effectively surrounded and vulnerable to an overwhelming U.S. military force. Anyone denying or insisting that we're not is either incredibly naive or just playing some mind game.

*

[IronGate]

8. You said that our forces were surrounding Baghdad.

That's patently false, we don't have the forces available in Iraq to do so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025366394#post2

Did you miss that our forces are surrounding Baghdad?

If you're talking about the troops surrounding the Green Zone, those are Iraqi troops loyal to Al Maliki, not American troops.

The only one naïve here would be you.

[bigtree]

11. well, you stick to what you believe

. . . I can see for myself that this is U.S. coercion behind the exercise of our military forces. Most Iraqis can see for themselves, as well. Good luck with your downplaying of it all. I'm not buying it, and I'm not alone.

[IronGate]

14. I'm not downplaying a fucking thing,

you're the one posting false allegations.
There are no American troops surrounding Baghdad or the Green Zone, those are Iraqi troops, despite your wish to the contrary.

[bigtree]

19. have it your way. Did you not get to post your opposing view?

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

*edit -divisive language

It won't change the fact that the U.S. president is trying to manipulate a political outcome in Iraq at the same time he's actively exercising the devastating force of our nation's military within Iraq. That, to me, is outrageous.

Kick me around on the details, but it doesn't change the reality of this American president working to effect his own political goals in Iraq while exercising the intimidating force of our nation's military. Talk around that all you want. It doesn't change the reality of our own president's active attempts to 'manipulate' and 'coerce' the Iraqi government into doing what he wants. That represents to me, imperialism at it's worse. To you, apparently it's just a tea party.

[bigtree]

16. Did the President not identify Baghdad as a place in Iraq where he's authorized airstrikes

I could be mistaken that our troops aren't positioned to defend the seat of the I government, but I don't think it makes much difference to my contention that U.S. military forces aren't poised to attack anywhere in Iraq. You can represent that as benign and non-threatening. I don't agree.

If the deployment's not a direct threat, the deployments and the ability to either defend or attack is a manipulation of our ,military forces there to effect our own political goals.

[IronGate]

17. You're also leaving out a very important fact,

it was the Iraqi govt that asked us to provide air power to blunt the ISIS advance.
And, once again, we don't have the combat troops in country to defend Baghdad, the only combat power we have currently available is air power.

I take President Obama at his word that there will be no American combat troops on the ground in Iraq.

[bigtree]

20. I think he's regretting that, as we speak

[IronGate]

24. Maybe,

but, I get the sense that the majority of Americans will support airstrikes, but not combat troops.

[bigtree]

27. well, I may be wrong on that

. . . I'm fine with conceding that point.

[IronGate]

29. No problem.

I realize this is a very contentious issue and sometimes tempers boil over, (me) and any snarkiness on my part is uncalled for and apologized for.

[bigtree]

35. obviously, I'm focused on advancing ANY argument that supports the removal of the U.S. military

. . . from the Iraqi equation.

I recognize that there are mistakes, contradictions, and holes in some of my reasoning - still, I hold fast to the belief that there is no long-term benefit to the insertion of our military into the conflict there; either to effect military goals or enable political ones. I view our military forces in Iraq as counterproductive; both in the short-term and, ultimately, in the long term.

I appreciate your entreaty to more comity and civility in our debate. I'd also encourage that and apologize for my own strident tone and argument.

[The Magistrate]

5. Maliki Does Not Have A Majority In The Parliament, Sir

He needs coalition to gain one, his party comes up very short on its own.

The new President was elected by the Parliament ( which requires a two-thirds vote ) on the apparent understanding he woulds not ask Maliki to try and form the new government.

The constitution directs the President to invite the leader of the 'largest bloc' to form the government. Maliki says that means the leader of the party with the most seats, which is his. But there seems to be a coalition against Maliki which could command a majority, and this could certainly be taken as the 'largest bloc' in Parliament.

[bigtree]

9. I understand that process

. . .what I fail to understand is how his stated intention to challenge the Iraqi president in Iraqi courts represents more 'manipulation' or 'coercion' than the U.S. urging, maneuvering for Maliki to step aside in favor of our own choice for the leadership; all the while exercising an open-ended, mostly undefined, subject to change on the whim of the American president; military deployment -both inside of Iraq and with most of the military power arrayed on warships right outside.

That's not what I consider allowing the democratic process in Iraq to proceed unabated. It's open and clear manipulation behind the ubiquitous exercise of our dominant and escalating presence and activity of our military and intelligence forces inside and outside of the country.

[The Magistrate]

12. Several Weeks Back, Sir, Ayatollah al'Sistani Called For Maliki To Step Down...

The distaste for his continuance at the head of government is hardly a creation of the United States. He worked hard to earn it.

[bigtree]

23. Sistani was a unifying factor when many of the same resistant forces threatened

. . . during the Bush invasion and occupation.

I think he can be a unifying factor now. What I don't believe is that our U.S. government can play the same unifying role while directly exercising the force of our military within Iraq. We'll see the results for ourselves, though.

[The Magistrate]

25. What He Wants, Sir, In This Matter

Is what you seem to be accusing the United States of seeking, and that by coercion, with the clear implication you view it as something forced upon Iraqis, that they would not do on their own, or if they could resist.

But it is clear that Maliki does not have the support of the Parliament, and more important in practical fact, of the elders of the Shia clergy, which practically guarantees he does not have the support of the Shia populace, and he never had any support from Kurds or Sunni.

[bigtree]

28. yet, he has the votes in parliament to maintain his rule, at least so far

Mr. Maliki’s State of Law party controls at least 92 of Parliament’s 328 seats, with a variety of other parties having no more than 33 each. A 165-seat majority is needed to form a government.

I don't believe 'coercon' has to necessarily be overt, or even a matter of a direct threat. How will the U.S. exercise that military force in the future if there is still tension surrounding a continuation or prevailing of the Maliki government? Right now, it seems to be enabling the Kurds and directed at resistance, insurgent forces with some Sunni sympathies.

Officials: ISIS recruiting on the rise in Sunni areas of Iraq

It's hard to see the U.S military force and activity in Iraq as some unifying influence.

[karynnj]

21. Maliki ASKED the US to send military support.

We did because it is not in our interest to have ISIS take over large parts of Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile, the US has consistently called for a unity government WITHOUT supporting any individual. We were not even there at all at the time of the election. I don't know what you mean by our "dominant" presence.

[bigtree]

26. it's not in the Syrian government's interest either

. . . which the U.S actively opposes. Is the U.S. standing in the way of the Syrian government's attempts to deal with ISIS themselves?

By 'dominant' military presence, I mean our forces which are arrayed in a manner in which they are able to strike anywhere in Iraq at a moment's notice. That, coupled with the president's approval of direct military action, is 'dominance' to me.

I'll bet Maliki is rethinking that U.S. military invitation today.

[karynnj]

30. The US is not "standing in the way" of Syria fighting ISIS

The US has a very limited number of troops in Iraq - and NONE in Syria. This in spite of people from Hillary Clinton to John McCain suggesting we should have done MUCH more -- staying in Iraq and helping the rebels more than we did.

The President was very clear in exactly what we were doing with air strikes. It was to prevent tens of thousands dying on a mountain top.

As to Maliki rethinking that -- he should be rethinking a lot of things - starting with marginalizing both the Sunnis and Kurds in his government - something that aggravated the current crisis. Not to mention - he does not have the power - without the US - to stop the forces against him.

[bigtree]

33. the majority of the airstrikes, so far, appear to be in defense of our own 'personnel'

. . . and facilities. Ive posted many reports which express that.

It may well be that those strikes assist the overall effort to defend the Kurdish civilians besieged on the mountain, but that's not the only stated or demonstrated exercise of those airstrikes.

That lack of ability to resist the advancing resistance forces may well be the ultimate coercion for Maliki, but it isn't without it's own political consequence, as we can see in the aligning and recruitment of hundreds of Sunnis to the ISIS cause.

I think what the U.S. is really trying to resist in Iraq is the forced removal from government of Maliki by Islamic forces who would establish and expand an Islamic-dominated regime. Having the U.S. military so openly operating at the same time we're urging political changes is having the effect of fomenting resistance based on that association and in opposition to America. I believe this mix of U.S. military action and political persuasion is a recipe for division, if just based on that overt involvement alone.; not to mention the already active resistance to those same U.S. influences and military activity in Iraq over the last decade.

[karynnj]

34. The express purposes included to defend ourselves - we also have dropped supplies to those

in the mountains.

The forces in Iraq pushing Maliki out are not ISIS. They are a coalition of many parties against the one Maliki leads.

[bigtree]

36. here we are, past the deadline for this coalition you speak of in parliament

. . .to form a new government. Problem is, they don't appear to be able to do that.

What I'm getting from reports is that there isn't the political consensus our State Dept. is insisting Maliki respect. The Iraqi parliament is as least as corrupt as Maliki. The parliament has adjourned for more than a week, and Maliki's State of Law Party still has a plurality; maybe not enough of one, but certainly more than anyone else in the running has been able to achieve.

The National Alliance was supposed to present a candidate to the Iraqi president and parliament and didn't.

All of the talk from the U.S. about Maliki's responsibility to seek and form a consensus in Parliament ignores the head of the Iraqi National Alliance, Ibrahim al-Jaafary and the Iraqi President Masoum, or even the speaker of the parliament, Jubouri's failure to even name a candidate.

All of the talk about Maliki's failure to respect a consensus that doesn't exist - no indication that it even will develop. Meanwhile, who's actually not respecting the political process in Iraq? It looks like that prize goes to the Iraqi President, the head of the national Alliance and the Speaker - well before we (the U.S. govt.) should be complaining about Maliki's inability to form a working coalition.

So the says they back the Iraqi president - to do what? Drag their feet? muddle around looking for someone who has more seats? back the Iraqi president while he bumps his ass failing to cobble together a coalition?

What appears to be happening is an attempt to stall in the vain hope that the majority you speak of will emerge in the interim. I think that's a pipe dream of theirs. Who knows? Maybe Maliki's State of Law Party will divide, but it's a long way from there to another candidate achieving more of a plurality than Maliki has so far. If they had one we'd see it come together by now, I think. Certainly the U.S. pressure doesn't appear to be helping.

The U.S.needs to STFU and let the political process there develop without misguided calls for Maliki to do what no one in the Iraqi parliament seems to be able to do for themselves. Maybe the State Dept. is hoping Chalabi works his magic, somehow.

[karynnj]

18. The US had, up to this point, simply said that they would not fight for Iraq

if they did not have a unity government.

That gave them two choices - form a unity government that represented everyone OR - not expect the US to act as their air force/military power.

The problem was that Maliki, who has eliminated most Sunnis and Kurds from power, wanted the US to fight on his behalf --- Do you think we should simply have said "Yes, sir" and put our forces at their command?.

The government is more complicated than you imply. There was an election - Maliki's party had the highest percent, but nowhere near 50% that was needed to form the government alone. The President has the responsibility of asking "someone" to form a government that must include over 50% of those elected. (Note - Israel has the same thing - and a few years ago, Livni got the highest percent, and Netanyahu the next highest, but he was asked to form the government. Why? In the opinion of the President, given where the other elected people were politically, he could most easily do it.)

Clearly the US and other Western countries see Maliki as part of the problem, but it has been months since the election and the Iraqis have not formed ANY government. The US has been clear that they are the ones who have to do this.

[bigtree]

31. I think the political process there would be better served if we just kept our military out of Iraq

. . . then we would have more moral and political influence there to urge the changes our government says they want.

[karynnj]

32. We WERE militarily out of there until Iraq lost substantial ground to ISIS

The timing was especially bad as they had yet to form the government from their election. However, the threat of ISIS was too great to simply stay out until they formed their government. The US tried to push them to do that as expeditiously as possible -- and Obama, Kerry and others took pains to speak to ALL potential leaders and to not favor any of them.