Al-Maliki forces US troops out of Sadr City

Paranoid idea:

Maybe the US & Iraqi Prime Minister set it up this way? I'm sure the people in Sadr City have wanted to get rid of the US security for awhile. Perhaps the Prime Minister gains 'street cred' as someone who can get things done, thus weakening the militias by comparison?

If you think the US wouldn't do something like that, I only have to point back in time to the CIA dude and the Saddam monument tear down photo op.

 

This is a joke... we don't let our troops take orders from the UN so why would they take orders from some Iraqi? I expect the Right in this country to rise up in great indignation over this ceding of American authority... not.

 

Just as I thought... lots of action in the Kerry thread and some in the Dems = Terrorists thread, but no action from our erstwhile friends on the right in this thread. I guess it doesn't fit the narrative eh?

 

Isn't giving more authority to the Iraqis one of the goals?

 

i agree completely. theres no way the US didn't talk to maliki before they took the action. so they had to know maliki would object and force em out. this way the US gets to threaten and appear as if its giving authority to the iraqis which helps domestically given that we can say iraq is doing its own thing. and in iraq it gives maliki street cred and perhaps also reigns in sadr since maliki can claim he has clout and power so sadr should respect that.

 

But reigning in the Shiite militias is another goal too. Somehow backing down to pressure from Maktada Al Sadr doesn't strike me as making progress.

 

I think the #1 goal for Al-Maliki is to avoid an all out civil war and #2 to gain some kind of respect so he is viewed as the true leader of Iraq. This move shows he has the power to tell the American troops what to do and appeases the most powerful faction outside of the Iraqi government garnering him some support from them. In a feudelistic/tribalistic society the appearance of power has the snowball effect of gaining power. Al-Maliki must appear to be more powerful than Al Sadr.

Smart move on his part and possibly an American approved 'strategy'.
I'm sure he still doesn't trust Al Sadr or consider him an ally.

 

Andrew Sullivan nails it pretty good this morning...

While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear. In a showdown for control of Baghdad, the Iraqi prime minister took orders from Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed the U.S. military to withdraw from Sadr City. The American forces were trying both to stabilize the city but also to find a missing American serviceman. He is still missing. Money quote from the WaPo:

The U.S. military does not have a tradition of abandoning its own soldiers to foreign militias, or of taking orders from foreign governments. No commander-in-chief who actually walks the walk, rather than swaggering the swagger, would acquiesce to such a thing. The soldier appears to be of Iraqi descent who is married to an Iraqi woman. Who authorized abandoning him to the enemy? Who is really giving the orders to the U.S. military in Iraq? These are real questions about honor and sacrifice and a war that is now careening out of any control. They are not phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine to appeal to emotions to maintain power.

And where, by the way, is McCain on this? Silent on Cheney's "no-brainer" on waterboarding. Silent recently on Iraq. But vocal - oh, how vocal - on Kerry. It tells you something about what has happened to him. And to America.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/abandoning_an_a.html

 

STAY THE COURSE!!!11!1

 

The problem is there is also an American election coming up and the appearence of weakness on part of the American military doesn't play well here. I have a hard time seeing this as a conspiracy on the part of the US to shore up Maliki for a long term US gain. If it was it would've made more sense to do so after the US election.

I think this was a case where US commanders on the ground felt they were in a very precarious position to resist this order from Maliki retreated. I have a hard time buying that higher ups wanted this.

Just to add I'm not hearing a lot of trumpeting of this from the Admin. as a sign of handing control to the Iraqis. If there was a conspiracy I think this would be played up more. Instead the Admin. would rather focus attention on John Kerry.

 

So, just to remind folks, our President likes to draw a distinction between himself and LBJ... there are no maps in the Oval Office, there are no tactical decisions being made by politicians, there are no influences on the military who are free to prosecute the war the way they see fit, the Generals can come to him and tell the President what they need to do the job.

Except we allow a politician from Iraq to tell US Generals how to run the war and decide what troops should be where.

And the forceful War President, the hard-nosed realist of a VP, and the crafty SecDef are all OK with this, even if we leave a soldier behind.

We left a man behind for what? 105 dead this month for what?

What does it take for every freaking person in this country to say "Enough?"

 

Not only do our troops take orders from Iraqi politicians, but this makes it appear as if Iraqi politicians take orders from law breaking militias.

Al-Maliki just totally caved in to the Al-Sadr militia. What kind of control does he have over his country?