Since when does the military conduct Affairs of State?

And since when is the military concerned with tying progress in Iraq to Energy Policy?!?!?!?



U.S. commander warns Iraqi of the need for progress

By Michael R. Gordon
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

BAGHDAD: Swelling opposition in Congress is cited

The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East warned the prime minister of Iraq in a closed-door conversation that Baghdad must make tangible political progress by next month to counter the growing tide of opposition to the war in Congress.

In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Admiral William Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.

The Shiite dominated-government, Fallon added in the meeting, has consolidated power and should have the confidence to reach out to its opponents.

"You have the power," Fallon said. "You should take the initiative."

The admiral's appeal, which was made in the presence of Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, a senior political adviser to the command, and this reporter, elicited an assurance from Maliki that he hoped to make some progress over the coming weeks. But he also offered a lengthy account of all the tribulations facing the Iraqi government, including tenuous security, distrustful neighboring Sunni states, and a complex legal agenda.

"There are lots of difficulties that are not well understood from outside," Maliki said. "Still, we're trying hard."

Fallon, who is in charge of the U.S. Central Command, used a whirlwind trip to Iraq to reinforce Washington's public and private message that political progress was lagging behind. It is a message that has been delivered by several other U.S. officials, but the deadlines have often been allowed to slip. This reporter, who is accompanying Fallon on his trip to Iraq, was allowed into the meeting. It was only at the end of the meeting that U.S. officials agreed that it could be on the record.

At times, the two sides appeared to be operating on two different clocks. While Fallon emphasized the urgency of demonstrating results, Maliki cast the political process as a long journey from dictatorship to democracy. "The end result will be marked in history," said Maliki, who was flanked by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, his national security adviser, and two other aides.

When President George W. Bush decided in January to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq, the purpose was not to obtain a military victory but to improve security so the Iraqi leaders could carry out a program of political reconciliation. But now that the troops are in place, the Iraqis have little to show by way of political progress.

In some ways, this summer does not seem like an auspicious period for a political breakthrough. Some Maliki aides fear that Sunni members of the government are conspiring against them with the support of Sunni Arab states. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, an important Shiite group, is being treated for lung cancer. Kurdish leaders seem preoccupied by Turkish threats to intervene militarily in northern Iraq.

Iraqis are aware that the Bush administration has promised to report to Congress in September on what its new Iraq strategy has accomplished. Indeed, the Bush administration is obliged by congressional legislation to issue an interim report in July on Iraq developments.

In the meeting, Fallon focused on Iraq's oil law, assuming it was closest to completion. "Is it reasonable to expect it to be completed in July?" he asked. "We have to show some progress in July for the upcoming report."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/12/frontpage/military.php

 

Heard a new slogan today

"Republican's Freedom for Oil program...."

pretty good...

 

Great! Look how that turned out.

 

Yes Sir.

 

I guess I'm just not used to the idea of the Military conducting what one would consider diplomatic affairs (or advocating energy policy to a foreign country). It seems inappropriate to me.

Oh well