Political Strength Key to Iraqi Stability

There’s a catch-22 in the Iraqi cabinet. While six Shiite cabinet members have resigned in an attempt to put political pressure on Prime Minister Maliki, their actions will destabilize the Iraqi political body. Doing so will only emphasize the instability of Iraq and encourage pro-Iraq War policymakers in the U.S. to remain in the country.

If Moqtada al-Sadr and his Shiite followers want the U.S. to leave their country, they must work within the political body of the Iraqi government to support the delicate country.

The fact that the six cabinet members are following a radical Shiite cleric puts an important emphasis on religious factions. These religious affiliations also have political implications in the nation. The link between religious affiliations and political parties is critical in Middle East politics- Iraq is no different.

The sectarian violence that pushes Iraq on the brink of civil war is a result of political oppression against Shiite and Kurdish factions under the Saddam regime. If Iraq is to develop, it cannot plunge itself back into a single-party government system. Shiite cabinet members should remain in the cabinet a work with PM Maliki to create meaningful coalitions amongst Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

The desire to see U.S. troops, of course, is important to keeping Iraq an independent state. A March 2007 poll suggests 4 in 5 Iraqis oppose U.S. presence in their country. However, the domestic heat on President Bush to withdrawal troops is very apparent and should serve as a reminder to Iraq that a majority of the Americando not wish to overstay their welcome in Iraq.

First, the Democrats took Congress in the midterm elections. Then, Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the current Iraq war policy, resigned from his post as Secretary of Defense. Most recently, Congress, empowered by its election mandate, has threatened to withhold defense funding if withdrawal timetables are not established by the Bush administration. This defiance of the Bush administration as well as Bush’s position as a “lame duck” president culminates to suggest a turn in U.S. policy towards Iraq in the near future.

It is ultimately up to the Iraqi government, however, to determine U.S. withdrawal. Even anti-Iraq War proponents should understand that Iraqi instability will not recover on its own. Iraqis themselves understand this. In the same March 2007 poll, only 1 in 3 Iraqis wanted the U.S. to withdrawal immediately.

If U.S. is to make this war worth the thousands of sacrificed men and women, we must encourage the Iraq government to establish itself for the long run. This includes allowing the Iraqi government to establishe itself in the international community independently from U.S. influence. Iraq’s decision to reestablish diplomatic relations with neighboring Syria in November of 2006, for example, illustrates the Iraq political resolve to stabilize the new nation and legitimize the vulnerable administration. The U.S. may not interact with Syria, but must and has to some degree accepted that Iraq must do so.

More efforts like this should be attempted by the Iraq government regardless of the U.S.’s position on the matter. Iraqis must think for themselves cohesively and decisively. Doing so will legitimize the body in the eyes of the international community and facilitate the withdrawal of American forces.

This recent Shiite withdrawal from political participation only works counter to strengthening Iraq politics and delays U.S. withdrawal--the very thing al-Sadr and his followers are hoping to achieve.

Bye Bye Conservatism

Anyone worried the neoconservative movement was here to stay is clearly mistaken. Little by little, Republicans are losing legitimacy and clout in Washington and it all comes down to the current administration, unfortunately.

The scandal of missing tapes in the investigation into the firing of 8 US Attorneys is being compared to "Nixon's famous '18-minute gap' in the White House tape recordings."

So Bush will resign/ live out his term, a Democrat will be elected into office, fail in foreign policy and lose his incumbency to a true conservative calling for a return to normalcy?

Maybe not. Conservatives can dream though, can't we?

US-Syrian Relations

Pelosi's visit to Syria sparked an interest in Syria for me. Came across this blog which featured an article written by US Ambassador to Syria Imad Moustapha. Check out his personal blog here as well.

Will Someone Get This Guy a Muzzle?

After his several appearances in the past few weeks for analysis of the British-Iran hostage crisis, I think I prefer Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in New York City than on TV. Not only has he been irrationally critical of Tony Blair’s handling of the hostages, calling Europeans the “weak link in this” but he has also issued stinging criticism of virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

It’s numbing how only two years ago, President Bush fought vigorously with Congress to get Bolton’s confirmation as US Ambassador to the UN. Bush chipped away at his presidential legitimacy by appointing Bolton while Congress was at recess. In doing so, Bush facilitated the demise of alliances made with Republican House and Senate leaders.

So this is how Washington works. An estranged former UN Ambassador uses his former title to get around the talk-show circuit. At every chance, the former Ambassador bashes the choices made by his former employer and our current leader----Bolton’s speech at his current dwelling, the American Enterprise Institute, “I think [the North Korean deal] will inevitable fail. That day cannot come too soon in my view.”

He criticizes ally governments and their foreign policy decisions and explicitly points out success of foreign adversaries----in his article, “How Iran probed, found weakness and won a triumph,” in the Financial Times, UK published yesterday “Iran, sensing weakness, has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear program, increase its support to Hamas, Hezbollah and others and even perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq.”

And NOWHERE does he mention the work of himself as US Ambassador to the UN or his colleagues through the UN Security Council with both the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. This just says to me that he did not take his post as US Ambassador to the UN seriously, that he is NOT interested in diplomacy. Period. Thank God he is no longer our representative in the United Nations.

I agree with Huffington Post’s paralleling Bolton with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who took the high road despite ideological differences with the administration. Even former Secretary of Defense, who some say was used as a scapegoat for the Administration’s unpopular foreign policy decisions in Iraq, has remained silent and respectful of the Administration.

Bolton has decided that it is much more profitable to join in the Bush bashing in American media than it is to bite your tongue and let the administration’s failures (or successes) speak for itself. Had his decision to be so vocal and critical of an administration he has intimate knowledge of been made only to expose the faults of the administration, than I would celebrate his frankness. However, I really don’t think Bolton is doing this for anyone else’s sake but his own. And quite frankly, he’s only rewarding President Ahmadenijad by giving Iran much more credibility, power and international prestige than it really does have.

John Bolton, please just shut up.

British Soldiers in Iran...Why No One Cares

The Iranian hostage “crisis” -if it could be called that compared to the Iranian hostage (real) crisis of 1979 involving American soldiers- has important implications for the international community. It is an important chance to see the political prowess of the Iranian regime as they interact with one of the West’s most prominent powers. How Ahmadenijad choose to engage or not engage in negotiations with Britain can give the United States unequivocal data into the psyche of the Iranian President.

Apparently not everyone sees the importance. I was disappointed not only at how little attention was paid to the situation but most importantly, the level of analysis applied when the crisis was covered. It seems American media is infatuated with the millions fundraised by Presidential candidates more than the international implications of a British-Iran diplomatic showdown.

BBC remains my preferred news source because of its analysis and unbiased presentation of important international news. Case in point…quotes from both Iranian and Middle Eastern newspapers were collected by BBC and offer a broader perspective on the circumstances and the global implications of the release.

After some searching, I did find some substantive engagements in the crisis and its implications in the American media. I disagree somewhat with Slate’s view of the crisis as a total Tony Blair/ British failure. Clearly the situation had an international impact and using Blair or the British government as a scapegoat is ignorant.

The Moderate Voice is entertaining on the matter, but not necessarily analytical.

I greatly appreciated Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed in the Washington Post which explored other institutional failures. He was disappointed in the failure of the European Union, who prefers soft power diplomacy to “the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time” as well as the United Nations.

It is very evident that Ahmadenijad attempted to use the hostages as political leverage. Specifically coining the release “a gift to the British people,” and awarding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard members who captured the British naval men. The moderate Iranian news, Kargozaran, states, “Iran’s withdrawal of all its legal demands has surprised the people because we did not see any obvious flexibility from the UK.” Reformist news, Aftab-E Yazd, said, “The release of the British sailors just a day after Tony Blair’s empty threat did not arouse any sense of pride among Iranians but possibly even a sort of repulsion.”

As news of Iranian soldiers in Iraq being released and the treatment of the British sailors are uncovered, this issue is not over and done with. I’m looking forward to finding more pieces of the puzzle and hopefully uncovering support for my belief that the crisis was not a complete Iranian victory.

Gingrich Video

Thank you Huffington Post, for the nice piece about Gingrich's "ghetto fab" slip up and the ever-so-entertaining Spanish apology on You Tube.

Gingrich Eats His Words (and Presidential Nomination)

Funny of the Day: White, rich Republican candidate apologizing for using "ghetto" to describe low income, uneducated, non-English language. In a speech denouncing bilingual education, Gingrich supported teaching English, "the language of prosperity," and hoped to get rid of "the language of the ghetto" in American schools.

I'm trying to find a video online of his apology in......oh dear God.....Spanish......