Here is some very good news in the SPIEGEL interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. Good news because it appears that Maliki’s confidence has firmed to the point he is now ready to commit to Iraqi forces defending Iraq:
…SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?
Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator’s nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future.
…SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?
Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany’s experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops — and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.
SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?
Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that’s why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush’s term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.
…SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?
Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.
The Maliki interview will probably be featured as a confirmation by PM Maliki of Obama’s policy positions. I think the accurate interpretation is that the unpopular, hard decisions made by George Bush have [hopefully] achieved the objectives of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. I expect Obama will mine the brighter prospects of Iraq for his own benefit, but deserving none.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, your job is probably one of the most dangerous a politician can have. How do you cope with this, and what do you do to make it bearable?
Maliki: I lead a very simple life — one that is shaped by external forces, which is apparently what fate has determined for us Iraqis. In that regard, the past few decades of dictatorship have not changed all that much. What keeps me going? The constant exertion of my job — and the successes we are now having. It means a lot to me to see how much closer we are today to a democratic Iraq, one that respects human rights, than we were only a few months ago.
Bush deserves no credit here. He let thousands of Iraqis die on his watch for 3.5 years of war. He failed to prosecute an adequate counter insurgency, failed to make the proper policy decisions on disbanding the army, promoting peace and stability (instead of looting), and protecting Iraq from the establishment of terrorist organizations like Bin Laden’s. All these things occurred on Bush’s watch and were the result of failed policy in Iraq. Not to mention the low-grade civil war that took place in 2005-06.
Bush finally put someone who knows how to fight a war like this, General Petraeus, in charge. And somehow Bush deserves the credit? I guess that’s fair, considering about 2,500 troops, about a half million Iraqis, and billions of dollars were spent while he took 3.5 years to figure out what needed to be done.
Bush failed in Iraq, this country owes General Petraeus a debt of gratitude for bailing us out. Bush deserves no credit–we saw what his “leadership” of the Iraq war led to: mass murder, terrorism, and IEDs. He sat there with his pecker in his hand for 3.5 years, and now we are supposed to what? Thank him?
This is not to say the Democrats are not failures and that the Democrats are betting on failure in Iraq. They are useless cowards that go with the political winds. They are just as responsible for getting us into this mess and for the costs of this war as Bush.
The infuriating here is if the right decision was made to put a general trained and an expert in counter insurgency in charge in the first place, we could have avoided the bloody mess Iraq became. In fact, we would have been better off because the country would not have been so severely ravaged by war. We paid a high price for Bush’s stupidity and on the job training.
It will take far more than 3.5 years to rebuild what was destroyed in that time due to Bush “greeted as liberators” incompetence.