Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a number of interesting things to say yesterday, but my very favorite was his response to recent Bush administration criticisms that he’s less than reliable when it comes to leading Iraq through its current crisis.
Maliki disputed President Bush’s remarks broadcast Tuesday that the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein “looked like it was kind of a revenge killing” and took exception to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Senate testimony last week that Maliki’s administration was on “borrowed time.”
The prime minister said statements such as Rice’s “give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration,” Maliki said. “But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government.”
It’s hard not to appreciate the irony of it all. When members of Congress, from both parties, criticize the president’s handling of the war, White House officials suggest that lawmakers are undermining the mission and emboldening terrorists. But when the Bush gang criticizes Maliki, and suggests he’s not doing enough to step up and lead, he argues that the White House is undermining the mission and emboldening terrorists.
Indeed, at yesterday’s press briefing, Tony Snow renewed the treason talk: “It’s probably worth asking, what message does Congress intend to give, and who does it think the audience is? Is the audience merely the President? Is it the voting American public? Or in an age of instant communication, is it also al Qaeda? Is it Iraq? Is it players in Iraq? Is it U.S. troops? Is it people in the Gulf who want to understand whether the United States is, in fact, a partner upon whom they can depend for security even in trying times?”
Given Maliki’s comments, it sounds like all of this could be turned around just as easily on the Bush gang. The Bush administration has said it has no confidence in Maliki, describes him as “ignorant” and deceptive, and Bush has personally suggested he might fire him. Who’s the audience for these remarks? What message does that send to terrorists who wonder whether the United States will stand by their man? What does it tell the troops fighting to help preserve Maliki’s government? What does it tell the region about our nation’s commitment to our friends?
See, Mr. Snow, demagoguery is fun for the whole family.
As for the broader point of Maliki’s comments yesterday, the prime minister basically announced, “Just give us all your guns and then get out. We’ll take care of the rest.” There’s a little more to it than that, but not much.
The Iraqi government’s need for American troops would “dramatically go down” in three to six months if the United States accelerated the process of equipping and arming Iraq’s security forces, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Wednesday. […]
In the interview Wednesday, Maliki said many American and Iraqi lives would have been spared if the Iraqi forces had been better equipped. But he did not elaborate on what he wanted in terms of weapons or materiel, or whether his needs exceeded what is proposed in the $1.5 billion military sales agreement Iraq reached with the United States last month. Under that deal, the Iraqi government will receive an additional 300 armored personnel carriers, 600 more “up-armored” Humvees, helicopters and other equipment this year, according to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq. Iraq’s proposed 2007 budget devotes $7 billion to building up the armed forces.
“President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki agreed in November to accelerate not only the training of the Iraqi security forces but also accelerate the transfer of equipment,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday.
One Maliki aide said the prime minister wants “heavier weapons” and is concerned that Iraqi security forces are outgunned by militias and insurgents.
“Basically the level of weapons in the current army is really a disgrace,” said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. In many cases, gunmen are “definitely better armed” than the police and the army, the aide said.
Hey look, it’s an exit strategy. Maliki said if we “speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces,” we can start withdrawing U.S. forces within three to six months. To which I say, “Deal.” Give him the keys to the armory, let him fill his shopping cart, and don’t wait for the ink on the withdrawal plan to dry.