http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

They spoke of a timeline for Iraqi forces to take over control of security in Iraq. By all accounts this scenario is so unlikely that it can only be election week optimism.

It might not be unlikely, but it certainly won't work.

At least not "now", at the present time.

What would likely happen under that scenario, since Maliki and al-Sadr are good buddies, is that the Mahdi army and associated militias would end up running everything but the Kurdish north (the Pesh Merga would never let those guys anywhere near their territory).

See, that's the whole problem - Maliki is too weak to stand up the defense of a strong central government, and al-Sadr is too strong to give the Sunnis any concessions, so there's basically a standoff (or, in the worst case, a civil war).

And, al-Sadr's people have already infiltrated the ISF, so if anyone tries to do anything with them (say, along the lines of what Musharraf has done in Pakistan), they're going to encounter strong resistance.

A dilemma within a conundrum (or vice versa). Ouch.

Rumors abound that Maliki is being set up to fail. Everyone knows that he does not actually control anything so if he is given a timeline to achieve impossible goals there will be an excuse to have him removed. At least that is the speculation. For any sort of success to be achieved in Iraq, the U.S. would have to start talking to BAD people. They would have to enlist the cooperation of Iran and Syria, they would have to sponsor talks between competing militias and work on a political solution. Instead, they are beating the drums of war against Iran. In this conference they once again grouped Iran and Syria with Al Queda. If Iran is attacked, Iraq will light up like a candle.

Far from being reassured, I am really frightened about where this is heading.

You and I both.

Have you seen the pictures coming out of Iraq (on CNN, NBC, Fox, or any of the major news stations)?

My God, that place looks terrible. Everywhere you look, there are burned out cars in the middle of the street, buildings with big chunks missing out of the sides, it's a God-awful mess. It looks worse than the South Bronx ever did, or even Vietnam for that matter.

Aieee.... I mean, it's no wonder the Iraqis are upset with the US, wouldn't you say? It's hard to imagine how that kind of thing would not sway Iraqi public opinion.

Let's face it, we created a real mess for ourselves over there. We squandered away any goodwill we might have gained by toppling Saddam.

I can only repeat what I've said dozens of times before on this forum: the first rule of engagement is, "when you find yourself digging yourself into a hole, stop digging". Right away.

It just doesn't make any sense for us to continue the current policies, in any way shape or form. The longer it continues, the more trouble we'll be in.

The bottom line for me has always been this: All this was foreseeable. Simple as that. From the day we invaded for no valid reason the likelihood of all this happening was great. We didn't prepare. That's all on Shrub.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

What is the game now? What is the calculation? I know they are up to something. Are they planning to oust Maliki to install a Mushariff sort of leader ( if they can find one)? Are they planning to blame everything on the inadequacies of Iraqis? Are they planning to attack Iran and watch the whole region go up in flames? Is it time to sell your stocks and build the bomb shelter? I am worried.

I have no idea. Bush acts in seemingly random ways. But I wouldn't fret much about it. Nothing happening over there is likely to affect us here.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

U.S. and Iraqi forces on Wednesday raided Sadr City, the stronghold of the feared Shiite militia led by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disavowed the operation, saying he had not been consulted and insisting "that it will not be repeated."

The defiant al-Maliki also slammed the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in Iraq for saying Iraq needed to set a timetable to curb violence ravaging the country.

"I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it," al-Maliki said at a news conference.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Tuesday that al-Maliki had agreed to the plan, announced at a rare joint appearance with Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who said he would not hesitate to ask for more troops if he felt they were necessary.

[snip]

Al-Maliki, who is commander in chief of Iraq's army, heatedly denied he knew anything about the raid:

"We will ask for clarification about what has happened in Sadr City. We will review this issue with the multinational forces so that it will not be repeated...The Iraqi government should be aware and part of any military operation. Coordination is needed between Iraqi government and multinational forces."

[snip]

In his comments, Al-Maliki also appealed to neighboring states to cease meddling in Iraq's domestic affairs - an apparent reference to Iran and Syria, which are accused by the U.S. and Iraqi officials of aiding Sunni and Shiite armed groups.

He blamed foreign fighters in groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's loyalists for driving violence that takes the lives of around 40 Iraqis every day, and possibly many more.

"I would like to state here that the root of the battle we are fighting in Iraq and the root of the bloody cycle that we are undergoing is the presence of terror organizations that have arrived in the country," al-Maliki said.

Al-Maliki has repeatedly pledged to deal with the militias but has resisted issuing firm ultimatums or deadlines.

At Tuesday's news conference, Khalilzad said Iraqi leaders had agreed to set a timeline for achieving key political and security goals, including reining in such groups.

Khalilzad revealed neither specific deadlines for achieving those goals nor penalties for their failure to do so, and Al-Maliki said no deadlines had been put to his government.

Al-Maliki said he believed the U.S. talk of timelines was driven by the upcoming U.S. midterm election. poster's emphasis

"We are not much concerned with it," al-Maliki said.

As violence spiked in Baghdad and elsewhere, Casey said on Tuesday he would not hesitate to ask for more soldiers if he felt it necessary. He said, however, he had not made a decision.

"Now, do we need more troops to do that? Maybe. And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis," Casey said.

The timeline plan outlined by Khalilzad Tuesday was believed to have grown out of recent Washington meetings at which the Bush administration sought to reshape its Iraq policy amid mounting U.S. deaths and declining domestic support for the 44-month-old war. The plan was made public a day after White House press secretary Tony Snow said U.S. was adjusting its Iraq strategy but would not issue any ultimatums.

Khalilzad said al-Maliki had agreed to the timeline concept that called for specific deadlines to be set by year's end. U.S. officials revealed neither specific incentives for the Iraqis to implement the plan nor penalties for their failure to do so.



does anyone recall dubya's reply in today's press conference when he was asked why the Iraqi PM had not appeared with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. George Casey during their public meeting?

how does that dubya bin lyin's response square with the above comments attributed to al-Maliki?