Iraq and Her Suiters.. Cheating on the US

When you take your eye off the ball chances are you are gonna get a pitch thrown right into your face. When the cat is away the mice will play. Ah... you get the point.

The United States is beginning to lose its grip.. in the past couple months we've seen that allover the world things are happening that wouldn't happen at any other time except Election season in the US. You think Mugabe would be beating up his rivals, Georgia could be invaded and then partially-occupied, Serbians would muscle their neighbors, or Iraq would be openly cavorting with Iran if the United States was at full strength in terms of foreign relations? Probably not.. or at least not as openly as they are doing it now. I've said it before.. I'll say it again, this President Bush has undone so much of what his father did its like one Bush wiped out his father's legacy and then dragged it through the mud. Sad.


Back to the issue at hand... Iraq... and China. Now what would China want with a bunch of sand and Arabs? Perhaps they want one-humped Arabian camels to complement their two-humped ones? No.. perhaps they want a bunch of goo that is beneath the sand and is one of the major supplies needed to run a regional or global superpower? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right!

Iraq signed a three billion dollar ($3B) oil contract with China to export crude and service one of their oil fields as a continuation of a deal made with Saddam Hussein in 1997. The Chinese national oil company will first import oil at a laughably low amount then eventually more than quadrupling that amount. China is the first country (besides the US) to sign a deal with Iraq on oil fields and exports since the Iraq War began. Scary. It seems the best way into the "loyal" Iraqi government's heart is a whole lotta green paper. The oil contract according to officials and sources on both sides is just the tip of the iceberg with China looking to drain every drop of oil out of Iraq as quickly as it can to feed its exploding demand for the stuff. China has turned up its foreign policy charm since 2005 in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia trying to get its hands on natural resources to keep the dragon at home satiated as it grows at a phenomenal rate - an average of 9.9% since 1978! China had approached the Iraqis before but the Iraqis backed off at the last moment about the oil issue because of problems with the oil revenue sharing plan and US pressure to keep all the oil contracts coming their way (or at least to Halliburton.. which is now Headquartered in Dubai). China, however, is relentless when it sees something it wants.. even if it means waiting until the perfect moment when the US have their sights all set at home instead of abroad.

If you've read this blog in the past you might accuse me of just repeatedly attacking the Iraqi government or perhaps the Chinese one.. this is not the case. The Chinese government has every right and logical reason to seek to secure resources as it vies to become stronger and perhaps a superpower... however it is the role of the United States to if not deter competition to keep up and stay far ahead for their own national interests. The Iraqi government deserve my complaints and ire because they are seemingly getting a free pass only because they were installed by a country that just happens to have 130,000 troops around and it would look really bad to throw them out after you hailed them as modern saviors to democracy and Thomas Jeffersons of the Middle East.... they are more like Benedict Arnolds, and even he had more honor and dignity.

Iraq has taken advantage of the loss of American focus to sign deals with Iran, Russia, China, and a withdrawal plan with the US. Sounds like someone is ready to move out.. and play with the big boys. Some call the US an empire and Iraq a colony but it looks like this colony is already cheating with our adversaries.. and all it has left for the US is a flirty "good bye!"

Links:
China hails three-billion-dollar oil deal with Iraq - AFP
China, Iraq reach $3 billion oil service deal - AP

W decides maybe it is time to pull-out of Iraq

Folks, I gotta tell you, it is a confusing crazy world in politics. I guess that's just the nature of politics but keeps getting crazier and crazier.

There are just so many crazy stories today about Iraq, the Iraq War, and US foreign policy in the region that it almost boggles the mind that we have an administration that is so at odds with reality and itself that it seems to contradict and sabotage itself at every corner. It is as if the delusions of this Bush Administration have come to a head.. unsure of what to do or how to do it they have become desperate for some kind of action without regard to party platform, sane policy, responsibility, or ethics. (Although one could argue that they have never cared about the last three items)

Here are the Headlines that grabbed my attention.. and when you put them altogether you realize what kind of a desperate lame-duck sham we are being treated to:

1. Iraqis: Agreement near on US troop withdraws
2. Cleric al-Sadr may end cease fire if no US withdrawal timetable released Friday
3. McCain: Obama wants to 'forfeit' war
4. Former Bin Laden driver given lenient 66 month sentence
   

Ready? Here we go.

Let's start with the first two headlines. First, it may come as a surprise to you that the Bush Administration is about to complete something they call a "Security Agreement" (although it is quite the opposite) whereby the US promises to remove all Combat troops by October 2010 and the rest of all by 2013. Very, Very Surprising... That's not what you'd call a "time horizon" or a "series of benchmarks" that's what you call a strict TIME LINE. The pact also includes strict dates for the hand-over of the Green Zone (end of 2008) and the removal of all troops from cities (June 30, 2009). Talk about switching from full-speed ahead to full reverse! I know that some of you are jumping for joy at the sudden move to pull out entirely.. but it does come at a considerable cost to our long-term security, the stability of Iraq, and the balance of the Middle East. I felt like President Bush just threw up his hands and said "OK, fine! We'll do what the people want!" without really thinking it through. Even the most liberal and sane politicians who are experts on foreign policy and international relations (I'm not looking at you Kucinich! Biden step up, man, you deserve it) talk about creating time-lines without such strict dates, adding loads of benchmarks with conditional statements galore. This pact according to sources at the Baghdad Embassy and reports from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry has one big clause that basically says if the security situation changes much then the deal is off. Let me tell you: Iran, Iraqi PM Al-Maliki and various other Shi'ite politicians are going to swear everything is perfectly OK until the American Troops leave completely then they will decide to have their way with their own citizens a la Saddam. The fact that Cleric, political leader, and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is lobbying and threatening both Iraqi and American officials with violence should be a sure sign that something is a little rotten about the deal. If the Bush Administration does agree to this deal whoever the next President and his Secretaries of State and Defense should work to totally overhaul it within their first month in office.

Onto item #3, McCain calling out Obama on 'forfeit[ing]' the war through his timetable plan. Look McCain, if you should be scolding someone it should be the Dubya! He's the one who is saying one thing (for 5 years) and then doing the complete opposite! Then 'W' is stabbing you in the back by taking the decision right out of your hands.. its like he has absolutely no confidence in your winning the election! At least Obama's plan (which I've talked about before) includes talk of benchmarks and the security environment instead of the simple-minded rigidity of the current Security Pact. Oh, and Obama - you shouldn't be happy about this either. If both sides agree then you go in and change it or review it, it makes you look really petty unless you have a super-PR plan in place.

Finally, item #4. In the AP report and their headline "Stunningly lenient sentence for former bin Laden driver" it gives the impression to the reader that the bin Laden driver, Salim Hamed, is getting off easy. He isn't. The tribunal convicted him of supporting terror by driving Osama around and occasionally acting as his body guard and found him innocent of planning anything or purposefully harming the United States. Given that, he does need to be punished. It is never enough to say "Oops, I didn't know my boss was a bad guy." Ignorance does not equal innocence however, given the fact that this man has been held without his human rights, tortured, and treated as though he is sub-human I consider this man to have already served his time. His sentence according to the judge was 66 months, the defendant then received permission to speak and apologized to the court and the American people claiming he had no idea whatsoever that Bin Laden was planning something like that. The Judge then said that the sentence could be completed in as little as 5 months if the defendant is cooperative. Of course, that set the extreme right-wingers right off their rockers... but let's face it, lets say someone is held without bail or being notified of their rights or what they are being charged with for say... SIX YEARS and then a trial finally occurs and that someone is then told they are guilty.. but not as bad as previously thought... then sentenced for 5 and a half years. If it was anywhere in the US we'd be asking at the very least how this guy can get those extra 6 months of his life that were robbed of him back. Oh yeah.. and don't forget, even after this fella finishes his sentence he probably won't be released! Shame.. Shame on us. Remember, this nation was built on the promises of Liberty and Justice... not Revenge or Vindictefullness.

Strong Moderate (with a little help from Flaming Moderate)



Links
Iraqis: Agreement near on US troop withdraws - AP
Cleric may end cease fire if no US withdrawal timetable released Friday - AP
Stunningly lenient sentence for former bin Laden driver - AP
McCain: Obama wants to 'forfeit' Iraq war - AP

Trip Report Card (Part One)

Of course we couldn't let the Obama-thon World Tour go without analyzing just a little bit... So we officially present to you:

The Obama World Tour Report Card

In the interest of not re-hashing everything that has been on every cable-news channel and news report for the past two weeks this will be a quick strike report card. Quick, clear, and fair. What did Senator Barack Obama want out of his destination, what he got, where that got him, and a Grade. An overall grade is given at the end.

Kuwait

What was the objective: Land the plane somewhere "safe", Visit the troops, feign watchers into thinking he was going to Iraq
What actually happened: Visited troops, didn't play basketball because he was hurt
Problems: Low media reporting (in part due to clamping down on information about his next destination), not a lot of coverage of him with the troops (besides the picture above and a few more)
Grade: C-, people barely even know he was there.. or that he visited the troops there.

Afghanistan

What was the objective: Face time with President Hamid Karzai; Talk about importance of "original" War on Terror
What actually happened: Superb photo-op of Obama (walking with Karzai) looking presidential (above); Obama appears to be brave arriving days after 9 US troops are killed in Afghanistan; visits Bagram Airbase
Problems: Not a lot of face time with troops or commanders; only stays in safest part of Kabul; email about his alleged disrespect on his visit to Bagram sets the blogosphere on fire
Grade: B+/A-, First real coverage and pictures broadcast in the US show a confident Obama, followed by Sen. Hagel (R-NE) and Sen. Reed (D-R.I.) talking with President Karzai and looking very much at home

Iraq

What was the objective: Prove his plan on Iraq is based on facts on the ground, meet with US Generals, meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister (and have him agree with the 16-month plan); battle McCain ads bringing up his two-year absence from Iraq
What actually happened: Picture perfect. Another Superb Photo of Obama, Gen. Petraeus , and Hagel in a copter over Baghdad; Iraqi PM al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama again.. (this time accompanied by a press conference)
Problems: Sticks around the Green Zone
Grade: A-/A, sticks to his message and seems genuinely Presidential while chatting with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi PM

Jordan

What was the objective: Visit an Arab Ally in the region, Meet with the King of Jordan - Abdullah II, Talk about Mid-East Peace
What actually happened: Met with the King (another great Photo-Op), got Chauffeured by the King (in his Mercedes S600 S-Guard), got lectured on the history and imperatives of Middle-East Peace, visited the ancient Amman Citadel (pictured above - Hagel on right, Reed on Left)
Problems: Getting told what to do by a King without actually being President sort-of hurt, talking about democracy and then visiting and commending a Monarchy is a bit ironic
Grade: B+, not very high-publicity visit but looked very comfortable in the Royal setting and fluent in Middle-East concerns.

Israel

What was the objective: Calm American Jewish concerns that he is not Pro-Israel enough, appear interested in solving the Israeli-Palestinian question
What actually happened: Met with PM Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak (pictured above - on left), and FM Tzipi Livini(pictured above - on right); visits a Holocaust Museum (and looks moved); goes to the West Wall wearing a Yarmulke
Problems: Had conflicting messages about his view for Jerusalem, his youth creates the impression that he is not fully aware of the long painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Grade: C, meh.. he didn't do too bad but it seemed too formulaic without much real substance.


To be continued...

Please leave comments! Part II is coming withing a couple days.

When The Wrong People Like You...

This friend is nothing to boast about...


I am talking of course about Senator Obama's recent semi-endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki this week in Der Speigel, a German Newspaper.

You may hear from the Obama campaign that a semi-endorsement by al-Maliki is a true triumph of Obama's international appeal and a show of his foreign policy prowess.. those statements are wrong. Flat out wrong. The withdrawal plan Obama has been talking about for the past.. year or two seems like a pretty good idea.. until you get an endorsement on it from al-Maliki. Why my change of opinion on the plan? The endorsement.

Which leads to the question: Is Al-Maliki really that bad?

Simple Answer: Yes.

More complicated answer: Propping up and promoting PM Nour Al-Maliki is perhaps the one of the biggest mistakes of this Bush Administration. Now it seems natural for the Bush Administration in their simple-mindedness to take a Shi'ite to head the government.. but obviously beyond that fact they didn't do any vetting or research. This man LIVES for Iran and a united Shi'ite front of Persians (Iranians) and Arabs (Iraqis). He is only glad to see US troops getting out of the country because it will mean he will have more latitude and freedom in the targeted killing of Sunnis all in the name of the War on Terror and battling Al-Qaeda.

His power base comes mostly from Shi'ite clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sistani who are very clear that they wish Iraq to be a nation for Shi'ites and Shi'ites ONLY. This kind of political alignment is hardly a testament to good will, political reconciliation or national unity.

Furthermore, you cannot trust this man any further than you can throw a dozen used car salesmen. He'll say anything to stay in power and keep international aid money coming his way. That aid money.. mostly goes to pad his and his cronies pockets and as much as 70% of arms bought "for the Iraqi National Army" in fact find their ways to militias run by his Shi'ite thug friends. Sure, he puts on a show every now and then to prove he's actually 'tough' on these militia criminals but in fact every time the outcome is the same, a 'truce' is announced and back to the status quo they go!

Well, I would hate to just rant and demolsih on al-Maliki, as I just did, for too long.. I should probably conserve some energy to spend on offering solutions. (I know, I know.. typical political bloggers and pundits are just suppose to whine without giving alternatives or solutions.. but I'm not your typical political enthusiast)

Solution(s): According to the Obama website, Sen. Obama's plan is basically two movements at once: combat troops out in 16 months, political pressure up to push progress. Instead Obama should focus on a series of benchmarks and goals to remove troops at varying speeds from differing areas depending on the political progress of his "diplomatic surge." The quick removal of troops is not exactly going to ratchet up the pressure on a government whose Interior Ministry basically exists to send out death squads and then protect them as government employees. It is Barack Obama's goal to "end the war" as soon as he is elected but instead taking a page out of this Bush Administration's book by blindly trying to do that, he should direct the military leaders on the ground there of his intentions to begin the removal of all non-essential combat troops and reserves and then listen to where from and when to remove them. The US needs to have a strong presence in the Iraq in order to at least slow down the total influence of Iranian politics on the Iraqi government.

Remember Barack, what this nation needs is a change of politics not just a change of policy.



Link: Original Article about Al-Maliki's Endorsement of the Obama plan - Der Speigel

Link: Analysis of Al-Maliki's Comments to Der Speigel - CNN

Sadr clarifies his call for "open war"

"Does this make me look menacing.. dangerous, even?"

In a case of "the-enemy-of-my-friend-is-my-enemy-but-actually-he-likes-my-friend-and-hates-me" Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr clarified his threat of war. He proclaimed that his war would only be on the "occupiers" of Iraq (pretty much the Americans at this point). He told his supporters, through a letter read by a top aide, during a Friday prayer in Sadr City, Baghdad that his 'war' would not be directed towards "our Iraqi brothers -- no matter what their nationality, race or sect. The blood of Iraqis are forbidden on you."

So, you see the surge IS working. It is allowing the Iraqi sects and factions to all come together.. in hate of the US occupation force. Not exactly what we were looking for, but a victory is a victory, take it as it comes. Let us not forget that it was the Mehdi Army militia that provided security and bodyguards for current Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Politically al-Maliki has been trying to aid al-Sadr as much as possible in their plan for Shi'ite dominance and close ties to Iran while also trying to seem like a "good guy" for the Bush Administration. The Prime Minister has also been quoted as telling a group of Senators off-the-record that he is working to "kill all these damn troublemakers.. the Sunnis, of course", sounds like a real fair-minded guy.

Something tells me this al-Sadr fellow isn't going to go away under US pressure alone especially with such strong support within the Iraqi government (his movement is backed by about 30% of its legislators and has influence over the Interior and Transport Ministries), the Iranian government (material and spiritual support.. by the boatload), and huge support from Shi'ites allover Iraq who view him as a People's Hero.

Well.. Let's hope his "open war" plan never comes to fruition, because if last weeks skirmishes between the Mehdi Army and US-backed Iraqi troops (before a few hundred of them surrendered their weapons and joined the Mehdi Army) was a preview, it won't go too well for US troops.

Links:
CNN Here