The Trouble With al-Maliki

So, Bush calls al-Maliki last Thursday - most likely reading him the riot act about how out of control Baghdad is and probably telling him that, like it or not, a US troop surge is coming. On Saturday, al-Maliki says his army is going to take back Baghdad with US troops in a 'supporting role'. Then, when Bush makes his little 'new way forward' speech next week, he'll be sure to say that the Iraq army has begun its campaign in Baghdad and sorely needs US help. How do you spell set up for a surge?

Different Horses. Same Apocalypse.

Having made up his mind to surge (been there, done that) regardless of advice (that he said he supposedly listened to) from Generals Casey and Abazaid (who are now being replaced by more Bush Yes Men) to the contrary and pressure from congress to hold back on sending more troops (which the National Guard's chief has said should involve involuntary mobilizations of entire units because, after all, you can't exactly expect dead soldiers to go back to Iraq), Senator Ben Nelson told the press that Bush had issued the Iraqi government an ultimatum:

Bush suggested to the senators there would be "the expectation of the Iraqis carrying out their part of the deal 'or else,'" said Nelson, D-Neb.

Or else what?

And how is al-Maliki expected to ensure that his plan to have the Iraq army secure Baghdad won't be based on sectarianism when he clearly has no regard for real justice?

''The execution of the tyrant was not a political decision, as the enemies of the Iraqi people say. The verdict was implemented after a fair and transparent trial, which the dictator never deserved,'' al-Maliki said.

No matter what anybody thinks about Saddam Hussein, no one can claim his trial was actually 'fair' (besides Bush and his backers) or that he didn't deserve a fair trial. So, while al-Maliki has been busy telling the world that there was no political reason for the rushed execution, his own words tell a very different story. It's obvious that his concept of the rule of law is based on revenge and the quickest way to dismiss those who disagree with you is to label them as 'enemies', something that does not bode well for Iraq's Sunnis whom this prime minister is supposed to respect and protect. Then again, if he did, he would have gotten rid of the Interior Ministry's death squads as soon as he knew about them.

He is a failed puppet in his last throes who admitted in Wall Street Journal interview last week that he didn't even want the job in the first place. But like Bush, al-Maliki has decided to stay the course as Baghdad burns while his Washington mentors increasingly fault him for not having control of a situation that they engineered.

Anyone wondering when, exactly, this Iraq war was lost simply needs to be reminded of the time that foreshadowed everything that is happening today:

Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq: 'Stuff happens'
Administration asking countries for help with security

By Sean Loughlin
CNN Washington Bureau
Saturday, April 12, 2003 Posted: 12:24 AM EDT (0424 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Declaring that freedom is "untidy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday the looting in Iraq was a result of "pent-up feelings" of oppression and that it would subside as Iraqis adjusted to life without Saddam Hussein.

He also asserted the looting was not as bad as some television and newspaper reports have indicated and said there was no major crisis in Baghdad, the capital city, which lacks a central governing authority. The looting, he suggested, was "part of the price" for what the United States and Britain have called the liberation of Iraq.

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said. "They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here."

Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. "Stuff happens," Rumsfeld said