by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 5, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

              Nearly 4,300 dead, over 30,000 injured and approaching $1 trillion spent on the Iraq War, Iraq President’s Nouri al-Maliki insists May 4 that the U.S. remove all combat troops from Iraqi cities by June 30.  Former President George W. Bush and failed GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCAin (R-Ariz.) staked their reputations on insisting that the U.S. set no timetables, complaining that President Barack Obama threw the white flag, engaging in unilateral surrender.  Throughout the 18-month long campaign, Obama insisted on a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, not, as Bush and McCain insisted, because he wanted to fail in Iraq but precisely because the Iraqi government wanted the U.S. out.  Despite a spike in suicide bombings and violence around Iraq, al-Maliki showed his political toughness, insisting that U.S. get out.  Withdrawing U.S. combat troops will lead to civil war.

            As U.S. soldiers are fitted for artificial limbs at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., al-Maliki celebrated U.S. sacrifices by publicly insisting on a June 30 withdrawal deadline.  Before the shellacking in Nov. 4 election, Republicans insisted that the U.S. could never set timetables.  Right wing talk shows blasted Democrats for wanting an exit strategy, throwing the white flag and leaving the country more vulnerable to terrorism.  Bush and McCain argued repeatedly that Iraq was the “central front in the war on terror,” namely, ending the war would leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorism and hurt U.S. prestige around the globe.  All along Bush and McCain knew that the U.S.-backed Iraqi government wanted the U.S. out.  Only the Americans were fed propaganda that a continued U.S. presence kept the homeland safe.  Those theories are all in today's dustbin

            Listening to al-Maliki today you’d believe that the U.S. never needed to sacrifice so many American lives.  Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman signaled that “we intend to fully abide by the terms of the security agreement,” calling for combat operations to end by June 20.  Showing that he’s got the situation under control, al-Maliki insisted that the U.S. get out all troops by 2011.  Al-Maliiki knows that 451 Iraqis lost their lives in April, a nearly 20% rise in violence from March, showing a steady increase from the first of the year.  U.S. commander Gen. Raymond Odierno expressed concern that Iraqi security forces did not have the resources to abandon U.S. involvement.  He expressed fear that withdrawing U.S. combat troops could reverse security gains made since the 2007-08 troop surge.  Regardless of the up-tick in violence around Iraq, Al-Maliki insists that the U.S. get out.

            Original security arrangement called for an extension of U.S. forces if Iraqi security could not contain escalating violence.  “These dates cannot be extended and this is consistent with the transfer and handover of responsibility to Iraqi security forces,” read a statement by Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.  Deteriorating security in the Northern Kurdish city of Mosul witnessed stepped up suicide bombings in recent months.  Al-Qaida and other Baathist groups once loyal to Saddam Hussein have been creating havoc.  Kurds have no love of Shiites like al-Maliki who seek to nationalize the oil industry, removing the Kurds’ resources for an independent Kurdish state.  While neither al-Maliki nor Turkey accept autonomy for the Kurds, Kurdish leaders refuse to accept annexation by a Shiite Iraq.  It’s hard to pinpoint the sources of terrorist activities around Mosul.

            Al-Maliki seeks to consolidate his power without a national power-sharing arrangement with Sunnis and Kurds.  Stepped up violence around Mosul could be due to resistance by Kurdish separatist groups to accept a place in al-Maliki’s Shiite Iraq. Shiites are more closely allied with Iranians, the Kurd’s archenemy.  Like the Turks, years of across-border raids and violence have made it difficult for Kurds to ally with Shiites, especially Iranians.  “I have doubts about security and stability in Mosul,” said Kurdish politician Saadi Ahmed Pera.  “Therefore, U.S. forces should stay in Mosul until all the pending problems among political groups in the city are solved,” mirroring the very different Kurdish political reality and loyalty more strongly allied to the U.S. before the March 20, 2003 invasion.

            Al-Maliki wants the U.S. out not to control terrorists but to begin running roughshod over the Sunni and, especially the Kurdish population.  No agreement has been reached on oil-revenue sharing, especially those from Kirkuk.  Whether the Sunnis or Kurds know it or not, the U.S. has been as much a buffer against Shiite violence as that of al-Qaida or other Sunni groups once loyal to Saddam  “A U.S. withdrawal will reduce the number of targets,” as Gov. Atheel al-Nujafi.  “We believe it’s important for U.S. troops to stay in camps outside the cities to provide help only if needed,” hinting that al-Maliki’s government wants to assert control.  Shiites aren’t concerned about U.S. casualties, they’re concerned about consolidating with Iraq’s ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds.  Al-Maliki wants to the U.S. out of the way while his Shiite forces play hardball with Iraq’s warring factions.

  About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.