BILISI, GEORGIA Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia, the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.
Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war...
"...A key tool that the Soviet Union used to keep its empire together, Worms said to me, was pitting ethnic groups against one another. They did this extremely skillfully in the sense that they never generated ethnic wars within their own territory. But when the Soviet Union collapsed it became an essential Russian policy to weaken the states on its periphery by activating the ethnic fuses they planted."
They tried that in a number of countries. They tried it in the Baltic states, but the fuses were defused. Nothing much happened. They tried it in Ukraine. It has not happened yet, but it's getting hotter. They tried it in Moldova. There it worked, and now we have Transnitria. They tried it in Armenia and Azerbaijan and it went beyond their wildest dreams and we ended up with a massive, massive war. And they tried it in two territories in Georgia, which I'll talk about in a minute. They didn't try it in Central Asia because basically all the presidents of the newly independent countries were the former heads of the communist parties and they said we're still following your line, Kremlin, we haven't changed very much.
#1
Excellent article. Interesting to see that Saakashvili didn't start this ball, which was what the MSM was saying. Totten apparently has the correct, well-informed take on what actually happened there, which was premeditated Russian aggression. Well worth the read.
#2
Remember Afghanistan and the Russian folly there? Now, I know that the Georgians are not of the mujahadin ilk but still this seems to me be senseless on Russia's part to stay in Georgia and create these buffers. All it is doing is creating ill will toward them and energizing the western democracies and their eastern european acolytes. If this was to scare the Ukranians and the Finns and the Baltics it is backfiring. If the US is tangled up in Iraq and Afghanistan then how many fronts can the Russians occupy and with what?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/26/2008 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Say what you will about the Russians, but they are first class liars. They've managed to convince a significant chunk of the black community that the CIA invented AIDS to kill blacks (including the Reverend Wright - Bamm Bamm's spiritual guide mentor). How do you top something like that?
#5
If they could stop the Russians there, they would be stuck in the tunnel and they couldn't send the rest of their army through. So they did two things. The first thing they did, and it happened at roughly the same time, they tried to get through [South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali, and that's when everybody says Saakashvili started the war. It wasn't about taking Ossetia back, it was about fighting their way through that town to get onto that road to slow the Russian advance. The second thing they did, they dropped a team of paratroopers to destroy a bridge. They got wiped out, but first they managed to destroy the bridge and about 15 Russian vehicles. (emphasis added)
That's the second reference I've read on that drop. There's a story there and it needs to be told.
#6
Send the Georgians crates of Javelin missles. And train their army to operate as guerillas, not as peacekeepers (we have been doing the latter). Even small nation like Georgia can bleed russia so bad they will turn and run.
#11
I'm afraid that Totten follows the arguments of Georgia a bit too faithfully.
The war did not start on August 7th but it escalated on that day, and Georgia is widely to blame for the escalation. That's one thing.
Georgia, of course, did not "start" the war on that day, there has ben a low level war simmering and fueled by Russian action for many years.
Totten says:
"Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994."
I would not deny that this happened, but this did not start or escalate the war either. On August 1st (often overlooked) Georgian forces shelled Tchinvali with heavy weapons and artillery, causing 3 South Ossetian fatalities. The shelling was not anything like the one done on August 7th but it was a notch up from previous activities.
The Russians tried to negotiate with the Georgians and a few hours before the massive shelling of Tchinvali Saakashvili had declared a unilateral ceasefire by radio address. Only hours later the Georgian attack began.
Totten claims:
"At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war..."
That is what Saakashvili says now to defend his actions. Surprisingly enough he didn't say anything of this on August 8th. The Georgian claim they have satellite intelligence (from whom?) of a Russian invasion taking place through the Roki tunnel. If that is so, that should be quite easy to prove. Troop movements like this are impossible to hide or U.S. intelligence be damned. Where are the photos?
And would it not have made a lot more sense to alert the world that Georgia is just being invaded by Russia as we speak, pulling all the world on its side? How was Georgia supposed to stop a Russian invasion anywhere? By shelling Tchinvali?
The Russian deputy foreign minister Grigorij Karasin has firmly claimed that such an invasion did not happen before the Georgians had attacked. He should be easily disproved.
The Russian chief intermediator Popov claims that he was in contact with the U.S. about the ongoing Georgian troop movements he saw when driving from Tchinvali to Tbilisi on August 7th. He also says that when he met his Georgian counterpart again on August 12th Jakobachvili swore that he had always told him the truth suggesting that he himself must have been kept in the dark by Saakasvili.
Bottom line: We still are not told the truth. By both sides. Two questions:
1) If the Georgians had intelligence about a Russian invasion taking place on August 6th why didn't they alert the world? And why don't they make the attempt to prove it? It would certainly exonerate them quite a bit.
2) If the Georgians received wrong intelligence, who fed it to them? Even if the intelligence was wrong it would make sense to present it as this could only help their case.
Could it be that the Russians fed them the info?
Please bear in mind: I don't question the overall Russian strategy presented by Totten. Russia does want a cordon of willing satellite states at its borders. I don't think they really wanted South Ossetia "back".
The real issue is the Crimea where the Black Sea fleet is stationed and which has a majority of Russians. They definitely want Crimea back.
And this is going to be the REAL trouble. That's why U.S. naval presence in the Black Sea is a very good thing to discourage them.
But I also believe that Putin had a score with Saakashvili to settle. And it's likely that hot blooded Saakashvili went into the trap.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/26/2008 20:55 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Russia is having to recognize that it time it may not be the Big Enchilada in Non-European Asia. I still hold that RUSSIA COVERTLY BUT DENIABLY WANTS THE US-NATO/EU TO SETUP A POTENT MIL PRESENCE IN ITS FORMER SSRS TO HELP RUSS ISOLATE/CONTAIN FUTURE NUCLEAR IRAN + ISLAMIST RADICALISM [States + Militant-Terr Groups], ITS OWN ANTI-US ALLIES WHICH IT HELPED EMPOWER VV "THE GREAT GAME".
In that case NOT secretly and not so secretly arming and empowering Iran might help?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/26/2008 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Joe, it may be a good action theme for a computer game, but it has no correspondence points with reality. Whatsoever. All facts point to a Kremlin's imperial ambition.
#15
g: Ah yes, Totten---run out of Moderate Muslim stories?
Totten's accounts of moderate Muslims are more convincing that gromguru's impression of a moderate Russian. Russians have certainly been responsible more Western deaths than Muslims since the decline of the Ottoman empire in the 17th century. In fact, Russia was directly responsible for WWII via its non-aggression pact with Germany, which gave the Nazis the ability to concentrate their forces on an invasion of the West.
#16
We should be careful with equating new Russia with the old Soviet Union.
A lot of things have changed. The world is no longer bipolar, we no longer have a confrontation of two ideologies, and Russia, while appearing to have strengthened economically in the last year, continues to be a weak overstretched country with a dwindling non-Muslim and a rising Muslim population, with China setting its hungry eyes on the Siberian resources.
Russia may want a lot of things but Putin is not stupid. Russia would certainly want a close union with Belarus and Ukraine, it definitely wants Crimea back, it would like friendly states surrounding its borders.
Russia has no interest in occupying "hostile" countries like Georgia or the Baltics. This just saddles them with costly guerrilla wars while ruining the economy.
Putin is trying to modernize Russia. He's not a democrat but he knows about the shortfalls of his country. He needs to ween Russia off its dependence on oil and gas sales. Russia produces little else. The oligarchs keep most of their money abroad.
Basically its economy looks like one of a Third World Country, only bigger.
Russia needs to be watched and contained, but threat number one is Islamism.
Pakistan and Iran is a bigger headache right now.
Not only for us, but also to Russia. And this is how to avoid a new Cold War nobody needs and nobody would benefit from.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/26/2008 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#17
EC, re ideology...
The fact is that the internationalistic imperialistic socialism has been replaced with nationalistic suprematist pan-slavic thuggery. The imperialistic, though, threds both like beads on the same necklace.
The methods used are pretty much the same, despite the surface ideology change.
Batyushka gossudar Pooty probably thinks he is really smart. In a way, yes, mafioso kinda smart, but he is still perceiving the world through his KGB prism.
His concern for regular Russian Ivan is extant only in the sense that if Ivan's goals coincide with his, all is fine. If not, Pooty wins and Ivan looses. In many cases with terminal permanency.
No one would probably make much noise ("internal affair apology"), but when the well being of other countries is at stake, the whole stratagem changes.
You say don't poke the bear so she does not get mad. I say she is already mad, find the way to contain her. An equivalent of electric fence, as ii were, I suggest. Don't let her get away with mauling chickens or she would think cows are also for taking.
#18
EC: Russia needs to be watched and contained, but threat number one is Islamism.
Actually, before there was a Soviet Union, Imperial Russia was engaged in numerous wars of empire with other European powers, some of whom might have been acting partly in reaction to relentless Russian territorial expansion. The Brits certainly pushed into Afghanistan to prevent the Russians from moving south. The fact is that Russia has thousands of nukes and a military more potent than all the Muslim countries put together. Muslims have always wanted to take over the world. But since the decline of the Ottoman empire, the military profile of the Ummah combined has been more on the order of Pinky and the Brain than Goliath.
It was not Russia which attacked the heart of the U.S.
Russia is not harmless but it's rational.
Islamism is not rational. Islamism plus a few nuclear weapons is a bigger threat than Russia with lots of them.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/26/2008 23:23 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I would add that Islamism is a threat, however, it stands on legs of mud. It is the inane PC policies of the West that facilitate its spread. beside oil dependency that finances it. Islamism would be contained quickly without the environment that it could leech from. Without nutrient for it parasitical modus vivendi, it would be relegated to its backwater domiciles.
The whole game, though, may change. Seems that Pooty is hell bent to supply Islamists with means, to be applied at an opportune moment. Maybe he thinks he can contain then afer they'd do his biding.
If we allow it to happen, ... I don't think I have to paint the picture.
#1
Not a Russian lover, but Joe when has there ever really been 'World Order'? Remember 'routine' is that which gives men the false sense of control over their lives.
#2
Okay Russia, do a Georgia on Mexico. See how the inbred donut dunkers like that.
Put up or shut up.
Posted by: I See Half-Whits ||
08/26/2008 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ooooh, yes! It would be great fun to watch Russia trying to take Mexico away from the U.S. That might finally shut up those illegal immigration nuts. You are truly clever, I See Half-Whits.
#5
I am a bit curious about your backgroung See Half-Wits. Perhaps you might enlighten us with a sense of your background. It will help putting the subsequent conversation in context and eliminate mis-perceptions about your political and intellectual grounding. By the way, why do you think dunking donuts is a form of insult?
Diplomat Vladimir Kozin, who worked at the Russian Embassy in Helsinki, caused something of a political storm in Finland last autumn. Kozin had first examined Finnish security policy at a closed seminar at the National Defence University. After the seminar he said in a television interview that Russia would see Finland's possible membership in NATO as a direct military threat.
Officially, Russia distanced itself from Kozin's comments, and he soon returned to Moscow.
Reactions to Kozin's speech were contradictory in Finland. They were seen mainly as private thoughts, or as an experiment of some kind to see how Finns would react. Ultimately the controversy died down rather quickly.
Russia's actions in Georgia, and its tougher foreign policy nevertheless put Kozin's statements into a new light. Russia is taking an extremely negative view of NATO enlargement to its nearby areas, which also include Finland.
Did Kozin get his instructions directly from the Kremlin anyway? One possible indication that this might have been the case is that the aforementioned seminar was originally to have had a high-ranking representative of the Russian Defence Forces as its speaker.
The original speaker cancelled at the last moment, and when the Russian Embassy was asked for a replacement, Kozin was sent instead.
Today's Kremlin leaders want to maintain good relations with Finland. They also want Finland not to make decisions that are not in Russia's interests. Preferably the same kinds of decisions that Finland made when the Finnish-Soviet Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation , and Mutual Assistance was in force.
ONE SUNNY DAY IN 2009, AN OLD MAN APPROACHED THE WHITE HOUSE
FROM ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, WHERE HE'D BEEN SITTING
ON A PARK BENCH.
He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, I would like to go in and meet with President Barack Obama. The Marine replied, "Sir, Mr. Obama is not President and doesn't reside here." The old man said, Okay, and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, I would like to go in and meet with President Barack Obama. The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is not President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine, saying I would like to go in and meet with President Barack Obama.
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I've told you already several times that Mr. Obama is not the President and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"
The old man answered, "Oh, I understand you fine. I just love hearing your answer!"
As the Democratic National Convention proceeds this week and the Republicans are gearing up for their own party, we are still not hearing the candidates being asked genuinely tough and illuminating questions about what they would do about jihad terrorism. And so I offer here, as a public service, a series of questions for interviewers and debate moderators to ask of the candidates. Will anyone have the good sense and chutzpah to ask Obama, McCain, Biden, or the Republican Vice Presidential nominee these questions?
1. What would you do to deal with the national security aspect of immigration? With plans afoot to bring large groups of Iraqis, including Iraqi Muslims, into the United States, what kind of screening will you implement to try to ensure that we are not importing jihad terrorists into the country? Will you reevaluate immigration levels from Muslim countries based on recognition of the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a jihadist sympathizer or potential jihadist?
2. Forty percent of the foreign jihadists fighting against American troops in Iraq come from a putative ally of the United States, Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is also one of the worlds leading bankrollers of terror. A Treasury Department official who tracks terror financing, Stuart Levey, recently remarked: If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia. What will you do as President to work toward ending the absurd situation we find ourselves in today, of helping to finance by means of oil revenue our own destruction by means of jihad terrorism? What steps would you take to put our relationship with Saudi Arabia on a more realistic footing than it is on today?
3. The Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies have adopted guidelines forbidding U.S. government analysts and spokesmen from speaking about jihad or Islam in connection with Islamic jihad terrorism. Given that the terrorists themselves consistently use the language of classic Islamic jihad theology to explain their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, doesnt this policy create the risk that we will not understand our enemys motives and goals, and not be able to combat them as effectively as we otherwise could? And wouldnt that be true even if the jihadist use of Islamic texts and teachings were, from an Islamic standpoint, improper and incorrect?
Also, there is evidence that this policy was adopted on the recommendation of Islamic scholars who are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is engaged, in its own words, in a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allahs religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Is this not reason enough in itself to reevaluate these new guidelines, if not to scrap them altogether? Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
08/26/2008 08:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is Obama allowed to use a telepromter in answering these questions?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/26/2008 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
Today the security check-in tent has expanded to Ringling dimensions. Same rules: remove everything metallic and electrical. You cannot even think of the concept of steel or even the lesser, more malleable metals, or you will set off the detectors; theyre calibrated to beep if youve listened to Iron Maiden in the last 24 hours. All electronic devices must be turned on - but of course by the time you get to your place before the Inquisitors, everything has shut itself off. You hold up the line as you struggle with your STUPID CAMERA, which has a balky button; it will turn on only when pressed for a second, but if you press it too long it turns itself off immediately. Behind you, professional camerapersons fume: rube. I made it through without alarms - or so I thought. Got another Apple, said the screener. I actually wondered if they were talking about the make of computer, and were all Mac fans themselves, but no. The secondary screener team plowed through my bags and came up with . . . an apple. Cant bring these in, said Officer Apple-taker. I asked why, instantly regretting it: Dont cause a scene, idiot, just move along and accept the loss of an apple as one of those things that happens, unless you really want to wear the plastic bracelets and she said it could be thrown. Yes, it could be thrown; it could also be eaten. That was the plan, long ago. I had to take a peach and a pear too, she added. Somehow that made it better. A simple, soft, gentle peach was now considered a weapon? Arrr. No roughage, no peace! No roughage, no peace!
Posted by: Mike ||
08/26/2008 06:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'll admit I haven't and probably won't watch a moment of either convention. If any one has, can you tell me if the words "drill for oil" were uttered even once?
Now, self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who attacks you with armed with a piece of fresh fruit.
Can't we do something else?
Like someone who attacks you with a pointed stick?
Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...
It was natural... Nawaz Sharif parted company with Asif Zardari... and it happened in line with the script. The 'unholy alliance' broke down barely a week after Pervez Musharraf tendered his resignation.
Nawaz Sharif lost his patience as usual. He had begged for exile after his failure to sustain incarceration in Attock Fort. He entered into an agreement with Musharraf for 10-year exile. However, he started campaigning to return to the country after seven years and finally did so by breaking the agreement.
This preamble reminds us how crudely our national politicians prefer to break promises made and entered into. Zardari did nothing new. He did not keep his promise late Benazir Bhutto had made with Musharraf through the infamous deal. Zardari, however, defended his decision of backing out purely on 'political reasons'. He did not take guidance from the religion we all are following. After all he was dealing with the worldly affairs.
One can consider merits and demerits of what Zardari did with Sharif, who voluntarily put his weight behind Zardari to take revenge from Musharraf. On the other hand, Zardari used Nawaz Sharif by all means and then threw him as a useless entity. Sharif bounced back by parting company with Zardari and is now ready to show his teeth to the latter.
The announcement of breaking apart from Zardari by Sharif hit the sky a day before the apex court was to take up Sharif brothers' qualification cases. Zardari can easily put the Sharifs down by using his muscles and good links.
One is amazed to see 1988-90-like situation: the PPP in the centre and the PML-N in Punjab. The difference is that there is no GIK occupying the tallest building at the Constitution Avenue this time, and Zardari is there in place of Benazir Bhutto. Sharifs have not learnt any lesson from history.
Two things are imminent: first, Zardari would drop himself in the lap of the establishment to seek its support (no matter whether or not this is forthcoming, though this support lacked in case of Musharraf). Second, Nawaz Sharif seems not ready to show any flexibility in his self-pronounced principles, and Pakistan may continue to suffer.
The bizarre politics, backdoor channels, open confrontation and use of power and money would be the order of the day in the near future. Our politicians are; thus, welcoming this Ramazan with their fists tightened and sometime hitting each other opponents' faces.
In the hindsight, the Chaudhrys of Gujrat have gained added significance and Maulana Fazlur Rehman getting another chance to play a role of "wheeler-dealer". The MQM and its leaders would love to see this "political wrangling" fuming.
Sharif's decision has marred the reputation of our political animals and it has brightened the chances of putting under threat the western-style democracy we all love so much. Pakistan and its people are a little unlucky to see democracy taking firm roots. Democracy always suffered because of the poor orientation and handling of the situation by our top leadership.
By contrast, Zardari has played his cards better than Sharif. And I have no doubt that Zardari is a better candidate for the office of the president than anybody else. So far, two other candidates have emerged on the scene: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Mushahid Hussain Sayed.
Zardari stepped in as a sure-fire candidate. However, Siddiqui and Mushahid have jumped into the fray out of sheer compulsion for the sake of joining the race. They stand no chance to make into the former official residence of Musharraf. They are there only to show the world that they do not accept Zardari as president; thus, opposing his candidature. Poor politicians, poor planning!
Posted by: Fred ||
08/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
The allotment of land for the Amarnath shrine board was a trigger for the azadi sentiment in Kashmir, Hurriyat Conference Chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who has emerged a crowd-puller among the separatist leaders, tells Aasha Khosa.
- We all know the history of Kashmiri separatism but what was the immediate provocation for the ongoing massive protests?
The upsurge has not happened suddenly. The sentiment for azadi was always there. However, the transfer of 50 acres of forest land to the Amarnath shrine board made Kashmiris realise once again how insecure they feel. This acted as a trigger. Suddenly, people have started thinking about the 100,000 acres of land that is with the army.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
ION INDIA, WAFF > ONE THIRD OF WORLD'S POOR LIVING IN INDIA [UN World bank]!? IIRC, final numbers depend on whether Analysts follow a US$1.25 Poverty-Line Benchmark, OR ANOTHER LOWER BENCHMARK!
Jeebus.
IOW, INDIA's POOR = LIVING ON THE EQUIVALENT OF ROUGHLY ONE MCDONALD'S OR WENDY'S DOLLAR MENU[PLus-Minus] HAMBURGER, CHEESEBURGER, OR REGUL FRIES, ETC.!?
The Nation -- Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to make headlines by posing as an Iraqi nationalist. Don't buy it.
Unfortunately, much of the media has swallowed Maliki's posturing without questioning it. The usually astute Leila Fadel, writing for McClatchy, has an article today headlined: "Maliki Demands 'Specific Deadline' for US Troop Pullout," which says:
Maliki said that the United States and Iraq had agreed that all foreign troops would be off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. "There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.
Other newspapers and electronic media pick up Maliki's statement that Iraq wants all US forces out, not just combat troops. The Times headlines its story: "Maliki Pushes for Troop Withdrawal Date," and it barely questions Maliki's sincerity, though it does glancingly take note of the nationalist pressure on the Iraqi leader, reporting that "graffiti can be seen on the walls in Shiite districts of Baghdad saying, 'Iraq for sale: See Maliki.'" The Post headline ("Maliki Demands All U.S. Troops Pull Out by 2011") says as much, too, portraying Maliki as resolute and unyielding in talks with the United States over a security accord.
But underneath the radar, the Iraqi government and Maliki are sending another signal. The Post makes a greater effort to report the real story, making clear that the tough stand by Maliki is political showmanship designed to play to a nationalist Iraqi public that is tired of the US occupation:
Underlying Maliki's remarks is the political reality that he must sell the accord to a fractious political establishment and the Iraqi public, which to a large extent views the U.S. military presence as an occupation that should end as soon as possible.
"The agreement will be met with significant public discomfort," said an aide to Maliki. "So Iraqi officials will resort to using the dates mentioned in the agreement to sell it to the public, even though they might be intended to be used in a guidance way."
Note the reference to Maliki's need to "sell it to the public," even though the 2011 date will be used only as "guidance."
The reality is that there isn't much daylight between the Bush administration's position, which says that US forces will stay in Iraq until "conditions" allow a withdrawal, and Maliki's proposed 2011 date.
Old Spook had that figured out months ago.
Iraqi officials are making it clear that even the 2011 date is flexible and subject to conditions-based reevaluation. The Post quotes an Iraqi official: "If you ask the prime minister, 'What happens if the situation on the ground changes before 2011?' then he would obviously say that the dates might need to be changed."
Of course, that's equally true of Barack Obama's Iraq policy, though Obama (like Maliki) would suffer enormously from the domestic political reaction if he wavered on his commitment to withdraw US forces.
#1
Strategy Page says another factor is that the Iraqi political establishment wants to short circuit the American sponsored political reforms before they take root:
Honest government can make political corruption downright unhealthy!
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/26/2008 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It was natural... Nawaz Sharif parted company with Asif Zardari... and it happened in line with the script. The 'unholy alliance' broke down barely a week after Pervez Musharraf tendered his resignation.
The Nation -- Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to make headlines by posing as an Iraqi nationalist. Don't buy it. 
