Hillary's Iraq Village Puppet Show

Hillary Clinton believes it takes a village to raise a child, but what is her solution when the one being raised prefers independence and resents interference from Hillary’s village? The concept of village influence seems to be the centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy goals, and it manifests itself most clearly in her ever-evolving policy statements on Iraq. Most recently the 2008 presidential candidate joined the shrill and gratingly off-key chorus of Carl Levin, most congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans auditioning for cabinet positions, who have called for an Iraqi no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his removal despite an on-going war. Not content to allow Iraqis the fundamental right of self-rule, Hillary applied her “it takes a village” approach to the realm of diplomacy, apparently convinced that the best way for Iraq to resolve its internal disputes was to have the world village step in and try to settle them rather than patiently allowing Iraqis to do it themselves.

It is an interesting irony that Senators Clinton and Levin refuse to adhere to diplomatic protocol in their interactions with and comments about Iraq. Both act as if the fact that America has nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq gives American congressmen carte blanche in what they say about that nation’s elected government. Even Republican Mitch McConnell described the Iraqi government as a “huge disappointment.” America does not have 150,000 troops in France, and there is no question that we considered former French President Jacque Chirac’s government to be a huge disappointment. Yet neither the Republicans nor Democrats in congress publicly stated that sentiment because France deserves respect and decorum from the American government as a sovereign nation. Senators Levin and Clinton do not extend such diplomatic courtesies to Iraq’s Prime Minister, and they should be required to explain the disparate treatment.

Likewise, our elected officials do not attempt to inject themselves into the internal political workings of other, longer-established nations yet think nothing of calling for the ouster of al-Maliki. Where are the cries from Democrats for Fidel Castro’s ouster, or Hugo Chavez’s ouster? Both of those leaders are sworn enemies of America, while al-Maliki risks his own safety each day working with America to preserve a budding democracy in Iraq.

Al-Maliki, a man under constant threat of physical attack by insurgents and al-Qaeda linked terrorists, was not cowed by Levin’s and Hillary’s harsh criticisms. Demonstrating his mastery of the sound byte and his familiarity with America’s distaste for Hillary’s vision of the global village, al-Maliki fired back brilliantly at Senator Clinton:

Maliki hit back on Sunday, saying: "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin."

"This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy," he said. "I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."

The semantic slap regarding Democrats acting undemocratically was well-crafted and effective. It is shameful that an elected Prime Minister of a nation we are working with closely in a sensitive region felt compelled to defend himself against a barrage of criticism from the American Congress and remind our self-important congressmen that speaking respectfully about Iraq is an expected aspect of diplomatic protocol that many have neglected.

Lost in the verbal exchange between al-Maliki and America’s congressional vultures circling Iraq’s demise with great expectation was the failure of media outlets to press Senators Levin and Clinton on what would seem to be a critical question: who would they suggest take al-Maliki’s place as Prime Minister? Neither has come forward with any suggested replacements even though both have access to raw intelligence regarding the current political situation in Iraq. Likewise, neither addresses the obvious difficulty al-Maliki’s replacement would face from being labeled an American puppet leader. It is highly unlikely that Iraq would become more stable under different leadership if the Iraqi perception was that America called for al-Maliki’s removal and chose his successor. Middle Eastern governments considered puppets of America do not have a history of long-term survival.

On Sunday, leaders representing Iraq’s Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish communities made further progress in resolving internal disputes. The leaders agreed on provisions to make it easier for former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to serve in Iraq’s government and military, facilitated the future release of Sunni’s detained and held without charge, and endorsed a draft oil revenue sharing law. Each of these must survive parliamentary debate and votes, but the agreements were a clear show of unity and progress in direct refutation of Senator Clinton’s and Senator Levin’s low opinion of the Iraqi government.

America’s patience with Iraq’s government should not be dictated by our presidential campaign schedule. A stable and free Iraq deserves support beyond the 2008 election and merits respect regardless of which party wins the White House. Expecting Iraq to resolve all of its internal political squabbles and secure itself from foreign terrorists by next month or next year is imposing our will and political timetable on a free people. Factions within a government arguing, boycotting, and stalling important legislation are hallmarks of America’s Congress and should not be considered disappointing characteristics of Iraq’s fledgling democracy.

The Iraqis do not want to be considered throughout the world as America’s puppet, nor do they want their government to be raised and nurtured by Hillary’s global village. She should stop treating al-Maliki’s government like a child and let the Iraqis experience their own political maturation.

Technorati Tags:
Al-Maliki, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Puppet Government, Iraqi Government, Diplomacy, It Takes A Village

'Ugly American' No-Confidence in al-Maliki

Is a no-confidence vote from Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) a blessing or a curse for a head of state? Perhaps the more germane question is, do Iraqis take note of or care what Senator Levin thinks of their government's internal affairs? Over the weekend, Levin visited Iraq with Senator John Warner (R-VA) for the express purpose, as we reported Friday, to shift attention away from news that the upcoming report on the progress of General Petraeus' surge strategy would be positive and increase support for continuance of the war effort. Levin telegraphed his distraction playbook, stating openly that he intended to focus his trip and subsequent media interviews on one topic: the political nature of Iraq's problems and that they can only be solved through political means.

On Monday, Levin wasted no time reporting on the results of his brief "fact-finding" stint in Iraq. In just two days, despite hearing glowing reports of the difference made by the surge strategy in the overall security in Iraq, Senator Levin dismissed all such good news and did what any good Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman who wishes he were Secretary of State would do: he called for the ouster of a government that has worked for years at extreme personal peril for unity and functional democracy in Iraq. Although that description also applies to the Bush administration, which Levin has also worked assiduously to thwart, Levin's no-confidence vote was for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In smug superiority rivaling that of the infamous "Ugly American" of literary renown, Levin made these less than statesmanlike public remarks about the elected leader of a government that is surrounded by mortal enemies and looks to the United States as perhaps its only reliable ally:

I hope that the Iraqi assembly, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and a more unifying prime minister and government," said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

Levin and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, just completed a two-day visit to Iraq.

The two senior lawmakers issued a joint statement saying that while the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq has given Iraqi politicians some breathing room, they have failed to make the compromises needed to bring peace to that war-torn nation.

"We are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises," the Levin and Warner said in their joint statement.

Levin in a teleconference with reporters went a step further, suggesting the Iraqi parliament have a vote of no confidence and replace the Maliki government, which he said is built too much upon sectarian allegiances and connections.

We have heard American congressmen express a desire for Fidel Castro's demise. We heard congressmen and presidents declare their hopes for the downfall of oppressive communist governments in the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Yet we cannot recall having heard a member of congress actively promoting a hope that an allied government, democratically elected, would be voted out with no consideration given to the repercussions of such statements. That Senator Warner, who traveled to Iraq with Levin, did not immediately disavow Levin's meddling in Iraqi electoral politics makes him perhaps equally responsible for whatever may eventually result if al-Maliki's government is crippled by a no-confidence vote.

In his quest to diminish the upcoming surge progress report in September, Levin appears not to care what havoc his misinformation campaign may wreak. Note that Levin and Warner on one hand praise the surge strategy for increasing public safety in Iraq and turning Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, but on the other hand they minimize the overall importance of the surge by dismissing it as merely giving al-Maliki's government "breathing room." We are quite certain that our troops in Iraq and their commanders are not risking their lives daily merely to give, as Levin called it, a "non-functional" Iraqi government a bit of breathing room. Levin may be the most adept senator in the current Democratic Party stable at forecasting storms of doom from the clouds attached to every silver lining reported from Iraq.

Looking down his nose over studious-looking spectacles at squirming victims dragged in front of his Armed Services Committee hearings is Levin's forte. He waxes professorial as he lectures four-star generals on how they should be conducting wars, and one can easily conjure up such mental images when reading Levin's further report of his meetings with Iraqi government officials:

In many meetings with Iraqi political leaders, of all different backgrounds, we told them of the deep impatience of the American people and the Congress with the lack of political progress, impressed upon them that time has run out in that regard, and told them of the urgent need to make the essential compromises.

Somehow we doubt that Iraqis, who have survived bombings of parliament and daily face potential assassination, were overly intimidated by Levin's impatience and impertinence.

Absent in these encounters were rebuttals and chastisements from the State Department for Levin's intrusion into diplomatic issues constitutionally assigned to the executive branch. Ordinarily State objects rather publicly when congressmen journey into realms of statecraft and issues of consequence such as ousting elected governments. Nancy Pelosi's 2007 Syrian Odyssey was loudly condemned by Secretary of State Rice for protocol reasons, but more substantively because of its potential for disrupting Middle Eastern relations. It is baffling that despite the fact that Levin and Warner were entitled to such brief fact-finding trips to Iraq, Levin's proclaimed hope for the removal of the sitting Iraqi Prime Minister during an ongoing war were not decried by State aggressively and decisively.

The fact that this appeared to be a bi-partisan (thanks to Warner's presence) knife in al-Maliki's back surely will not lessen the pain of the wound. Levin and Warner clearly had come to their conclusions about the al-Maliki government prior to their two-day visit to Iraq, raising the question of why they made the trip in the first place. What information did the pair obtain by meeting with and talking down to Iraqis that they did not already possess through military and intelligence reports? A two-day stay is hardly enough for anyone to become an expert on complex issues like nation-building or the consequences of no-confidence votes, unless perhaps Levin and Warner stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. Levin's verbal attack on al-Maliki was merely the opening salvo of an expected full-scale bombardment that will intensify as the surge progress report date nears.

Technorati Tags:
Carl Levin, John Warner, Armed Services Committee, Iraq, Al-Maliki, No-Confidence Vote, Ugly American, Surge Strategy, Surge Report, General Petraeus, Iraqi Government

Times: Iraqis Too Dirty, Ignorant, Corrupt

Conservative and liberal news forums and Internet sites are filled with guest columns by contributors with bylines that create an impression of authority or prestige. I find myself frequently wondering why respectable publications would solicit and publish material from certain contributors, especially when their material is filled with simplistic clichéd arguments laced with malicious and overtly bigoted blanket statements about the peoples of entire regions of the world. As a regular reader of the conservative Washington Times (foil to the liberal behemoth Washington Post) I read with great consternation and disgust today’s “contribution” to the Commentary section by Daniel Gallington, a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va. Washington Times readers should wonder what is required to become a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute, if Gallington’s work is any representation. Gallington presented generalized arguments with no supporting documentation and espoused the idea that certain people, in this case Iraqis, are too dumb, too dirty, and “just don’t have it in them” to make democracy work. That such a column appeared at all in the pages of what is considered the flagship conservative newspaper in America defies logical explanation.

Gallington titled his Iraqi character assassination piece, “Wanted: Iraqi Patriots,” but rather than cite any of the ample examples of Iraqis dedicated to democracy, such as the millions of voters who braved suicide bombings and snipers to participate in the nation’s first truly democratic election, Gallington instead crafted an indictment of all Iraqis as corrupt, greedy, ignorant, filthy, and backwards. In doing so he joined Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others who are convinced the war is lost and that Iraqis are not and never were worth fighting for. I have written extensively on Capital Cloak about the issue of freedom and democracy, that those fortunate enough to possess them are obligated to offer them to others and support those attempting to acquire them for themselves. I have also previously pointed out the fallacies of the arrogant belief that only certain anointed peoples in the world are worthy of democracy or “have it in them” to organize and live under democratic governments. Gallington, better than Reid or Pelosi, captured the true essence and vile sense of superiority behind such bigotry.

The presumably esteemed senior fellow Gallington opened his anti-Iraqi diatribe by stating the three things he believed Iraqis need to do, which are rather obvious:

(1) Create a functional multicultural state, federal or otherwise.

(2) Institute or enable some fundamental social reforms.

(3) Work out a formula or policy for the division of oil revenues.

Is it all that hard?

Perhaps Gallington, in his search for “Iraqi patriots,” should reexamine American history to answer his own simplistic and sophomoric question. Yes, even accomplishing the first of those three things is a monumental task, one that required 11 years for Americans themselves to achieve after years of political wrangling, endless debate, and regional suspicions and hostility. The colonies declared independence in 1776 and operated under a loose confederacy cobbled together for wartime harmony. Yet it was not until the hot summer of 1787 that a constitution was born, which then required ratification. Creating a “functional multicultural state” as Gallington called it, was not easy for the Founding Fathers, who had decades of experience in statecraft and political theory on which to rely. Should we expect the Iraqis to resolve the issues in less than half the time?

Gallington’s second simple task for Iraqis, instituting “some fundamental social reforms,” begs the obvious question: what kind of reforms? No explanation of this cryptic recommendation is offered, no suggestions made, and no examples cited. Gallington could find work as a speech writer for generic political candidates in today’s America, who win elections by promising to “bring change to Washington” or “to reform the tax code,” or “to reform Social Security.” Such statements mean nothing because they explain nothing. If Gallington cannot provide specific examples of social reforms that need to be made by Iraqis, it seems rather presumptuous for him to lecture an entire people on their failures.

The third “simple” task Gallington expects of Iraqis is a nationally accepted formula for the division of national oil revenues. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stated eloquently how difficult such a division is but that progress in being made on that front. I wonder if Gallington has given any serious consideration to the concept of dividing a nation’s resources. What portion of America’s revenues from its own wells is Gallington receiving? The likely answer, not just for Gallington but for all of us, is none. There has never been a great national political debate in which existing resources such as oil have been divvied up and revenues shared by all. Yet many are impatient that Iraqis are struggling to determine how to distribute equitably the enormous revenue generated by oil production. Everyone wants a piece of the economic pie, and finding a solution that serves the needs of the major religious or ethnic factions in a large nation is no simple task. Again, Gallington here offered no suggestions or encouragement, merely condemnation for not yet achieving what our own country has never attempted.

Unfortunately, Gallington more than adequately expressed his bigoted opinion of why Iraq’s factions have not yet united as cohesively as the Bush administration had hoped:

The various leaders have all seen versions of this same instability before and are hedging their bets — they all have contingency plans for political and economic survival in the event of our failure. Most have their secret offshore money, their escape plan to the villa in the South of France, the kids in Swiss schools, etc....It’s the malaise that probably most affects our day-to-day success or failure there: In short, if it often looks as if they don’t care how it turns out, they may not.

We shouldn’t be surprised about these intractable attitudes: Compromise has never been a part of politics in the Middle East and it’s not about to start in Iraq…

Mafia-like corruption is an embedded way of life in Iraq and the Middle East….
Widespread ignorance on a colossal scale, especially in the vast rural regions, is a huge factor that works against a unified, multicultural and modern Iraq…

…These are people who perform basic human hygiene with one hand and eat with the other.

In sum, the Iraqis don’t seem to have their hearts in it…. They must have their hearts in it or they will fail at it. Finally, as sad a proposition as it may be for us, we may have to understand — and accept — that they just don’t have it in them.

Many who have visited or fought in Iraq have returned with very different opinions of the Iraqi people and their capacity for self rule under democracy. Where Gallington sees people performing “basic human hygiene with one hand” while eating with the other, the world has also seen purple-stained fingers raised in the “v” symbol after voting in a democratic election, many of which fingers belong to veiled women who were never previously allowed any participation in political discourse. Where Gallington cannot see past hygiene, those who believe freedom and democracy are to be shared with all peoples see heroism.

The Middle East has not cornered the market on corruption, and it is no more a way of life there than it is in the world’s democracies. Recent congressional scandals help illustrate that fact, but it is instructive to note Gallington’s choice of words. “Mafia-like corruption” is used to indict the entire Middle East and forms the basis for his argument that democracy will never work in that region, yet the Mafia was not a Middle Eastern creation. Italy, a democracy, was the birthplace to that particular brand of corruption, and its tentacles spread throughout the free world. We have battled it here in America, yet democracy has marched forward even in nations plagued by organized crime. Gallington clearly implied here that Middle Eastern peoples are more corrupt than their western counterparts and are ethnically unsuited for the freedom and democracy the west has achieved despite corruption.

The idea that “compromise has never been a part of politics in the Middle East” is a remarkably bigoted and historically inaccurate notion. The ancient Middle Eastern cultures relied almost exclusively on trade, as agriculture often needed to be imported as it could not be grown in local climates. Trade agreements formed the basis of mutually beneficial international relationships that often endured for decades or centuries at a time. Compromise was most certainly the central ingredient of Middle Eastern politics long before western powers became actively involved in the region, with compromises controlling access to wells, seaports, aqueducts, and other essential resources. To paint the entire Middle East as a region incapable of compromise suggests that Gallington considers the peoples of the region inferior in all respects to his own and does not attempt to conceal his disdain for the “backwardness” of Middle Eastern peoples.

As for the search for Iraqi patriots or Gallington’s opinion that the Iraqis “just don’t have it in them,” perhaps a more suitable use of the Potomac Institute’s research resources would be to pinpoint when American’s reverted from an enlightened populace dedicated to the inalienable rights of man granted by Divine Providence to a citizenry that arrogantly believes the peoples of the Middle East are too backwards, ignorant, or filthy to be worthy of our freedoms. Perhaps we will find that millions of Iraqis, under threat of bombings and snipers in their daily work in parliament, possess more patriotic fervor for democracy than is found among many of our elected officials safely entrenched and protected in the nation’s capital who are so willing to surrender to terrorists and withdraw from Iraq before its government can adequately defend itself.

If Iraqi hearts are failing, as Gallington suggests, it is because Democrats and some Republicans in America “just don’t have it in them” to patiently support a free Iraq that is pleading, even in newspaper editorial pages, for us not to abandon them to the ethnic or religious oppression from which they were recently liberated. It took our Founders 11 years including fighting a war before a constitution and a truly functional central government was created. Why do we expect Iraq to do likewise after only 4 years?

Americans must rise above the arrogant superiority complex displayed by Reid, Pelosi, and “senior fellows” like Gallington and demonstrate to the world a model nation and people worthy of emulation by humbly embracing all peoples who strive for freedom and democracy regardless of their “hygiene, “corruption,” or “ignorance.” More important than these three indictments by Gallington are desire, effort, and patient assistance. Those are the three things Iraqis must have if democracy is to succeed. If Gallington doesn’t believe Iraqis are worthy of our blood and sacrifice, one wonders whom he would consider worthy? The continued upsurge in reenlistments for additional tours of duty in Iraq is evidence that our fighting men, though not “senior fellows” at an institute, understand the value of spreading freedom as a universal, rather than exclusively American, right of all men.

Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Iraqi Democracy Daniel Gallington Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Bigotry Iraq War

Reid, Pelosi Lack Al-Maliki's Faith, Spine

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are, in a politically correct euphemism, “diplomatically challenged.” This condition has manifested itself through various symptoms over the past six months, including Pelosi’s unconstitutional and borderline treasonous “diplomatic” visit to Syria, Harry Reid’s declaration to the world and the enemy that “the war is lost” in Iraq, and their newest premature and impatient judgment that the surge strategy currently underway in Iraq is a failure, giving even more encouragement to the enemy attempting to destroy Iraq’s democratically elected government. Despite the pleading of Iraq’s parliamentary leaders and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki for the U.S. to remain steadfast in its defense of the Iraqi democracy, the pleas have fallen on Reid’s and Pelosi’s deaf ears, blind eyes, and cold hearts, resulting in an international cold shoulder that is the antithesis of responsible diplomacy.

Never mind the fact that Reid and Pelosi have judged the surge a failure 3 months in advance of the scheduled progress report to be delivered by General Petraeus in September. Never mind the fact that Petraeus’ current summaries reveal significant reductions in violence and increased rebuilding in the Anbar province. Reid and Pelosi remind me of a line from the George Banks character in Disney’s Mary Poppins. While in a particularly irritable mood, Banks sits down at the piano in his home, plays one note, and promptly judges that the piano is out of tune. He then chastens his incredibly patient wife for allowing the piano to have become out of tune. He states to her, “When I sit down to an instrument, I expect it be in tune.” Mrs. Banks points out, “But dear, you don’t play.” George Banks, in classic Reid/Pelosi mentality, shouts in response, “Madam that is entirely beside the point. Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts!”

What are the facts on progress in Iraq and the effectiveness of the surge strategy? General Petraeus stated that the results thus far have been mixed, with “breathtaking” achievements in some provinces, but increased violence in others. Reid and Pelosi do want their issues clouded with facts, and so they choose to ignore Petraeus’s explanation that the surge strategy itself draws more terrorists and insurgents into confrontation, and this naturally produces statistical increases in casualties on both sides in the short term. They also choose to ignore Petraeus’s reports that the Iraqi Army has increased its enrollment by 20,000 men so far this year and it continues to grow steadily. It now stands at approximately 120,000-150,000 and is becoming better trained, better equipped, and more capable with each passing month. More importantly, residents in some provinces, Sunni and Shia, have risen to take up arms against al Qaeda, recognizing the terrorist group as their common enemy. The result has been a complete retreat of al Qaeda from those provinces. These are the facts of the surge strategy thus far, but Reid and Pelosi want no silver linings found in their clouds. From a letter to the White House written jointly by Reid and Pelosi:

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

The defeatist attitudes displayed by our Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are in starkly embarrassing contrast with the optimism and faith in democracy displayed by Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. I have recently been reading Never Give In! The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches, particularly those speeches he delivered personally or via radio to the citizens and government of the United States from 1940 until the attack on Pearl Harbor. In every speech he patiently and graciously attempted to convince the American people that their interests were tied to Britain’s and to join directly in the battle to preserve freedom in Europe rather than remain entrenched in isolationism. The tone of those speeches, in trying to convince America to join a war that would surely engulf it eventually, was eerily reminiscent of Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s current pleas for America to stand firmly by its new democratic ally in a war for freedom already in progress.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal contained a column penned by Prime Minister Al-Maliki entitled, “Our Common Struggle,” in which the Iraqi leader offered an eloquent appeal for America’s steadfastness and patience, lacing his arguments with historical precedent and providing an internal audit of the current conditions in Iraq. It should be required reading for all members of Congress, all members of the media, and all Americans who insist that Iraq is a “quagmire,” “failure,” or that “the war is lost.”

Here are some of the highlights from the Prime Minister’s OpinionJournal piece, but I recommend reading it in its entirety:

Under the Baath [Saddam] tyranny, Iraqis were to endure a brutal regime the likes of which they had never known before. Countless people were put to death on the smallest measure of suspicion. Wars were waged by that regime and our national treasure was squandered without the consent of a population that was herded into costly and brutal military campaigns. Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty....

….War being what it is, the images of Iraq that come America's way are of car bombs and daily explosions. Missing from the coverage are the great, subtle changes our country is undergoing, the birth of new national ideas and values which will in the end impose themselves despite the death and destruction that the terrorists have been hell-bent on inflicting on us. Those who endured the brutality of the former regime, those who saw the outside world avert its gaze from their troubles, know the magnitude of the change that has come to Iraq. A fundamental struggle is being fought on Iraqi soil between those who believe that Iraqis, after a long nightmare, can retrieve their dignity and freedom, and others who think that oppression is the order of things and that Iraqis are doomed to a political culture of terror, prisons and mass graves. Some of our neighbors have made this struggle more lethal still, they have placed their bets on the forces of terror in pursuit of their own interests.

When I became prime minister a year and a half ago, my appointment emerged out of a political process unique in our neighborhood: Some 12 million voters took part in our parliamentary elections. They gave voice to their belief in freedom and open politics and their trust imposed heavy burdens on all of us in political life. Our enemies grew determined to drown that political process in indiscriminate violence, to divert attention from the spectacle of old men and women casting their vote, for the first time, to choose those who would govern in their name. You may take this right for granted in America, but for us this was a tantalizing dream during the decades of dictatorship and repression.

….Iraq is well on its way to passing a new oil law that would divide the national treasure among our provinces and cities, based on their share of the population. This was intended to reassure those provinces without oil that they will not be left behind and consigned to poverty. The goal is to repair our oil sector, open the door for new investments and raise the standard of living of Iraqi families. Our national budget this year is the largest in Iraq's history, its bulk dedicated to our most neglected provinces and to improving the service sector in the country as a whole. Our path has been made difficult by the saboteurs and the terrorists who target our infrastructure and our people, but we have persevered, even though our progress has been obscured by the scenes of death and destruction.

Daily we still fight the battle for our security. We lose policemen and soldiers to the violence, as do the multinational forces fighting along our side. We are training and equipping a modern force, a truly national and neutral force, aided by our allies. This is against the stream of history here, where the armed forces have traditionally been drawn into political conflicts and struggles. What gives us sustenance and hope is an increase in the numbers of those who volunteer for our armed forces, which we see as proof of the devotion of our people to the stability and success of our national government.

We have entered into a war, I want it known, against militias that had preyed upon the weakness of the national government….We believe that the best way to defeat these militias is to build and enhance the capabilities of our government as a defender of the rights of our citizens. A stable government cannot coexist with these militias.

Our conflict, it should be emphasized time and again, has been fueled by regional powers that have reached into our affairs....

…We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.

“The war is lost,” “failure,” “little impact,” “has not enhanced.” Reid and Pelosi could use optimism and spine transplants. Iraq’s Prime Minister would be a highly appropriate donor.

Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Iraq War Troop Surge Diplomacy Iraqi Democracy Quagmire David Petraeus Rebuilding Iraq

Reid & Pelosi Ignore Allies on Timetable

The irony of the day award belongs to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Congressional Democrats who refuse to meet with President Bush to discuss the Iraq War funding bill. The irony lies in the fact that the Democrats have thus far refused to present President Bush with a “clean bill” that does not set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq, while at the same time the heads of state in Iraq and Jordan are urging the U.S. not to abandon Iraq prematurely or set timetables for withdrawal. Apparently the Democrats' "alternative foreign policy" mandates that traveling to and counseling with Syria and Iran (terror sponsors extraordinaire) is good, but listening to Jordan (an ally) and Iraq (democratically elected Prime Minister and ally) is bad.

President Bush is often vilified by the left for his “unilateral” decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, and for ignoring French and German leaders who opposed military action in Iraq. This “cowboy diplomacy,” the left claims, hurt America’s image among Europeans and, to use a Kerry-ism, made America “an international pariah.” In an effort to address this criticism of his political personality, President Bush has frequently engaged Iraqi leaders and solicited their opinions as well as those of regional heads of state (except for Syria and Iran, who are waging war on the U.S. within Iraq). In these open discussions with world leaders, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a much better view of what is occurring in his country than Democratic Congressmen, has advised President Bush since last October not to set timetables for withdrawal.

The King of Jordan, Abdullah II, echoed this sentiment, warning America that early withdrawal from Iraq and setting timetables “without preparing the necessary conditions that would ensure a strong central government able to run the affairs of the state and an Iraqi force able to ensure security and stability, may only worsen the problem and contribute to increasing violence and conflict among Iraqis.”

Prime Minister al-Maliki, clearly frustrated by the timetable issue, stated that a timetable was not necessary because his government “is working as fast as we can.” The impatience for Iraqi progress displayed by the Democratic Congress has been shameful. In reality, the Democrats are attempting to set a timetable for a sovereign foreign democracy that we have committed to preserving until its government can fully defend itself to achieve self-reliance.

The timetable issue is a prime example of President Bush being “darned if he does and darned if he doesn’t” when it comes to counseling with world leaders. When he counseled too little with Europe before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he was roundly criticized as a “cowboy.” When he counsels now with Middle Eastern leaders who oppose a timetable, Harry Reid and Congressional Democrats refuse to meet with him unless he accepts their imposed timetable regardless of the fact that Iraqi and Jordanian leaders advise against it.

As Americans, our commitment to defending democracies should be open-ended. It has been with Israel, another Middle Eastern democracy, so why are the Democrats so eager to shorten or completely end our commitment to Iraq? Is it because it is a Muslim democracy and Democrats do not believe Muslims capable of living within a democratic society? If it is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, what fuels the maniacal timetable frenzy? We committed to defending European democracies imperiled by Nazi fascists in WWII, but for some reason Democrats refuse to commit to defending a Muslim democracy from Islamic Fascists sworn to quench the flame of freedom in the Middle East.

Imagine if after Hurricane Katrina a foreign nation provided thousands of men and heavy machinery to rebuild the city along with New Orleans residents, but after a few years the foreign nation’s leaders decided that since the local residents were not rebuilding fast enough, the reconstruction was no longer worthwhile and imposed a timetable on the storm ravaged citizens of New Orleans or help would be withdrawn because of the high violent crime rate. What was once a compassionate and generous offer of mutual assistance would have become the stick in a carrot and stick approach to diplomacy. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have been holding that proverbial stick over free Iraqis for selfish personal political motives.

The mixed messages sent by Democrats on this issue would confuse any president. Should he listen to the counsel of world leaders or not? The President is right to reject any attempt to include a timetable for withdrawal in the war funding bill. Perhaps if Speaker “For Assad’s House” Pelosi visits the Middle East again, she should take Senator Reid along and together they could look Prime Minister al-Maliki in the eye and tell him they just do not believe Iraqis will ever be capable of sustaining a democracy and are thus not worth defending. Then they could jet to Amman and explain to King Abdullah II that they know better than he does and he is wrong about timetables and their influence on a war being waged across his border.

The left claims that President Bush is arrogant, but the Democrats’ efforts to micromanage the war, impatiently criticize Iraq’s courageous and fledgling government, and conduct their own foreign policy have set a new standard of arrogance.