"Doesn't really deserve serious attention..." which means it will be all over the TV.

Bush: "And the fundamental question is, will the government respond to the demands of the people? And if the government doesn't demand -- respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."

Still completely lacking self-awareness.

Nil? Why so sure Maliki couldn't end up on the outs - either for internal reasons or because we want to reboot the FU machine?

Not that that would lead to a settlement among the contending groups. But it could change the optics here and maybe change who's temporarily out in front in the coming scramble for power in Iraq.

Maybe unlikely, but couldn't there easily be some anti-Diem type of maneuvering going on in Baghdad?

I think more telling is Maliki's response to Bush and Levin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082200529_pf.html

...Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from U.S. officials.
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.
"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said...

----

"We can find friends elsewhere" sounds like Iran and Syria to me. Sounds like a new axis. We are probably quite pissed about it and that's why we are chumming up with the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. The question is when is Maliki going to tell us to get out? What's next?

I'm unclear how the fact that "The whole idea is nuts." makes this unlikely to happen. Of course it's nuts, but so was... well almost everything about the invasion of Iraq. In fact, I think that was pretty much exactly my reaction when a friend of mine called me up WAY back in '02 when the wardrums started beating and said "do you really think we're going to invade Iraq?"

I agree it's nuts. That has nothing to do with the probability that Bush will attempt it, unless you are alleging a positive correlation.

Iran would help the Shiites take control of Iraq. Bush says he wants the Shiite government to make nice with the Sunni's and Kurds and share fairly and celebrate their freedom. If you were a power hungry Shiite, who would you pick as your ally?

That's what I thought of, Eric. I thought, maybe they'll replace Maliki with some general, like they did Diem in Vietnam. And then I thought, "A general of the Iraqi Army? That wouldn't be taken seriously by anybdoy."

Of course it's nuts, but so was... well almost everything about the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, IMU, and nuts in exactly the same way as the decision to go to war. While the initial decision was defenctive in many ways, both moral and practical, I've always thought that its main problem was that there was no answer to the question, "Who will take over after Saddam is gone?" That we are still enmeshed in resolving that obvious question five years later shows the sheer wrongheadedness of the whole decision to go to war.

Isn't this the government that the Bushies crowed so loudly about a couple of years ago - "democracy comes to the Middle East" and "purple thumbs" and all that happy horseshit???

Now they want to nullify the elections and install some other puppet that will be more likely dance to their tune? I guess the neoconservatives aren't so fond of liberal democracy and it's consequences after all...

Remember Florida in 2000 and how it was the Republicans who didn't want all the votes counted? These filthy liars have no interest in representative democracy.

"Moving the Chess Pieces" implies some sort of progress. Doesn't "Rearranging" capture your view better, Kevin?

Kev,

Are you going to blog about Bush's speech today that draws parallels between Iraq and Vietnam? Talk about lack of awareness! The boob is digging himself deeper with every phrase!

Short Vietnam: after we left the country in 1975, after a period of disruption, Vietnam is now a country with tourists and a growing economy. They could not rejoin the world economy until we got our asses out of the jungle and back home.

W is pointing to the disruption in Vietnam after the US left as a reason to stay in Iraq. However, the Southeast Asian disruption was baked into the pie already, so to speak. So is a lot of bad future stuff in the Middle East. Staying longer makes it worse.

"disruption" -- there's a euphemism!

Trog

I'm with IMU on this. There is little relationship between what is wise and what will be done in Iraq. From Bush's perspective, he just needs to continue the war until he leaves office. Then he can blame the democrats for losing the war, just like with Vietnam. His term lasts approximately three more Friedman units, so he needs three more changes in strategy or condition to justify the allowance of each of those Friedman units. Given that Sistani has now soured on Maliki, Maliki's removal would seem to be a likely change to justify another Friedman unit. I can't really think of another change that would justify another Friedman unit. Of course, this isn't necessarily a wise course of action. But has wisdom ever been a guiding principle in this administration?

... if someone new takes over in Iraq it gives the pro-war crowd yet another excuse to insist that change is in the air and we need to give the new guy a fair chance to prove that he can make a difference. Odds of that actually happening? Nil.

—Kevin Drum

You're missing the point. It doesn't have to ACTUALLY happen to reset the FU clock.

TedL:

Rebooting the FU machine...

*snort*

What a lovely phrase. I'm so stealing it.

And yes, the idiocy of any idea is no barrier to its implementation in the Bush administration.

Manipulation of a people could and to some extent still can control them for a very long time and enslave them in some cases. But, it's getting harder for dictatorial types to do this. Someday soon it will be impossible and then government will have to settle on governing instead of controlling, manipulating and enslaving.

Regarding your line: "Mohammad himself could probably rise from the grave and be unable to unify the Iraqi government at this point."

It's worth remembering that Mohammad had to raise armies from the dispossessed and kill a lot of people to unify the Arab world. So maybe he has risen.

That said, he also treated his prisoners better than we treat ours.

"Mohammad himself could probably rise from the grave and be unable to unify the Iraqi government at this point."

Don't be such a pessimist...

Unprovoked aggression, colonialism, political correctness, Bush, and the neoconservatives are failing in Iraq. Maliki and the Shiites are doing OK.

Even Brian Baird is asking for just one more FU -- I have lost all faith that anyone sane is anywhere near the helm.

As fostert points out we should be talking in Friedman units. We are in the realm of American political careers and the fate of American political parties. In Iraq the United States is irrelevant. The factions in that country are just waiting for the US to follow the British, tuck tail, and go home.

Al-Maliki is regarded as a tool of the invaders by nearly all sides in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr recently told the Independent:

"Al-Maliki's government will not survive because he has proven that he will not work with important elements of the Iraqi people"

"The Prime Minister is a tool for the Americans and people see that clearly. It will probably be the Americans who decide to change him when they realise he has failed. We don't have a democracy here, we have a foreign occupation."

They will fight that "foreign occupation" until the last American leaves the country. It may happen that the Kurds allow some bases or the US has some fortified bases in other parts of the country- for a time. The war was over before it began. The only real question for Americans is how much prestige can be salvaged.

The only real question for Americans is how much prestige can be salvaged.

"True patriots don't worry about prestige"

-wingnut response #537

Kevin,

Carl Levin came home from Iraq, praised the military success of the Surge, and attacked the Maliki government. The following day, President Bush withdrew his formerly vocal support for Maliki. Do you think there's a connection?

Look, I'm not suggesting some grand conspiracy. I am simply pointing out that the Senate Democrats and President Bush have already worked out a compromise regarding the Surge: they will praise the military portion of the Surge while blaming Maliki for the political failures.

Now, it's not particularly suprising that the Democrats would fold this way. Hillary has been laying the blame on "the Iraqis" for months, which is shorthand for saying the US military is doing great. What is suprisingly, I suppose, is the rather transparent level of coordination between the Democrats and the White House in selling this message.

Next month's "debate"? Seems like it's already over. Levin, the Democrats, Warner, the Republicans, and the White House have all agreed on an acceptable narrative. Sure, there will be a vocal contingent of liberal Democrats whose protests will create the illusion of a debate...but Carl Levin is no Ben Nelson. If Levin is already spouting the White House's talking points, more liberal Dems have no shot.

So...I agree that replacing the Maliki government will do nothing. In terms of domestic politics, however, this should be a pretty big story.

Kevin,
What's so hard to understand?
The media made the 2006 vote about getting out of Iraq.
It's 2007, everybody woke up, and realizes that you can't cut and run, no matter what the left demands. They (WH) gets the message. They let everybody running the show go, and replace those guys with a general that changes tactics, and finally starts to get it right, and presto! we have a big political problem.
Nobody, I mean nobody, with any sense ever thought we would just leave. The democrats have no one to blame, but themselves. At least a few candidates are smart enough to see this coming.
You got to admire HRC, this is another one she comes out ahead of the curve.

"you can't cut and run, no matter what the left demands"

Maybe not, but you can certainly cut your losses instead of sending more soldiers to their deaths in a foolish adventure. I don't know what the left demands, but common sense demands that we withdraw all our troops promptly. We can't afford not to.

"Mohammad himself could probably rise from the grave and be unable to unify the Iraqi government at this point."

Well, the Shia-Sunni schism is due to a dispute about the lineage of the leaders of Islam. Certainly Mohammad could set this all straight, declare one lineage the correct one and defuse the entire conflict.

If Mohammad so chose, of course.

Why don't more people talk about the Oil Sharing, er...I mean the Oil Robbing Agreement that the surge was supposed to provide security for? Everyone but our own government knows the Iraqi's aren't stupid. Why would they sign over 80% of their petroleum and natural gas resources for the next 30 years to oil companies who aren't going to reinvest in the Iraqi oil infrastructure or give them much of the profits? It's like um..."Let us rape your land (and people) of its resources, and when we're done, you can have what's left, if anything. Sound good? Great. Sign here." It's not so much a wedge issue than a greedy fascist issue. Corporations and Cheney are why this war started and continues. Impeach Cheney. Publicly finance elections.

Senate GOP Senate Leader and President Bush: U.S. Would Pull Troops if Maliki Wants Them Out

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States would "certainly" leave Iraq if the Iraqi government were to ever decide it wanted U.S. troops out of the war-torn country.

"If the Iraqi government ever decides they want us to leave," said McConnell, "then certainly we would comply with their wishes, they are a duly elected sovereign government."

Even though the issue has not yet come to a formal vote, a majority of the members of the Iraqi parliament signed onto a resolution earlier this month calling for the United States to get out of Iraq. McConnell's comments were prompted by Stephanopoulos asking: "Shouldn't their wishes count here?"

(snip)

In an interview last month with PBS's Charlie Rose, President Bush said the U.S. would leave Iraq if asked to do so by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"This is a guy," said Bush of Maliki on April 24, "who has been elected by the people. And it's a sovereign nation. And we're there at their request. The truth of the matter is, if they said 'get out now, we're tired of coalition presence, the U.S.'s presence is counterproductive,' we would leave."

I wonder how this all plays into the so-called coup rumors?

Maliki government is failing and needs to be changed.

I have to wonder - what Hell was Sen. Carl Levin thinking? How do you replace Maliki at this late stage of the game?

Ditto for Bush's war czar coming out and speaking "military draft" which has always been on table, just another of Bush's two years to late to speak it or even think it.

But Bush is hanging like that kitty in that poster "hang in there, baby" for his "hydrocarbons framework" law which is the ONLY goal Bush cares about, and of course it's what Hillary calls "our vital national interest".

SO if you think civil war is bad now in Iraq - wait and see what happens if Prime Minister Maliki tries to pass Bush framework shit law into law?

MOST Iraqis don't want Bush's law - made into law, and really it would cost Maliki nothing to allow Iraqis to privatize their oil and he would gain popluarity if HE promises THAT all tribes IN Iraq will share equally in Iraqi oil, plus this would give Iraqis their first real taste of freedom and national pride.

Bush is always talking democracy for Iraq - make him eat it.

In an interview last month with PBS's Charlie Rose, President Bush said the U.S. would leave Iraq if asked to do so by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
::
I wonder how this all plays into the so-called coup rumors?
Posted by: Jimm on August 22, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Well.... IF the government changes in Iraq in a way that is inconsistent with the constitution that all those people voted on... then it becomes illegitimate in our eyes and we have carte blanche once again (in our eyes) to do what we like there and stay as long as we like. So, if we are trying our damndest to hang around...

I don't think we have the *power* to install *anybody* at this point. The situation is probably so fluid, we expect some anarchy to result with someone in power unconstitutionally. Whether or not they are in our pocket is another question. Either way, we can use the event to stay. It leaves us the most options. Most importantly, this allows GWB the ability to not allow events on the ground to prevent him from running out the clock.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/08/military-coup-planned-for-iraq.html

Coup rumors are bubbling hot. Get your coup rumors here!