Andrew Sullivan sees Maliki’s statement as more Machiavellian than heartfelt:
It seems to me that Maliki believes he has more to gain by attacking the Americans than by defending or ignoring them. Why? Maybe because if a national Iraqi leader emerges who can express frustration at American soldiers, he can leverage that and build the popular support to face down local militias or even recalcitrant factions in the new parliament. It's just a theory.
Sullivan may well be right, but does this seem to anyone to be the kind of incident for which the U.S. military or government should be defended?
Meanwhile
This year, dubbed a “year of transition” by a Congress hopeful to bring a significant number of troops home by the end of 2006, is rather looking more like another year of occupation. The Times piece goes on to report: “This week American forces ordered 1,500 troops from Kuwait into Anbar Province, a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency, in the latest sign that insurgents and terrorist groups including those led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi control much of the sprawling desert region.”
Upshot
There has already been a significant amount of chatter as to whether Haditha will finally mark the end of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure. But does it really matter at this point?
And: U.S. troops in Iraq are now to be trained in the art of ethics. Will this be viewed as yet another case of poor planning for occupation of foreign soil?
And: Cenk Uygur over at The Huffington Post asks a question that has been floating around since the Mission Accomplished days: “So, Mr. CEO Decider President, I have one simple question for you: What happens if the people and the government of Iraq ask us to leave?”
And and: Bomb blasts in Baghdad killed seven and wounded more than 50 today.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Interesting comment from Maliki considering he would never have come to power or even been able to return to the country without US support. I wonder if he's thought about the price of biting the hand that feeds him.
Dave
2 - Eric Berlin
Bloggers on both sides of the electronic aisle are making a similar point, Dave. AMERICABlog was particularly snarky and angry in throwing Maliki in the face of the Bush administration. Personally, I find Maliki's comments to be natural given the circumstances and position that he's in. Overall, I see it as a relatively minor part of the story. It's significant in that it represents a new Iraqi government that's not willing to defend U.S. actions in absolute terms.
3 - Michael J. West
I wonder if he's thought about the price of biting the hand that feeds him.
Are you implying, Dave, that Maliki should show his gratitude to the United States by refusing to criticize their actions, even if he genuinely feels those criticisms to be legitimate?
4 - JP
Michael, I'm with you here. The Nation's comments are a bit too judgemental for my taste, but it does appear the signs aren't good. We have to be prepared mentally and strategically for what will happen if the allegations are proven true.
We cannot keep falling for this "they're only disappointed in the war effort because the media only tells them the good news!" nonsense. This type of atrocity, if confirmed, is even *more* difficult to swallow if our mission is merely to "spread Democracy," rather than to remove a dictator poised to use WMD against our country.
5 - Eric Berlin
This is an incident that should be looked at outside of the scope of ideology on all sides.
6 - Dave Nalle
re you implying, Dave, that Maliki should show his gratitude to the United States by refusing to criticize their actions, even if he genuinely feels those criticisms to be legitimate?
Maliki's comments go beyond fair criticism, which I would hope we could accept, to be an outright attack. American soldiers are not crushing Iraqi civilians and killing them just on suspicion. That kind of thing is the rare exception rather than the rule. Perhaps he said this in the heat of the moment without thinking about it, but if he's serious and at all representative of the Iraqi people, and they honestly think we are doing more harm than good, then we should tell them to go screw themselves and pull out. Maliki is wrong, and the Iraqis who are so remarkably easily swayed by rumor and propaganda - a phenomenon chronicled almost daily on Iraq the Model - are also wrong about American intentions and behavior. But if they'd rather be hostile and display the kind of attitude Maliki is displaying then perhaps they don't deserve our help.
America's involvement in Iraq is only of value so long as it improves the situation there. From the point of view of our national security removing Saddam and creating utter chaos in his wake works just about as well as establishing a stable government. The only people who really benefit from our continued presence are the Iraqis.
Dave
7 - tsh
yeah dave the iraqis do benifit alot don't they?I wonder how many of them lived in hardship and grived for thier lost ones since the INVASION of IRAQ.
Ur so shallow mindedness gives a bad impression on the US not that it hasn't been tarnish by ur current president already... bush by far is probably the most unintellectual president ever!
8 - n3xt
^^^^
Just because they are benefiting from the invasion doesnt mean that they can continue to live a supressed life under the new foreign military power that resides in their land...
9 - Dave Nalle
tsh, your fine command of grammar and spelling, puts me in awe. I live in your intellectual shadow.
As for the people of Iraq, of course they shouldn't live under military oppression, either from without or within. But I think both of you miss the point of my comment, which is in the final paragraph, that being that if we are no longer providing any benefit to the people of Iraq we have no reason to be there.
Dave
10 - El1te
As the invader of the country, the US is obligated to preserve peace and stability. They're not doing the Iraqi's a 'favour' they're doing it because they damn well invaded the country and destroyed it's infrastructure, so they have a natural obligation to see it's recovery.
11 - the truth
the invasion of iraq was the biggest mistake bush addmin has made....it has fed iran with its ambition for neuclear weapon,iran has played the best move on the international chess board with anti american hatred sky high around the world and knowing very well that it cant aford to attack cuz it still needs to justify its invasion to the arab world..with the majority population in iraq being alligned to iran....say no more..Iraq will be a massive American graveyard cuz america will be there for a long long time...Vietnam revisited...
12 - Michael J. West
America's involvement in Iraq is only of value so long as it improves the situation there.
Agreed, but it should be clarified that ultimately, whether we are improving the situation there is up to Iraq to decide. So perhaps we might amend that to say, "America's involvement in Iraq is only of value so long as it is desired by the Iraqi people." It's a distinction that I fear many of us miss.
13 - Dave Nalle
Makes sense to me, Michael. We just need to be careful not to mistake the opinions of a vocal minority for the opinion of the relatively cowed and silent majority.
Dave
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Eric,
Very nice article. You address the precise question which is most important here. Can the Iraqi government afford to defend its defenders in the wake of these massacres?
Bear in mind, I do not render judgment against Americans facing people who violate all the rules of war and engagement as they know it. When you fight a Christian gentleman, you have the luxury of fighting like a Christian gentleman. Note the Christmas truce on the French front in WW1. When you fight someone else...
But the Americans are not fighting "their own" war, but a war of aid to another nation. This distinction is very important, not in terms of Americans screaming "immoral" but in terms of what is permissible behavior by Americans in these circumstances.
Apparently, the Iraqi government cannot afford to defend its defenders. This is not a matter of ingratitude - it is a matter of political survival.
15 - Alan
This is an isolated incident. I have reports from soldiers every week and they are working very hard to take care of Iraqis. Al Maliki is using this as an opportunity to get onside with Sunnis. Its a very difficult situation. Anyone who thinks this can be done quickly has been watching too much TV.
"they have a natural obligation to see it's recovery"
They have no such obligation at all, but they said they would and they are doing it. Wars are being fought all over the place. When was the last time you saw any 'obligation' to recover anything? Recovery is difficult - Terrorists love blowing things up.
Al Maliki's statement that they will investigate until they get the truth is a bit weird. That makes it sound like they will stop when they get the answer they want, but I don't think we should read too much into it. Politics and translation are in play here. And anyone who believes soldiers - Americans or others - are over there just killing civilians for the heck of it is short on intelligence. Generally, they have such strict rules of engagement, its amazing that anything gets done.
Those soldiers are not much different to you and I, except they are a lot more disciplined and trained.
None of us know what happened in Haditha or why. I expect the investigations will bring all that out. I hope it doesn't take much longer.
16 - Eric Berlin
Thanks Ruvy. You bring up a good point in discussing a "war of aid." We're asking American soldiers -- who are trained to fight and kill the enemy -- to be an ongoing occupation and training and police force. So in that light one can see the seeds of why a Haditha might happen.