(White House) |
Buried in a January 2007 article in Newsweek
was the little tidbit that American intelligence was eavesdropping on PM Nouri
al-Maliki’s conversations. That was because the U.S. wasn’t sure that the prime
minister was committed to the Surge or not. They found out that he was telling
his advisers that he would back the U.S. as promised to President Bush. This
covert operation was authorized because the White House had major concerns
about the Iraqi leader.
Questions about Maliki started when the administration began
its Iraq policy review at the end of 2006. On October 30 Bush’s National
Security Adviser Stephen Hadley visited Baghdad and met with the premier. He wrote a
memo, which was later leaked
to the media saying that while Maliki seemed like he had good
intentions he was either ignorant about what his government was doing or lying
about it. Maliki claimed he wanted to cooperate with Sunni and Kurdish parties,
and stand up to the other Shiite lists, which was what the U.S. wanted to hear.
The reality was Sunni areas were not getting services, Maliki was stopping
raids upon militias, removed good Iraqi commanders who were not Shiite, and was
attempting to create a Shiite majority within the ministries. For all of the
prime minister’s talk of not being sectarian, he was trying to shore up and
increase Shiite control of the government and security forces. Hadley
questioned whether Maliki could change his ways and be the partner the
administration was looking for. That would mean making deals with other
ethnosectarian groups in parliament, and stop protecting militias, so the U.S.
could try to quell the civil war that was exploding in central Iraq.
Maliki’s rhetoric in the following months did not improve
American skepticism. On November 30 Maliki and Bush met in Jordan. There
National Security Adviser Mowafaq Rubaie told the president that Maliki had
come up with his
own security plan. That would reduce the U.S. presence in Baghdad
and leave the province to the Iraqi forces. They
would go after insurgents instead of the militias, while Maliki
attempted a political deal with Sadr to get him to pull back his Mahdi Army. By
January, spokesmen for the prime minister were telling the press that he
opposed the Surge, that he
still believed the Iraqi forces should run security in Baghdad, and
that he appointed
a relatively unknown General Aboud Qanbar to head the new Baghdad
Operations Command, which the U.S. took as another example of Maliki picking
Shiite loyalists over competent officers. The premier finally backed the Surge,
but given this history the Americans were unsure about his level of commitment.
That led to the tapping of his communications.
In the end, Maliki did support the Surge. He allowed the
Americans to go after Sadr, and pushed through some of the legislative
benchmarks the Bush White House wanted. At the same time he never gave up his
sectarian politics, and continued his moves to ensure Shiite supremacy over the
state. Bush tended to ignore that as he became enamored with the Iraqi leader,
holding regular phone and video conversations with him. Ironically, the success
of the Surge, which Maliki initially rejected, opened the door for him to
become an autocrat in his second term.
SOURCES
Burns, John, “U.S.
and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans,” New York Times, 1/15/07
Gordon, Michael, “U.S. adviser reports doubts on al-Maliki,”
New York Times, 11/29/06
Gordon, Michael and Tavernise, Sabrina, “Iraq Army Plans for
a Wider Role in Securing Baghdad,” New York Times, 12/13/06
Hirsch, Michael and Wolffe, Richard, “Bush and Maliki: With
Friends Like These…,” Newsweek, 1/28/07
New York Times, “Text of U.S. Security Adviser’s Iraq Memo,”
11/29/06
Partlow, Joshua, “Maliki Stresses Urgency In Arming Iraqi
Forces,” Washington Post, 1/18/07
Raghavan, Sudarsan, “Premier Wants U.S. Forces to Target
Sunni Insurgents,” Washington Post, 12/20/06
Tavernise, Sabrina
and Burns, John, “Promising Troops Where They Aren’t Really Wanted,” New York
Times, 1/11/07
No comments:
Post a Comment