Sign up to get Today’s Best Articles in your inbox
Join 350,000+ subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of
The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
The White House’s Doubts About Iraq’s Leadership
A classified memo surfaces criticizing the Iraqi government.
What happenedIraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki faced intensifying pressure this week to take charge of his fractured country, as the White House sent strong signals of its lack of confidence in his leadership. A summit meeting between al-Maliki and President Bush in Amman, Jordan, was overshadowed by the publication in The New York Times of a classified memo, by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, which is highly critical of al-Maliki. In the memo, Hadley expresses doubts that al-Maliki can control the Shiite militias now conducting a campaign of vengeance killings against Sunnis, saying that al-Maliki "is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions," or simply incapable of exerting authority. Bush said he was meeting with al-Maliki primarily to ask, "What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?"
But at the same time as the White House ratcheted up the pressure, al-Maliki also faced anger from fellow Shiites in the political faction led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Several Cabinet ministers and legislators protested al-Maliki's meeting with Bush—which they called "a provocation" — by refusing to perform their government functions for an unspecified time period.
The White House continued to reject the term "civil war" to describe the violence in Iraq, despite its use by several news organizations and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. But Hadley conceded that the sectarian conflict in Iraq had entered "a new phase." In response to car bombings that killed more than 200 Shiites last week, Shiites attacked Sunnis as they left mosques, doused them with kerosene, and burned them alive.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
What the editorials saidBush is right—this is no civil war, said The Wall Street Journal. Civil wars are waged by "two militarily strong factions with a popular cla im on political leadership." Iraq's government was popularly elected by Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. In a deliberate strategy to undermine that government, al Qaida provided car bombs to Sunni insurgents, hoping to start a cycle of sectarian violence. Bush's best bet is to side with the Shiites and grant al-Maliki's request for better weapons and more control over Iraq's army. It will be far easier to disarm Shiite militias once the Sunnis have been subdued.
If this isn't a civil war, said The Miami Herald, what would you call it? Iraq is now in the hands of "militias, criminal gangs, and corrupt police and security forces," with civilians terrified to leave their homes. More than 100,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country per month. Al-Maliki cannot restore order unless he cracks down on the Shiite militias, many of which are controlled by al-Sadr. But since al-Maliki depends on al-Sadr's backing, "it is questionable if he can be effective and stay in power."
What the columnists said
America's options in Iraq have dwindled to two stark choices—10 months or 10 years, said Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. "Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months," or we accept that Iraq is a failed state "and rebuild it from the ground up, which will take 10 years." It will take that long to reinvade Iraq with at least 150,000 additional troops, eliminate the militias, and re-create "Iraq's institutions and political culture from scratch." If we can't stomach that undertaking, we should leave—"because to just keep stumbling along as we have been makes no sense."
Sign up to get Today’s Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the day’s biggest news and analysis – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Bush must take the blame for this fiasco, said Rich Lowry in National Review. It's been clear for "a long time" that the U.S. had to inject more troops to restore order. But Bush never sent more troops "because he has been determined to defer to his generals, no matter what." Now he appears ready to defer to James Baker's Iraq Study Group, which will soon issue a hodge-podge of bipartisan recommendations. "Is President Bush still the nation's commander in chief?" He's not acting like it.
