There's a rumor going around that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is feeling his oats, flexing his muscle, and displaying a newfound confidence that has allowed him to challenge the American occupation of Iraq. As a result, or so the story goes, Maliki has suspended talks with the United States on a long-term security agreement, and he has spoken out in favor of a timetable for withdrawing US forces.

But that's mostly wrong. From the start of his reign as prime minister in 2006, Maliki has been a weak and ineffectual leader. His political base is exceedingly narrow, and his Dawa Party is virtually nonexistent as a political force in Iraq today. (Dawa -- which means "The Call," as in Islamic proselytizing, has always been a thin part of the ruling alliance, and it recently splintered, when former Prime Minister Jaafari and his faction withdrew from it.) Maliki's power rests on a shaky coalition of other Iraqi parties, including the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), a militia-based party closely tied to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

Maliki has tried to strengthen his hand by bringing the religious Sunni bloc back into the ruling coalition. But the party that represents the religious Sunnis, whose core is the Iraqi Islamic Party, won't help Maliki. The IIP, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood secret society, was elected in 2005-2006 to its provincial posts and its parliamentary slots only because it was the sole Sunni party that would take part in an election that was widely boycotted by Sunni Arabs. (Only about two percent of Sunni Arabs voted.) So the idea that IIP has any political power is absurd. Most Sunni Iraqs are secular or moderately religious, and they reject the fundamentalist views of the IIP. The IIP is facing a determined (and armed) force arrayed against it amongst the Sunni "Awakening" or sahwa, also known as the "Sons of Iraq." Either through political means (i.e., the upcoming provincial elections) or by armed force, the Sons of Iraq movement will likely obliterate the IIP fairly soon.

Maliki is trying to balance between his support from the United States, which is arming and training the Iraqi security forces (army and police), and his support from Iran, which has vast political, economic, and covert military influence inside Iraq. Both Maliki and ISCI want to maintain US support for the army and police, which have grown astronomically, from 337,000 in 2007 to 556,000 in 2008. So they can't afford to alienate Washington. At the same time Maliki and ISCI are responding to strong pressure from Iran, which wants the Americans out of Iraq, and from Iraqi nationalists, who feel the same way. (Of course, the nationalists also want Iran to get out of Iraq.) That's not a formula for political strength.

As a result Maliki and his cronies, who were installed in Baghdad with the dual support of Washington and Tehran, are suggesting that it's time to set a timetable for a US withdrawal, and it now looks as if the US-Iraq security agreement is a dead letter. "There is a large possibility of postponing the signing of the long-term agreement between Iraq and the U.S., until a new U.S. administration is elected," Ali al-Dabbagh was quoted as saying by the Voice of Iraq news agency.

The talk of Maliki the Strongman started with his assault on Basra two months ago. But Maliki is hardly a strong man. He's facing heavy Iranian pressure, the threat of a coup d'etat by army officers opposed to him, and bitter opposition from a wide range of both Sunni and Shia nationalists, including Muqtada al-Sadr's forces.

Stephen Biddle, an adviser to General Petraeus, says that US government officials are buzzing about the possibility of a coup by the army against Maliki. "It's something that's being talked about," said Biddle, an Iraq watcher at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Only the presence of US occupation forces in Iraq is restraining the Iraqi army from getting rid of Maliki, he suggested. "If we were to leave you could easily imagine a situation in which the military as the most effective institution in society decides to take over," Biddle said. "The parliament is the least respected institution in the society."

Meanwhile, nationalist resistance is brewing. At a conference in Damascus last week, Sunni and Shiite groups opposed to Maliki and to the US occupation of Iraq held forth. "It's obvious they've just come to take our resources and to spread their influence," said Shamil Rassam, chairman of the Iraqi Popular Forces, an anti-occupation group with offices in Syria, speaking of the Americans. "We reject any kind of agreement that prolongs the occupation for so much as a day." Said a Sadrist at the meeting in Syria: "Maliki is an agent for the Americans and the occupation. He and his government are only there because of the Americans and if the Americans left they know they would be kicked out of office."

Some strongman! Maliki's allies are all weak. The Dawa party is falling apart, ISCI is widely reviled by Shiite Iraqis who detest its pro-Iranian stands, and the Iraqi Islamic Party has no support whatsoever among Iraqi Sunnis. The Kurds continue to prop up Maliki's government, but they are not powerful outside their northern enclave, and they are facing strong opposition from both Iran and Turkey.

Comments (17)

1. al-Maliki is strong because he leads in the face of such challenges.

   Dreyfuss is quite unfair to him in this article, leading off by calling him weak, then minimizing his leadership in the (not ineffectual) counter-insurgency operations of the Iraqi Army since March. He fails to credit Maliki's saavy when he introduced a temporary measure for the US troop presence while concurrently "talking tough:" this buys time for the upcoming Iraqi elections, which will mean political change and an almost certain added heft for the central government. As pointed out in the article, this is needed to counterbalance an increasingly effective military...although Dreyfuss may be distilling too much foreboding from Biddle's generic speculations (in what was actually a very positive AP article).

   I'm quite optimistic about the upcoming Iraqi elections. The people will be calling, and the politicians will answer, and a refreshed Iraqi government will be ready to talk about the right way for our troops to come home.

   Of course, the "stay of agreement" also provides room for our US elections, so al-Maliki can find out whether we're sending a veteran or a rookie to make the final deal. Our selection will be the measure of our commitment to the partnership, that's for sure. He's pretty smart, don't you think, Robert?

   Posted by man00ver at 07/15/2008 @ 7:00pm

2. Meanwhile, nationalist resistance is brewing. At a conference in Damascus last week, Sunni and Shiite groups opposed to Maliki and to the US occupation of Iraq held forth. "It's obvious they've just come to take our resources and to spread their influence," said Shamil Rassam, chairman of the Iraqi Popular Forces, an anti-occupation group with offices in Syria, speaking of the Americans. "We reject any kind of agreement that prolongs the occupation for so much as a day." Said a Sadrist at the meeting in Syria: "Maliki is an agent for the Americans and the occupation. He and his government are only there because of the Americans and if the Americans left they know they would be kicked out of office."

   Dreyfuss cites as proof that there is not collaboration in the Iraqi govt, "resistance" forces in Syria.

   Now that is a joke and evidence that like most leftists, Dreyfuss is unwilling to do any substantive research. Instead he conveniently looks for anti-US props on Iraq; even if he has to look to Syria to find them.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/15/2008 @ 7:54pm

3. even if he has to look to Syria to find them.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/15/2008 @ 7:54pm

   ooh. that's bogeyman territory.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 8:09pm

4. Monkey see, Monkey do...just goes to show, the easiest "institution" to mimick, is our own pols!

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/15/2008 @ 9:28pm

   now, that's something to be proud of.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2008 @ 11:12pm

5. man00ver at 07/15/2008 @ 7:00pm

   Maliki is a puppet, as is his gov't, whose reach does not extend past the green zone. he is propped up by a quarter of a million US troops. remove the troops and he will be Humpty Dumpty.

   elections are not elections when only one side participates. Saddam used to get 95% of the votes. were those elections too?

   Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2008 @ 07:47am

6. Obama is only half right on war. the Afghanistan mis-adventure is just as hopeless. we are intervening in and fomenting a civil war between the Taleban and their political opponents there. the Talban has wide support. western armies have never been able to impose their will for long. it just becomes too costly. a peace agreement and a coalition for ruling are what is required, not more war.

   we need to pacify both Afghanistan and more importantly Pakistan. don't let the central gov't beat up on the autonomous mountain buffer zone. negotiate with them. offer them continued autonomy.

   pump investment money into Pakistan, instead of pouring it down the rat hole that is Iraq. I bet we're still subsidizing low gas prices in Iraq. now there's a campaign issue.

   Posted by emile duBois at 07/16/2008 @ 12:00pm

7. emile, since March, al-Maliki's government has demonstrated that its reach (and its grasp) extends into Basra, Mosul, and Sadr City as well. Things are progressing quite nicely, and it's hard to dispute that a corner is being turned at last. I roundly concur that it's not time for us to leave yet, but I think that time is now visible in a very new way. As to my hope for the Iraqi elections, even Dreyfuss obliquely mentions that a larger slice of the Sunni populace is likely to participate this time around, having since played a large and effective role in the fight against AQI. That they mostly abstained in the last elections doesn't invalidate those results; those who chose to vote risked their lives to exercise their political will, in a way that Saddam never permitted. Your comparison doesn't stand, because each new election will be a genuine opportunity for change in the new Iraq.

   The Talibanis are complicit in al-Qaeda's terrorism, and giving them some sort of pass is not something to reasonably expect, least of all while they're killing our soldiers during their latest resurgence. If the "autonomous mountain region" wants back a little of the old peace-and-quiet, their path to it is clear as ever: if they cough up bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, their pastoral solitude will soon return. As U.S. intentions go, these don't seem very unreasonable.

   I might agree that Pakistan could use some care and feeding, but some of the new politics there might merit a period of fresh examination before any money pumping gets started. Regardless, we have a different sort of responsiblity in Iraq than we do in Pakistan, I think.

   Posted by man00ver at 07/16/2008 @ 10:06pm

8. RedRiver

   incoherent drivel. it was the repubs who opposed entry into the european war.

   Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 09:49am

9. Things are progressing quite nicely,

   absurd.

   Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 09:51am

10. when the millions of Iraqi refugees return to their country, then I'll believe that things are progressing nicely.take your phony propaganda and shove it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 10:40am

11. These claims - "The war is over" "We won" "A new and better nation is growing legs" -- are not only eerily similar to what we heard in 2003, 2004, and every few months since. They're the exact same claims. They are as false now as they were then.

    All we have accomplished is to install a pro-Iranian puppet regime. Society at all levels is increasingly controlled by fundamentalists. Women have lost most of their rights. So the very people we claim as our enemies are the ones we have empowered. This is victory?

    And while the violence is blessedly reduced right now, very few Iraqis accept the occupation. Nobody ever does. So they will resume the violence. Hopefully they will direct it more consistently at the occupiers than at each other.

    The only way this war ends is when our troops come home.

    Posted by DavidSpero at 07/17/2008 @ 5:24pm

12. emile - I was wondering what would be the latest liberal definition of success in Iraq. Thanks for moving the bar once more. Make sure to tell the Obama camp about the "return of all refugees" requirement, so he can flip back to calling the surge a failure again.

    If you don't like what I've said so far, maybe some voices from Iraq will convince you. Here's the detailed national polling data from March, where you should be able to find plenty of good news to ignore:

    http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4444000&page=1

    If you care to bet on the direction of the next set of major Iraq polling numbers, just say so. I'll be betting they're up, of course.

    DavidSpero - I couldn't find any data in that Iraqi national poll to support the laments in your 2nd paragraph, so maybe you could point me at some backing stories. I'm a bit appalled by your 3rd block of text, where you seem to be hoping for more attacks on our soldiers. I don't guess you really mean them any harm, since you want them to come home. Me too, but deservedly viewed as the heroes they are, having achieved the best possible result for their country, and NOT under an aura of hasty retreat and unfinished business. I believe they want this too, and it's finally in sight.

    I quite wonder what Obama will be saying after his trip abroad with his close pals from all major networks. I don't imagine it will take long for us all to find out, helplessly informed by the forthcoming All-Obama-All-The-Time media blitz. Somebody tell me again why he just HAD TO break his public financing pledge? Here's hoping they catch him once or twice without the teleprompter.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/17/2008 @ 8:20pm

13. emile - I was wondering what would be the latest liberal definition of success in Iraq. Thanks for moving the bar once more. Make sure to tell the Obama camp about the "return of all refugees" requirement, so he can flip back to calling the surge a failure again.

    you misunderstand. I am talking about the Iraqi people voting with their feet.

    nothing is in any way settled in Iraq. everyone is holding their breath for the un-Bush.

    I don't know how old you are, oh great propagandist, but I'm old enough to have been lied to about vietnam, progress right around the corner, light at the end of the tunnel.five years of war and what to show for it? a propped up quasi gov't, a polarized and shattered country, here too. any Sunnis in the parliament? any agreements on the great issues? they want us out. some are willing to blow themselves up, that's how much they want us out. we should listen to them.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/18/2008 @ 11:48am

14. Iraqis will do it the Iraqi way, and not the American way. I would not be too surprised to see the Iraqi army back on top. We need to get out of there, and let them figure it out. If we stay, the insurgency will start again. We have no business in that country, and I do not want to see any more of our troops or Iraqis killed because some politician in Washington can't admit their stupidity.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/18/2008 @ 1:45pm

15. Thanks for that link, Manoover. It's good that some Iraqis are feeling less despair. The poll didn't ask about attitudes toward the occupation or the U.S. bases, the return of the Western oil companies, or the increasing control of daily life by fundamentalist militias. It would be interesting to know about those things.

    I appreciate that Manoover is consistently civil and rational at least. Can't say the same for Red River - your calling return of refugees "moving the bar for success yet again" is bizarre. Your invasion and occupation created those millions of people's misery. Yes, you do have to re-integrate Iraq before you can claim "success." The War Party believes that the destruction and misery their actions cause should be forgotten and forgiven, even while the suffering continues. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

    Posted by DavidSpero at 07/18/2008 @ 2:01pm

16. emile - The current timeline formula proposed by the Iraqi central government is for US troops to withraw five years after Iraqi forces assume security responsibilities in all areas of the country. This would put the withdrawal 7-8 years from now, at minimum. Who in Iraq, besides the Sadrist Iranian puppets, do you think is "holding their breath" for Obama and the logistically improbable (if not impossible) 16-month cut-and-run plan? I'm not compelled by the idea that suicide bombers are the responsible representatives of the Iraqi public.

    If we elect the greenhorn as POTUS in November...I'll accept him. But he'd better grow up fast, for all our sakes and the sake of the world at large. This is not propaganda, it's my very real concern about his gross inexperience and invisible principles. This is on top of my disagreement with many of his policies, which disagreement is made less important because I no longer believe he'll follow up on very many of those, if elected.

    I DID misunderstand you a little. In my mind, "nice progress" is what happens BEFORE the final resolution...which is when I'd imagine all Iraqi refugees will feel secure enough to return. The poll link I gave you has some data on what the resident Iraqis think about this: nationwide, roughly 50% thought in March that it would be OK for the refugees to return, while up to about 70% felt that way in the more secure areas. I'm pretty sure those numbers are higher right now, because the Iraqi counter-insurgency operations have shown their effectiveness since that poll was taken.

    Currently, the Sunnis hold 44 out of 275 Iraqi parliament seats, which were won in 2005 by the Iraqi Accordance Front, the only Sunni alliance who agreed to participate in those elections. Granted, they're a bit too religious to represent much of the Sunni citizenry, but that will be changing in the upcoming elections. Feeling empowered by the success of the Awakening Councils, the Sunni community as a whole is more likely to accept minority participation in the parliament than it had been after the overthrow of Ba'ath rule. I'm quite sure, as in our country, that there will never be a time in Iraq when all significant political issues are completely resolved, but the threat of civil war seems small at this point.

    Obama was plainly wrong about the troop surge. This is just the kind of critical decision he'll routinely need to make as president, and it's probably the only item on his limited record that truly reflects the quality of his judgment on matters of foreign policy and national security. Doesn't this give you pause?

    Posted by man00ver at 07/18/2008 @ 3:17pm

17. DavidSpero - The March poll in Iraq actually did probe the people's attitudes about the US. Nationwide, almost half of Iraqis believe it was right for the US to have invaded (that was a record at 49%, and it may be higher now), which is impressive considering that practically every Sunni Arab Iraqi believes otherwise. While only 26% generally support our presence in the country, only 38% think we should leave right now, and clear majorities of 66-80% support various sorts of continuing roles for US troops.

    As for re-integration: 66% of Iraqis support a single and unified nation (with notable dissent from the Kurds, who also mostly love the US, and who are briskly participating in the central gov nonetheless). 89% of Iraqis believe all Sunnis should fully participate in the upcoming elections, including 95% of the Sunnis themselves.

    About fundamentalist militias: if you're talking about the Sunni "Awakening Councils," as funded by the US and supported by our surge troops, they got high marks in the poll (although I wouldn't label them fundamentalist, really). It fits better to think of the Mahdi Army, who are taking an extended break and will likely continue to do so until al-Sadr decides it's safe to return from Iran. Even then, they've had a recent taste of the newly-effective Iraqi Army under al-Maliki's operations, and may decide that politics is a better option going forward.

    Of course, the poll didn't much cover western oil companies. Although the central Iraqi Oil Ministry doesn't yet have a settled Oil Law, and there are many challenges facing the draft legislation (which calls generally for 12.5% Iraqi royalties, but contains language that diverts most "profit oil" over the recovery of expenses to the Iraqi govt under boilerplate 20-year contracts), it'll get done because it has to. Iraq's creditors are insistent on a vibrantly rehabilitated oil industry there ASAP, and that means western assistance will be needed.

    While this could be an opportunity for US companies (who are really the runts of the global oil industry), it will be realized only after their significant investment and risk. Especially given the current state of the economy, it's a little hard to understand why practical-minded Americans would be rooting against our own companies in any competitive market. The more rabid anti-war activists may decry "our imperialism," but it's really just trade. Any contract signed by two parties is fair, by definition.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/18/2008 @ 7:21pm