Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe story of the sweeping, and secretive, arrests, in Iraq's national security apparatus is getting curiouser and curiouser. It now appears as if the whole thing was a clumsy effort by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to get rid of political opponents, in advance of January elections.
Iraq's provincial elections take place 11 days after Barack Obama becomes president next month, and they could present him with his first international crisis. In several key provinces -- Nineveh, Baghdad, and Diyala -- the ruling alliance may face crushing electoral defeats, and Prime Minister Maliki is apparently trying to preempt that by force. But it's looking more and more likely that the elections in Iraq will be rigged, and that could touch off violence. The secret arrests are just the tip of the iceberg.
Reported the Post:
Members of parliament charged Thursday that the prime minister was using Iraq's security forces to instill fear in his rivals ahead of provincial elections set for next month. Critics noted pointedly that a special counterterrorism task force that reports to Maliki made the arrests.
Maliki, whose ruling Dawa party has split and split again -- former Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, who was a Dawa member, is now running an opposition party -- is doing everything he can to bolster his party's power before the January 31 vote. Not much of it is democratic. He's building ties to the army command to make the Iraqi armed forces loyal to him personally. He's creating thuggish provincial "support councils" around the country as a kind of private militia. And he's using a special ops force, which reports directly to the prime minister, as a strike force against his enemies and opponents. They've been used in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad, in an attempt to crush the Sunni-led Awakening movement there. And, it seems, it was this force that Maliki used to arrest two dozen or more supposed plotters in the Interior Ministry and perhaps elsewhere, including the Defense Ministry.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Maliki's arrests "raised concerns that the government's crackdown was reminiscent of Hussein's regime." It added:
Some legislators compared the government's behavior to that of Hussein's regime. Hussein's security apparatus had often rounded up political opponents on dubious charges. The lawmakers raised concern that the arrests were linked to the Shiite-led government's efforts to consolidate power.Some Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish lawmakers have accused Maliki recently of harboring authoritarian ambitions, in a break from the power-sharing model championed by U.S. officials since 2003.
No good explanation for the arrests has been provided by the government, which leaked two days ago that the supposed plotters were planning a coup d'etat and that they were associated with Iraq's Baath Party, through an organization called The Return (Al Awda). But according to many others, the entire Maliki-led operations was conducted without informing Iraq's own government, the ministers involved (including the minister of defense), and the parliament. The interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, who is creating his own political party to compete against the ruling alliance, wasn't informed, either.
Sunnis were outraged by the secretive arrests, since many of those arrested appear to have been Sunnis. Allies of Muqtada al-Sadr condemned the arrests. And even spokesmen for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), an Iranian-allied party with a powerful militia, voiced suspicion about the arrests. ISCI controls the Interior Ministry, and ISCI is competing in the election across the Shiite south of Iraq against Maliki's Dawa.
The New York Times, which broke the story Thursday -- but with important details wrong -- reported in an update today that there "was no evidence that the suspects were in the early stages of planning a coup" against Maliki. Added the Times:
[An] adviser to Mr. Bolani said that the prime minister had been privately pushing for the arrest of a number of Interior officials for two months, but that Mr. Bolani had pushed back, insisting that the officials were innocent.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
But, but, but....PONTIFICUS told us we "won" in Iraq?!?!??!!?????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 12:46pm
You can't trust anybody these days...
There is an epidemic of greed of which Washington D.C. is the epicenter.
Posted by valiant at 12/19/2008 @ 1:07pm
This is not a great surprise! There will probably be a struggle for power, and we can only hope it doesn't get too messy.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/19/2008 @ 2:27pm
I thought after the hullabaloo of the Iraqi's having that election when they all proudly showed their fingers covered in ink that was a BIG DEAL as regards to elections over there!!!! How many more are they going to have before any of them actually mean anything...this just seems to be an on going load of nonsense???? Malaki is only a puppet of Bush anyway, so of course he wants to stay in power...God forbid these people should actually be really allowed to vote for who they want and someone we agree to as well!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/19/2008 @ 3:52pm
Dreyfus and quite a few others have a poor understanding of how every democracy works. The "democracy" part has to do with elections. After that the administration or government claims a "mandate", which is the "autocratic" part. eg. Obama's choice of "hawks" to his war cabinet, or telegraphing a more rigorous approach to the Afghanistan war. Then of course there is the little matter of his sucking up to the morally right wing Evangelicals. All these and others could be seen as a slap in the face to his liberal, "peace loving" anti-war demographic. i.e. he has moved quickly to re-enfranchise the conservative side of US politics (aka governing from the centre (Aussie spelling)).
The test of democracy in Iraq will not be Maliki's "democratically arrived at autocratic mandate" but whether the country has its option to give him the boot at the next election revoked.
That incidentally is all you liberals can do if Obama proves to be a bigger disappointment to you than Bush was and that's about all there is to democracy, between elections, be it American or Iraqi style.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/19/2008 @ 5:20pm
I am not looking forward to the eventual outcomes in Iraq or Afghanistan since whatever that might consist of, it is almost certain to be ugly for the U.S., not to mention for the vast majority of the people of those nations.
By the way, Jonesy (5:20 pm above), your view of politics, and democracy in particular, is missing the fact that the ongoing decision making processes in any government is always dictated to a large extent by the circumstances that unfold on the ground. This can include the work of interest groups and activists to push a particular agenda to the center stage.
In fact, I would argue that at the heart of any "democracy" worthy of the name is a vibrant critical mass of concerned and informed citizenry who take it upon themselves to agitate for a more fair and equitable distribution of the capital that accrues from the labor of the general populace, and the value of national assets/resources.
Call it an attempt to smooth the rough edges you might say. That, in essence, must necessarily be the long term central goal of our civilization I think.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 7:16pm
It turns out Iraq has the indispensable prerequisite of a real democracy: an independent judiciary.
A judge has ordered the release of those accused coup plotters. It appears the govt was unable to produce convincing evidence warranting their detention.
This is the second instance, I am aware of, of Iraq's judges showing their mettle. The first related to an Iraqi legislator arrested for attending a conference in Israel. The Iraqi Supreme Court ordered his release. The judges, in a unanimous decision, held that Iraq's constitution guarantees the right of travel, and ordered the defendant released. Icing on the cake were 400 Iraqi academics and intellectuals who were not afraid to sign a public petition in support of the arrested legislator.
Here we have a nice litmus test for The Nation readers. How do you stand vis a vis your country.
Are you glad or sad at these developments? Would you prefer news showing Iraq reverting to a police state, or are you happy at evidence that the costly US investment, in blood and money, is producing positive results?
You surely know whether a positive development like this relieves and delights you, or whether the specter of a decent Iraq, i.e., a US success, chills your heart.
In short, you moralists know what you are. Your confusion is the delusion that others can read you.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/19/2008 @ 9:07pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 7:16pm
I was quite aware that that is not all that defines a democracy but was making the point that at least one aspect of a democracy is the right of the voters to "hire and fire" their politicians at the ballot box.
My view is that Iraq has some of the building blocks to which you allude. These were in place long before March 2003 and some Iraqis at least, who gave their lives under Saddam, in particular, were motivated by the ideas underlying democracy.
When all is said and done Iraqis also are heirs to that long history of ideas upon which democracies build and by which they prosper. That tried and proven path is more likely to give them a more stable and democratic future than anything else.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/19/2008 @ 9:30pm
"......In short, you moralists know what you are. Your confusion is the delusion that others can read you."
~Hugo Pirovano @ 9:07pm
Another puff piece by Pirovano. You can exhale now, Hugo. I'm sure most readers here are aware that you're not as big as you think you are.
~LR Jones @ 9:30pm
Fair enough, mate.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 9:48pm
the alternative to moralists are immoralists. I would submit that they have run this country long enough.
the country seems to get this. only here are the creeps in the majority.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 11:04am
b_kool_66 at @ 9:48pm wrote:
<< You can exhale now, Hugo. I'm sure most readers here are aware that you're not as big as you think you are. >>
I'd be bigger had I typed that sentence correctly. It meant to say: "......In short, you moralists know what you are. Your confusion is the delusion that others CAN'T read you."
But I am certainly bigger than you. Be careful crossing the street over here. In bad weather chappies like you drown in our potholes.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/20/2008 @ 4:33pm
Sadly, there appear to be moron comments about how BIG (or small) various posters believe themselves or others are....... Are these primary schoolers who are attempting higher enlightenment here, but are failing to do so ??
I know these are edgy timez as the surprise party that is the Obama administration wields it's twizzlers and exceeds the worst paranoia of it's antiwar/anti-empire supporters by appointment......It's not merely his gay supporters.......who have been disappointed .............
Who IS Barak Obama?? Or perhaps, will the REAL Obama please appoint....
What we have here is someone who got to where he is by luck, hard werk and raw intelligence.
He seems decent to me, I am a little alarmed by the Gates pick, but I still believe that I believe in Obma
He seems to be someone who has been around and has ideas, beyond how t make a bundle, like the Bush.
AND one would need to be pirvy to the role Gates played in the bush debacle to know the score on him
It could be that the reason the NeoCons didn't get their Iran war was Gates....
I think the guy to watch is Eric Holder... Who is he !!
Will he look for the buried bodies of the bush crime-spree ??
Will HE [Holder] follow the disturbing destruction of EVIDENCE by bush?
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 -- The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives...
"At least two"?
New York Times" May 7, 2004 By MATTHEW L. WALD
Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed...
Biggest CRIME in American HISTORY ??
Maybe Ya wana "preserve" the evidence...... unless...
Will Holder hold THEM to account ??
Who IS Obama
He is, who he needs to be.....
Posted by MvGuy at 12/21/2008 @ 12:13pm
".......Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed...
Biggest CRIME in American HISTORY ??
Maybe Ya wana "preserve" the evidence...... unless...
Will Holder hold THEM to account ??
Who IS Obama
He is, who he needs to be....."
~Posted by MvGuy @ 12:13pm
Uh........ slow down, dude. And please get that methylphenidate prescription refilled.
I'm not averse to 9-11 conspiracy theories per se, lord knows there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious. But if your goal is to effectively and intelligently convey a cogent point, you may want to lose the CAPSLOCK button and formulate coherent paragraphs.
Just a kindly suggestion. Don't take it personal, "MvGuy".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 12:49pm
MvGuy at 12:13pm wrote:
<< Sadly, there appear to be moron comments about how BIG (or small) various posters believe themselves or others are....... Are these primary schoolers who are attempting higher enlightenment here, but are failing to do so ??>>
This pitiful creature opens his mouth and his grammar immediately knocks his front teeth out. The rest of his stutter is an equally good example of a lefty intellect.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/21/2008 @ 1:56pm
"....The rest of his stutter is an equally good example of a lefty intellect."
~Hugo Pirovano @ 1:56pm
YoU ShUrE aR SmaRT, Mis....mIst.....MisTuh P-p-p-PiroVainO.
P-p-p-pL-ease d-d-d0n'T huRt Me n-N-N-now.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 2:40pm
There is a lot more to 911 than we'll probably ever know, so many things lost, destroyed no doubt and fixed maybe to suit the explanation at the time. I still find it amazing after all this time that nobody has been fired or held accountable for anything to do with it!!! So you have to wonder how much has been hidden about that day...I hope one day the full truth will come out.
Posted by Caj at 12/21/2008 @ 5:18pm
Neo-Con fools...
Iraq will be a mess.. It will be one now, and long after we finally withdraw from that nightmare.
I find it quite refreshing to see that pure ignorance is still alive and well with our 'friends' on the right... These would be the same people who would have the Vietnam a great idea also...
Arab culture and what "we" have brought them (freedom and democracy LOL) are like oil and water... But I guess "we" know best. After all, we are Americans for gods sake..!!
Now please go back to your AM radio..
Posted by Vvf1969 at 12/22/2008 @ 12:16pm
It is quite bizarre that the neocons and assorted conservatives actually think that Iraq is a success. It was never meant by the Bush admin. to be a success. Have you forgotten about Rumsfeld already? And at the peak of the violence in Iraq, that Bush said he thought Rummy was doing a great job? Iraq was meant to be kept in a state of perpetual chaos, while the Bush admin. war criminals continued their illegal military adventures into Iran and beyond.
Posted by NukularProficy at 12/22/2008 @ 9:12pm
It is quite bizarre that the neocons and assorted conservatives actually think that Iraq is a success. ...(these) criminals continued their illegal military adventures ...... Posted by NukularProficy at 12/22/2008 @ 9:12pm
You Americans generally are either blinded by partisanship or are just plain ordinary ignorant. My duty, as a foreigner, seems to be as a helper to the blind and/or uninformed. If you knew your own political history you would know that not only was going to war authorised by Congress but also was in accordance with its policy as below. And in that context Iraq is a resounding success.
This is the context and Section 3 indicates the official policy of the USA, post Oct 1998, with respect to the Saddam Hussein regime:
PUBLIC LAW 105–338--OCT. 31, 1998 IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
You will also find that your soon to be Secretary of State, no doubt conscious of her Bill's signature on this document, said this in giving GW authority to go get him (Saddam that is) on 10th October 2002:
........."So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. "
"Thank you, Mr. President. "
(Senator Hillary Clinton)
Mission Accomplished!
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/23/2008 @ 04:56am
And in that context Iraq is a resounding success.
hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, four million refugees,4,000 dead american soldiers. no political settlement. whattasuccess.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:45am
And in that context Iraq is a resounding success.
hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, four million refugees,4,000 dead american soldiers. no political settlement. whattasuccess.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:45am
Hi JR. Still having trouble in the rational thinking department, I see.
I'm typing real slow just for you. Who killed the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis you mention? Was it not overwhelmingly the same forces who acted in the same capacity, but as instruments of the state during the Saddam years, killing their hundreds of thousands?
Haven't been following the refugee thing lately but some time ago there seemed to be a stream, if not a flood of returnees. Maybe you could update yourself and us on the present state of play. Still got quite a lot of refugees in Aussie who fled Iraq from the murderous Saddam regime
What do you mean by no political settlement? The reality that there is a multi-party parliament would for most of us indicate that the basic structures of democratic government are now in place in Iraq. The sort of capitulation to Iran by the Shiite Iraqis that you have been so assiduously rooting and praying for seems to be as far away as ever.
The problem for your mob is you keep mistaking your own phantom scenarios for reality.
I find myself warming to your new president elect who may be able to exegete the Iraq success in a way that drives those phantoms from your rigid minds.
Though, as you know, I'm not a particular fan of the present Afghanistan war, I notice Obama thinks it is as winnable as Iraq has been and to achieve this end he is retaining some of the stars from that success, such as Gates and seems pretty keen on the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy, which was such a success in Iraq, for use in Afghanistan.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/23/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/23/2008 @ 11:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
back to the beach Aussie. the refugees have not returned.
"The sort of capitulation to Iran by the Shiite Iraqis that you have been so assiduously rooting and praying for seems to be as far away as ever."
this is a lie. I have never taken any position remotely like that. the puppet gov't is made up of people who spent the last 20 years in exile in Iran.
the violence in Iraq, read civil war, which the US unleashed, was Shia vs Baathist sunni, and it still is. and will be. nothing has been settled. the kurds too will fight.
nothing will work in Afghanistan. the country is the size of Alaska, twice the size of Texas. taleban support has been described as 80% of the country. you could put a 100,000 troops in there, as the soviets did, and you would not prevail. it's the same vietnam thing over again. you cannot win the hearts and minds of a people with air strikes.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:23pm
the violence in Iraq, read civil war, which the US unleashed, was Shia vs Baathist sunni, and it still is. and will be. nothing has been settled. the kurds too will fight.
nothing will work in Afghanistan. the country is the size of Alaska, twice the size of Texas. taleban support has been described as 80% of the country. you could put a 100,000 troops in there, as the soviets did, and you would not prevail. it's the same vietnam thing over again. you cannot win the hearts and minds of a people with air strikes.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:23pm
JR, incidentally I don't choose to read civil war for the very obvious reason that no such thing came to fruition though it was threatening after the Samara bombing. Perhaps you have a racist hang-up about Arabs that doesn't allow you to consider the possibility that they, including all the sects, have an overarching patriotic commitment to their country in much the same way that Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religions, agnostic and atheist Americans have to theirs.
That may mean an al Sadr wants the Americans and other foreign troops out but it does not mean that he cannot work with Iraqis of another or no religious sect.
My suggestion is that a close look at the "purging" of Basra typifies the more recent conflicts in Iraq (the Mosul troubles it seems are still related to the remnants of al Qaeda driven to the north) Though the criminal gangs, who were lining their pockets with oil revenues as well as terrorising the residents, were Shiites associated with Iran, this was not a local civil war but criminal violence perpetrated by those who eventually fled over the Iran border.
The closest Iraq comes to "civil war" these days happens in a very diverse and healthy democratic Iraq parliament.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/24/2008 @ 05:30am
hey aussie, you are clueless. back to the beach. al qaeda has never been a factor in Iraq. the surge? it was and is a surge of US taxpayer money, putting 100,000 baathists on the payroll. it cannot be supported, especially since uncle Sam is broke.
take your overarching patriotic commitment and shove it. it's pure fantasy.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:19am
how big is:
California? 163707 sq. miles
Iraq? 167400 sq. miles
Texas? 268853 sq. miles
Afghanistan? 251825 sq. miles
I have previously asserted that Afghanistan is twice the size of Texas. I was mistaken. management regrets the error.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 12:34pm
..... al qaeda has never been a factor in Iraq......
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:19am
Yes and the moon is made of green cheese. It's hard to help those in denial but I'm hoping the eloquent Obama can help you fellas out without the need for expensive therapy.
Anyway if you show improvement in your condition here's something to look at. This is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak:
Al-Qaida in Iraq - 4000 Foreign Fighters Killed
updated 3:51 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2006
Associated press
BAGHDAD, Iraq - "The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq purportedly said Thursday in an audio message posted online that more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 -- the first apparent acknowledgment from the insurgents about their losses. "
I notice you are having a bit of trouble with areas and simple arithmetic, JR, but believe me 4000 al Qaeda holy warriors killed in Iraq up to the 28th September 2006 is a pretty good indication that they and the many more who hadn't been killed by that date were quite a significant factor in Iraq.
Now I along with former sceptics and liberals am happy to concede that al Qaeda is a less insignificant factor since W's surge and the Anbar Salvation Front kicked the arse out of them. It's just that your past tense factor sort of shows you in a rather poor light, in terms of your understanding of what has been happening beyond your front door during the last five or so years.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 12:59am
it has been estimated that between 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, since the invasion.
your 4,000 militants are a fraction. and the term al qaeda in Iraq is pretty meaningless. they don't carry al qaeda badges.
al qaeda in Iraq had no chance of actually influencing events. 4,000 in a nation of nearly 30 million? get real
Posted by emile duBois at 12/25/2008 @ 4:10pm