by Frank James
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki probably didn't help his cause with the opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal in which he likens his nation's violence to the U.S. Civil War, only more complicated.
And his timing probably couldn't have been worse, coming on the day of another bombing attack on what was left of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra.
BAGHDAD -- Americans keen to understand the ongoing struggle for a new Iraq can be guided by the example of their own history. In the 1860s, your country fought a great struggle of its own, a civil war that took hundreds of thousands of lives but ended in the triumph of freedom and the birth of a great power. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation signaled the destruction of the terrible institution of slavery, and the rise of a country dedicated, more than any other in the world of nation-states then and hence, to the principle of human liberty.
Our struggle in Iraq is similar to the great American quest, and is perhaps even more complicated. As your country was fighting that great contest over its unity and future, Iraq was a province of an Ottoman empire steeped in backwardness and ignorance. Half a century later, the British began an occupation of Iraq and drew the borders of contemporary Iraq as we know them today. Independence brought no relief to the people of our land. They were not given the means of political expression, nor were they to know political arrangements that respected their varied communities.
Setting aside the question of whether that would make him Abraham Lincoln, Maliki obviously wanted to give Americans who might be wavering on whether U.S. troops should remain in Iraq a pep talk and he used the American Civil War as a common frame of reference.
But someone might've wanted to tell him that his argument that Iraq is in a civil war is precisely the one used by opponents of continued U.S. involvement to argue for withdrawing our troops. He just helped critics of the continued U.S. presence make their case.
At another point, he says of the criticism from U.S. opponents:
Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.
That's another statement that jumps out at the reader. The U.S. and the world community certainly weren't silent after Saddam Hussein's 1991 invasion of Kuwait.
Perhaps he's referring to the U.S.'s official silence during the Iraq-Iran War in the 1980s?
At the end of a piece in which he writes of the progress Iraq is making, the sacrifices of its people and its desire to not be used as a pawn of foreign powers, he invokes American history once again, this time the era of the nation's creation.
We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Hey, where are John D, JD, Bruce and friends to say that al-Maliki doesn't know what he's talking about when he says his country is in a civil war?
The interesting part of the analogy is this: Try and imagine what sort of mess it would have been if a third country, say Britain, had intervened into the US civil war and tried to enforce their will on both sides.
Posted by: Tony | June 13, 2007 3:43 PM
Al-Maliki wants to keep the American forces in Iraq until the Shiites have won complete power and then forever after. The Shiites' only chance at Iraq dominance, after centuries, is US-backed
military power and money shoring up a Shiite-dominated government. Should we leave, the fate of the Shia would be up for grabs. And fellow Shia state Iran must be thrilled that we are enabling their increased power in the region with our support of the Iraqi Shia.
Bush has gotten us into a huge trap and is incapable of getting us out. So are the Democrats, apparently.
Looks like we'll be spending trillions more
keeping the power for a Muslim religious group which couldn't maintain power on its own. And helping Iran get more powerful to boot.
Guess there is just not enough to do with all those trillions here at home.
Posted by: Helena | June 13, 2007 6:11 PM
Was that supposed to be insightful commentary? What's happened to the Tribune that you've got guys like this getting ink.
I'm going to jump to the Sun-Times, where I can get more layered analysis from Marmaduke or Family Circus.
Posted by: jack | June 13, 2007 7:02 PM
Interesting, as I look at these posts, there is the quote of the day right next to them -
"No one trusts the federal government to do the job right because we have never done it before"
-- Senator Lindsey Graham
If we've never done it right before, how can we do it right in Iraq? We are screwed. Everybody panic.
Posted by: snitramc | June 13, 2007 8:33 PM
An opinion piece that affects each and every American, and Nouri al-Maliki writes it in the Wall Street Journal and "THE FULL WSJ.com ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS." Says it all, doesn't it?
Posted by: Tom J | June 13, 2007 9:29 PM
btw - am I alone is wondering if that piece was actually written by one of Bush's spin doctors?
"We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance." And just when exactly did they come to believe this? Yesterday?
"It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country." Tell me - does that "we" refer to the Iraqui Parliament members who wanted to take two months off this summer?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vacation10may10,0,3262268,full.story
Re-read that LA Times piece (from May 10). The most relevant clip:
"'I'll be blunt: I told some of the Iraqis with whom I met that we are buying them [time] for political reconciliation, and that every day we buy it with American blood,' (Defense Secretary Robert M.) Gates said at a Senate hearing Wednesday."
What does that tell me? The fact that they even had to have that basic fact of life (or death) pointed out to them simply underlines the fact that whether or not they choose to get their act together, they are beyond our help. Read the other quotes in that piece from other Iraqis and see if you don't come to the same conclusion. People Unclear on the Concept.
Barack Obama (once again) called this one right.
Posted by: Tom J | June 13, 2007 9:47 PM
The commentary is just fine. Tony's commentary is quite insightful. You can't run from the truth. Oh wait yes you can. Ignorance is bliss after all.
I second Helena. Our government is siding with the Shiites. It is quite clear form the first directives and first attacks on Sunni strong holds without touching Shiite strongholds. For fear of al-Sadar who's sympathizers held seven governmental positions in charge of major public policies. When we sobered up he not only called for not co-operating with American forces, but later for Shiite and Sunni to unite and fight against the "occupation." (On legal grounds it isn't, but it sure looks like it after so many years into it.)
Iran won't be a problem though. Nationals, Sunnis and other dissatisfied with the government, are slowly taking majority in Parliament. Once they do they will get back into power. They want to bring back the Iraqi Army the directives disbanded. ( Who fought Iran in the Iran-Iraq War to fight off al-Queda and insurgence.) Iran won't stand a chance. The Administration knows this. They are hoping that the nationals taking over Parliament willing to fight off Iran and Iranian sympathizers won't take control before the oil law is finalized, since nationals are no fans of it. Then no one will be able to touch it. We played sides to our advantage. Minus the ridiculous money and lives spent on the whole fiasco.
Posted by: AR | June 13, 2007 9:52 PM
Some good comments by Al-Maliki. This isn't working. Look at a map. We see it as an outline of Iraq bordered by Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. the Sinai penninsula, Suez canal and the Gaza Strip. I think they think of border lines very differently over there. They have lots of major sect communities that bleed over between Iraq and Turkey, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, etc. Our interpretations of where their int'l borders lie means nothing to many civilians.
Who do we think we are to even assume we could bring peace to such a complex society that WAS working much better before we imposed our authoritarian ideals on them?
Posted by: giraffe | June 14, 2007 6:02 AM
I am working in Iraq and would only urge my fellow Americans and Tribuine readers to focus more on Maliki's overall message and his appeal to our heritage than to get wrapped up in any particular turn of phrase. There are millions of decent Iraqi struggling and risking their lives every day for a taste of the freedoms and opportunities what we have in such abundance due to the sacrifices of our forebears.
Posted by: Phil | June 14, 2007 7:01 AM
jack,
Even if you don't like what you read in the Tribune, just remember the paper is of such suffecient quality that you can wrap fish or garbage in it - and it won't leak!
Buh by.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 14, 2007 8:06 AM
Tony,
Can't say for sure where the Repub. posters are, but rumor has it they invoked the "slaughter rule," turned off their computers and have all quietly cried themselves to sleep.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 14, 2007 8:09 AM
There are no Repub posters on this because they can't:
1. Attack the messenger
2. Claim media bias
3. Present an alternative from their own camp
4. Blame Clinton
Posted by: John | June 14, 2007 9:15 AM
Still no posters from the other side. Completely ignoring this post. Chickenhawk scum.
Posted by: jethro | June 14, 2007 11:37 AM
And the silence continues...
Posted by: Tony | June 14, 2007 9:43 PM