The row between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi has grown. Maliki issued a warrant for Hashemi’s arrest on terrorism charges, accusing him of operating pro-Sunni death squads. Hashemi denied the charges, and supporters of him and his party compared Maliki’s actions to that of Saddam Hussein. Maliki is now ordering a handover of Hashemi, who has fled to the Kurdistan region. In addition, there’s an overlapping crisis, where Hashemi’s Iraqiya party, the largest in Parliament, boycotted the proceedings, protesting Maliki’s heavy head and their being shut out of key ministries. Maliki has an answer to that as well:
Speaking at news conference on Iraqi national television, Maliki said that if leaders in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region do not hand over the vice president – who is accused of enlisting personal bodyguards to run a hit squad– “it will stir up problems.”
In a sign that Iraq’s political crisis is worsening, Maliki struck a defiant tone against political opponents who have boycotted parliament and are accusing him of rushing to consolidate power in the wake of U.S. troops leaving the country.
He said he doesn’t want to be weighed down by the opinions of various political factions, and insisted the government has the right to replace ministers who boycott their jobs over differences with him.
So this move would eliminate Iraqiya members presiding over all the major ministries, and disable the power-sharing agreement that took many months to forge after the most recent elections. In fact, Maliki put the power-sharing agreement at grave risk:
The crisis was triggered when the Shiite-dominated government issued its arrest warrant for Mr. Hashemi, the top Sunni politician, on terrorism charges. Mr. Maliki did offer a small attempt to defuse tensions by calling for a conference of Iraq’s political elite to discuss the matter. If the issue cannot be resolved, he said he would “move toward forming a majority government.” [...]
Iraq now faces myriad political problems that in sum could derail the national unity government, which American diplomats helped craft last year and which is supposed to include meaningful roles for Iraq’s three major factions — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. This, in turn, raises fears of a return to rampant sectarian and factional violence — although so far it appears that the infighting has remained confined to the arena of politics.
There has been no recent spike in attacks. But the latest problems have laid bare the sectarian fissures still pervasive in society despite ongoing reconciliation efforts, encouraged by American diplomats, in the years since a sectarian civil war nearly tore apart the country.
Maliki seems to be mainly concerned with consolidating power, not sectarian concerns. But almost all of his targets have been Sunni. And the threat of a majority government is obviously a Shiite one. That government would have to include Sadrists at the highest levels.
I think this all speaks to the inevitable lack of durability in a unity government coalition in a society so stirred by sectarianism after the invasion. You just cannot expect the wounds between Sunnis and Shiites to immediately heal. The country was basically in a state of civil war just a couple years ago. No trust has built up between the two sides. And whether or not 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 US troops sat in barracks in Baghdad and Mosul and Najaf, this was fated to happen sooner or later.




23 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
TYPO ALERT:
I don’t think you can look at this as Isolated.
Last month the Sunnis ambushed and killed 22 Shia pilgrims going to a holy place in Syria.
If Hashimi is involved in this, or the other attacks on Shias during the insurgency then he’s going to get this due.
The sunnis were a minority and removed from power and will commit violence to get it back. The Anbar province which they dominate are involving themselves in the civil war in Syria to remove Assad. If they’ll kill mainstream shias then tolerance for alawites – Assads tribe is probably zero. When these people fight us we call them Al Queda.
They are practically begging for the US to keep them in power:
I don’t think that taking the MSM’s anti syrian reports is wise.
Who are these people? Unnamed sources and opposition who have a vested interests. NYTimes is a war cheerleader. After the Iraq fiasco it’s absurd to swallow this hook. Where are the objective trusted reporters?
Is it time for U.S. to invade Iraq again? Or is it Syria? Or Iran?
I get so confused.
At least Israel is getting the ME they want: chaos in Muslim countries so that Israel’s relative strength is enhanced.
No one is surprised by this. They hate each other and always have. This is the peace and stability we brought them and now more will die.
Candidate Obama = Iraq war is “a stupid war”.
President Obama’s best first choice at CIA Leon Panetta = Iraq War was “Worth It”.
Glenn Greenwald suggests that the Obama adminstration owes Bush/Cheney an apology b/c the Iraq war is now deemed to have been “worth it”.
Not true. Under Saddam, there was plenty of intermarriage and mingling. There certainly weren’t walls between Sunni & Shia neighborhoods & forced expulsion from neighborhoods & geographical areas of Iraq, and from Iraq as a whole, creating huge numbers of internally & externally displaced.
Creating conflicts among competing groups within a conquered area is a time honored means for the conqueror to increase its control. Civil war in Iraq did not exist before the U.S. invasion.
I’m sure the Iraqis will feel comforted if, as Glenn recommends, O apologizes to W.
Sunni’s and Kurds getting together against Shia an Arab Sunni would not flee to non Arab Kurds without a deal already in place and safety guarantees.
Hussein was about the same as Tito in Yugoslavia. Through the use of force he brought peace within the country. The Iraqis were living comparatively well, but now there is violence and soon, probably, civil war. “Mission Accomplished!” What a waste of precious lives on both sides, and, except for the mic, nobody is any better off.
Made that argument last night.
To be sure, the disturbing factor in Yugoslavia was domestic (Milosevic), while in Iraq it was external (U.S.), one lesson might be to just let the competing factors sort themselves out. There was certainly less death & destruction under Milosevic in former Yugoslavia than there was in Iraq under W & O.
What will he do if the Kurds don’t hand over the VP? If he invades its civil war. If he does nothing the Kurds become defacto independent and the Turks will take action on that so will Iran and Syria they all have Kurdish minorities. Saladin was a Kurd the Arabs will worry about history repeating.
Just what is the WH saying I thought Obama said something about us winning and bringing stability to Iraq the day we brought the troops home?
The Iraqi Kurds have been de facto independent since the no fly zone.
They are also internally divided within the Iraqi Kurds, or at least they used to be. Too much to keep track of.
Anyhow, land locked countries rarely succeed, Kurds are divided among 3 countries, as well as within Iraq, so last I remember reading something intelligent on the subject (over 5 years ago), Kurds thought they had the best deal they could get wrt Iraq. I wouldn’t enter their independence pipe dream into the mess without additional evidence that they are (against all rational thought) going to roil the waters.
Anyhow, land locked countries rarely succeed, Kurds are divided among 3 countries,
Agreed Kurds were already defacto independent but this would make them independent in a way the Iraqi’s and Turks can’t afford to ignore anymore.
If the Kurds were to get Syria they would get ocean access.
I am worried about another civil war and more death but under no circumstances do I think we should go back to Iraq. I am worried an Iraqi civil war might tempt some NeoCons into trying to get us to go back to Iraq.
I would agree with this, with the clarification that “the conqueror” would be Iraq’s Shiite power structure. Sectarian-based “majority rule” was their game plan from the moment the U.S. invaded. It’s why Ayatollah Sistani forced elections as soon as possible, and created & endorsed an essentially all-Shiite slate back in 2004 (which, despite some internal shifts, has held power ever since early 2005).
The U.S. certainly had a lot of troops there and killed an ungodly number of people, but it would be a huge stretch to say they ever had “control.”
And so ten years of battle, a trillion dollars, and thousands of lives have amounted to…nothing. Who could have foreseen that?
I’m sure they will work it out and everything will be just fine. Did’ja hear that Britney got engaged?
Seventy percent of the American population and a whole lot of dead Iraqi civilians.
If you read the internet news stories closely and watch how there is never any criticism of the Sunni bloc countries you can tell that there is a massive U.S., Israeli, Sunni muslim coordination to take out any remaining Shite power stuctures in that region. This is not about security, it is about power and who controls it. Libya is a prime case and point. You have a small country like Qatar who by the way controls Al jazeera now calling the shots in Libya. You have all the so called Gulf coast countries, like UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen basically becoming U.S. puppets against the other muslims in the region. I guess you are right when you say this makes it easier for Israel since they are building homes like it is no tomorrow and no one seems to notice. By the time this so called Arab spring is over there won’t be a state for the Palestians to create. Good Job Nobel Peace prize winner.
In Baghdad earlier today, at least 60 people were killed in 14 separate bombings:
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
And Banderson’s right, the intent is to try to neuter the Shiites. Hard to do, given that Bush lifted the lid on the dominate Iraqi Shia community and paved the way for huge increase in power and influence for Iran…and that’s what the saber-rattling and fear-pimping about Teheran is all about.
But let’s cut to the chase: it aint Bush’s problem now; it’s Obama’s. What will he do when the shit really starts hitting the fan, and it can’t be spun or ignored?
My thought is: he’s had no problem being Bush’s third term so far; why should he stop now?
Spot on, Hack’!
Tough chewing for the Obama loyalists to gnosh on all these little reality-turds, isn’t it? I’m feeling pissy; if you don’t mind, I think I’ll go over to Digby’s and post your little…equation. :o)
When did we leave Iraq ?
If we left why is 15000 so called private contractors still around the world’s largest embassy ?
If those “contractors” leave the Green Zone to try to catch or prevent the people who are practicing their skills on the world’s largest and most expensive mortar training range, they will almost certainly become involved in some house-to-house fighting, and I’d bet that it will be without the support of any Iraqi “security” forces.