NEW YORK - When America's political friends and military allies fall out or refuse to play ball with the White House, their services are summarily terminated. Or Washington tightens the noose around their necks -- metaphorically if not literally.
In the worst case scenario, the head of state will find himself six feet under, as it happened to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whom the US once discreetly supported in a protracted war against neighbouring Iran, an avowed enemy of Washington.
In an inglorious chapter in Iraqi history, Saddam Hussein found himself walking to the gallows -- perhaps justifiably so for his crimes, but certainly not for standing up to the US.
In milder political terms, if you cross swords with the US, you could find yourself being unceremoniously ousted from power. The Bush administration calls it "regime change" -- a euphemism covering a multitude of political sins.
 |
| US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (L) talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (R) in Baghdad on July 21, 2008. AFP |
When the former Prime Minister of Iraq Ibrahim al-Jafari visited the White House in June 2005, President Bush went into raptures over him describing al-Jafari as "a great Iraqi patriot, a friend of liberty, and a stronger partner for peace and freedom."
"This medical doctor now serves his people as he works to build a new Iraq," Bush said, of the Prime Minister. And in more colloquial US jargon, Bush called him a "frank, open fella" who has done a "good job" in Iraq.
But before long the relationship between the US and al-Jafari, an elected Prime Minister of Iraq during 2005-2006, soured and he was out on the streets.
The interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (2004-2005), who took over Iraq from the ill-fated Saddam Hussein, did not fare well either. A British citizen who returned from exile from London, Allawi survived an attempted assassination in April 2005, engineered probably by the Iraqis themselves.
But before long the relationship between the White House and Allawi was heading towards a disaster -- and the US wanted him out. As the Washington Post put it, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went all the way to Baghdad "and told him to take a hike." That was the end of his short-lived political career.
Now, it's the turn of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who apparently is threatening to undermine the Bush administration by calling for US troop withdrawals by 2010. The Iraqi stance runs counter to the policies of the US administration which has unequivocally stated it will not place a rigid timetable as to when the US will pullout its troops from Iraq. Is it time for another regime change in Iraq?
The timing of al-Maliki's statement -- which coincided with a visit to Baghdad by Barack Obama last week -- has also given the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate a significant political boost in the upcoming elections.
As the New York Times put it, the central tenet of Obama's foreign policy is suddenly aligned with what the Iraqis themselves now increasingly seem to want. If he is elected President, Obama has pledged he will implement a phased withdrawal of US troops over a 16 month period.
And the request for an American troop withdrawal comes from an elected Iraqi Prime Minister and an elected government on whom Bush had already heaped a lot of praise.
When Bush met the Prime Minister for the first time, he said he was "impressed" by al-Maliki and "saw firsthand the strength of his character and his deep determination to succeed." How does he discredit him now after giving him a glowing character certificate?
The Pentagon's top military officials are now doing the rounds on US television networks trying to shoot down al-Maliki's proposal. Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the consequences of a timeline for troop withdrawal "could be very dangerous."
Realizing what a military quagmire Iraq has been, Obama told Iraqis last week that they should soon take charge of their own affairs. And rightly so. "I think it is very important we build on this progress and recognize Iraqi sovereignty."
For the Bush administration, any hasty and unplanned withdrawal from Iraq would be a political disaster because the much-touted war has cost more than half a trillion dollars and the deaths of over 4,000 Americans and hundreds and thousands of Iraqi civilians. Was the monumental military misadventure worth the price paid in human lives?
When US troops walked into Iraq more than five years ago, they were expected to be hailed as "liberators". But that seemed to be in the realm of political fantasy judging by the growing insurgency in the country.
As part of its plans for an extended stay in Iraq, the US Army has already requested $184 million to build power plants at its five main bases in Iraq. The five bases have been described as among the "final bases and support locations where troops, aircraft and equipment will be consolidated as the US military presence is reduced".
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, has refused to set a time table for troop withdrawal. He wants the US to be in Iraq for the long haul.
Meanwhile, in another setback to the Bush administration, the British government has finalized plans to withdraw its remaining 4,100 troops from Iraq by early 2009, the second largest contingent of coalition troops, after the 140,000-strong US contingent. |
E-mail