""He's now more experienced and relaxed," said Askari, the Maliki aide. "In 2006, Iraq was in a very bad situation and the country was on the verge of civil war. Now he's in full control of the security forces and has full political control. He will be more able to do what he likes to do."" Karen do Young
---------------------------------------------------
Now... if Sawyer had asked Clapper about this... That would have been interesting. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122106870.html
So the bottom line is a decade of involvement in Iraq has led to a better equipped and more compentent STATE security apparatus than the one headed by Saddam Hussein?
If so certainly an important factor in how US promotes democracy and civil liberties in the wake of its war fighting strategies!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 22 December 2010 at 08:24 AM
What? You want the talking heads to act like real journalists? How naive of you! /snark
Posted by: ex-PFC Chuck | 22 December 2010 at 10:27 AM
"He has the potential to be a dictator," said Faleh Jabar, an Iraqi scholar who heads the Beirut-based Iraq Institute for Strategic Studies. "It's my biggest fear, because that would destroy our democracy."
"The widely feared Baghdad Brigade, which answers directly to Maliki's office, has frequently been used to move against his political opponents."
Thanks Neo-cons, sure an improvement from Saddam.
Posted by: Fred | 22 December 2010 at 10:33 AM
If not Maliki with Iranian support in contemplation of withdrawal, then what?
The question to me is whether this will be a federation or 3 er, countries, five years from now. The kinetic bit is done, the nation building was a joke, how much can be expected of these people?
What's a strike on Iran do to Iraqi democracy?
Posted by: Charles I | 22 December 2010 at 06:01 PM
The choice seems clear and stark. Civil war or three nation-states for Iraq's future. Better to be trying to hold back the tide.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 23 December 2010 at 04:06 AM
"Maliki's governing style raises questions about future of Iraq's fragile democracy" Washington Post
So, is the question intended or unintended irony by the WaPo? The fact that the incumbent is PM after losing an election, and clinging to office like a tick for months until this "compromise" issued, speaks for itself.
Posted by: Redhand | 23 December 2010 at 09:33 AM
....on the verge of civil war. WTF? It was a civil war, we backed the Shi'ite and they won.
Posted by: par4 | 23 December 2010 at 07:17 PM