For the first seven months after Iraq’s March election, the Obama Administration had insisted that they would not interfere in the political process and that they only wanted some coalition, any coalition, to emerge as quickly as possible. Though it was clear that the administration favored a Maliki-Allawi partnership, they did not appear to oppose any pairing outright.
Now, with long-time American favorite Nouri al-Maliki having incredibly managed to snatch another term in office from an electoral defeat in March, the administration is said to be chiming in, demanding that Maliki oust anti-US cleric Moqtada al-Sadr from his coalition.
Which is an enormous imposition, given that Sadr’s supporters had such a strong showing in the election that they managed to seize control over the Iraqi National Alliance from the Supreme Islamic Council, and it was Sadr more than anyone else who made the current coalition possible.
Moreover, if Maliki obeys the US and ousts Sadr, it isn’t clear that he will have a coalition at all anymore, or at the very least not one capable of forming a government. Maliki’s bloc finished second in the vote to rival Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiya bloc, and it was only through Sadr’s participation that he had any chance at a second term in office.
Any majority coalition government in Iraq required the participation of two of the three major blocs, and each side had its foreign advocate, with the Obama Administration supporting the Maliki-Allawi pairing, Syria supporting an Allawi-Sadr pairing, and Iran supporting the Maliki-Sadr pairing that ultimately won out. Maliki may risk a lot in forming a coalition overtly opposed by the US, which is still occupying the nation, but he might be risking even more to expel Sadr after a deal has been made for a coalition which would strengthen the Shi’ite clergy, a move that is supported both by his key allies in Iran and by a large portion of Maliki’s own constituency.
America meddling in the politics of another country? Surely this is beyond comprehension especially in a country that it has already 'done over', a country that it's brought freedom and democracy to (at least to what's left of it). Why, it even selected Iraq's leader for them.
The U.S. only has one choice: it needs to go back and occupy Iraq again, teach them another lesson, give them more 'shock and awe.'
The 50,000 troops who aren't there will help things along, I'm sure!
http://www.dangerouscreation.com
This is the same as Gaza when the USA wanted free elections. When the free elections did not return the USA picked winner the USA/israel decided to starve the people of Gaza for voting for someone who they thought would represent their interest instead of someone who would represent the interest of the USA/Israel It is true they hate us for our freedoms.
Yes, it is the American concept of freedom and democracy: People have complete freedom to obey – or else!
The US "brought democracy to Iraq," but only if the Iraqi government is one the US wants.
Oops, puppet got tangled in its strings again.
If there's a degree of truth to this story and it is not over-egged, it confirms what we thought all along, ie you can't have your cake and eat ot too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/iran-…
If Maliki breaks the alliance there is every chance that his govt. will fall.
And what happens if Maliki grows a pair and decides to stand up for his nation after all and orders the US to get out of Iraq completely? The day he does that is the day the curtain falls on the charade of 'spreading democracy' in the Middle East. At some point, Iraq is going to need to make a choice of whether to remain a client state of the US or stand on its own feet again. Personally, I'd like to see an independent Iraq again- I can't stand seeing a nation knuckle under to anyone.