The “Arab Spring” public protests have hit a number of nations and sparked a number of different responses. In Iraq, after some very violent crackdowns, the US-backed regime promised major reforms and asked for a “100 day” period to get things done. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed to eliminate all corruption in every ministry in that period, or he would fire the minister responsible.
The 100 day deadline slipped tonight, with early indications that the protests could resume as soon as Friday. No firings were made, and Maliki insisted every minister had a “four year plan” now.
Maliki’s strategy appears to be to insist that he achieved all of his goals, and his comments including claims of massive amounts of “progress” made in the last 100 days. The calls for renewed protests, however, show the opposition isn’t buying it.
The real question then is not how Maliki will convince people not to protest but what the government’s response will be. In February they went with summary detentions and savage beatings, and seeing their response this time will be to see how far those “reforms” have actually gone.
maliki and his government of corrupt stooges are no different than any of the other autocratic dictators in the region. The only reason that he isn't already facing an Egyptian or Syrian style uprising is that the Iraqi people have to contend not only with a corrupt, budding dictatorship, but a foreign occupation as well. The occupation must be ended first before there can be any hope for the Iraqi people to achieve real freedom for themselves. The Iraqi people know this and will act accordingly.
That's the major problem with setting deadlines and goals – when the deadline comes those who were supposed to be placated are keen to the fact that nothing has been done. And they've had the interim to stoke the fire in the background preparing for when the deadline comes and nothing has been done. Sadr and the Mahdi Army have had 100 days to be ready. And the bombing/killing of the American troops last week can probably be taken as an indication of what is to come.
Not to mention that Maliki's "100 days" has now turned into a "four year plan" and is not going to fool anyone least of all Sadr. The next 100 days are most likely going to be very violent, on both sides of the argument and the US "trainers" are going to be dragged into this much more deeply than planned. They'll say that this is the type of situation they kept combat troops in Iraq for and why we can't leave, ever (well, until all those who resent the occupation still exist…)
The summer in Baghdad is going to be hot and very deadly this year – and the US is going to be right in the middle of this internal struggle – unable to sit on the sidelines while the Iraqis decide how they want to govern – with or without US assistance (control)…
Any bets on whether Obama and Clinton increase the number of trainers?
Sounds to me like the best thing is to pull out, since it's unlikely that the majority in Iraq want "western style democracy" Hell the people here don't even like it.
No one in the US knows whether they'd like a 'western style democracy' because we haven't had anything like that around in ages.
Withdrawal from Iraq is a prime example. Some 60% to 70% of the people constantly tell pollsters that's what we want, but the government always just says that its not going to happen. When the government actively opposes the will of a huge majority of the people, then that's a sure sign that there is no democracy in action.