The Washington Post’s David Ignatius has written another positive article about Iraq’s improving climate, this time talking about the significance of Jawad al-Maliki’s becoming their prime minister.

So what should the world make of Iraq’s new prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki? What chance will his new government have of containing the sectarian violence in Iraq and averting a full-blown civil war? The first reaction of many outsiders is likely to be, “Jawad who?” Maliki is not well known outside his country, and his election after a four-month impasse may seem anticlimactic. Indeed, since he is a member of the same Islamic faction, the Dawa party, as the incumbent, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, people might imagine that little has changed. But that would be a mistake.
The most important fact about Maliki’s election is that it’s a modest declaration of independence from Iran. The Iranians waged a tough behind-the-scenes campaign to keep Jaafari in office. Tehran issued veiled threats to Iraqi political leaders, in written letters and through emissaries, that if they didn’t back Jaafari, they would pay a price. In resisting this pressure, the political leaders were standing up for a unified Iraq. To succeed, Maliki must mobilize that desire for unity to break the power of the militias and insurgent groups.
“His reputation is as someone who is independent of Iran,” explained Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. He explained that although Maliki initially went into exile in Iran, “he felt he was threatened by them” because of his political independence, and later moved to Syria. “He sees himself as an Arab” and an Iraqi nationalist, Khalilzad said.

In David Ignatius’ opinion, this is a positive step forward. Remember, too, that Ignatius just got back from Iraq, where he wrote a number of positive articles outlining the progress being made there.

One of the most positive things he writes is that al-Maliki “sees himself as an Arab and an Iraqi nationalist” who “felt he was threatened by” Iran. This is a huge deal. For those who understand that region, this is a declaration of sorts that says “Iraq won’t be a theocracy.” I’ll guarantee that that development brought smiles to the President’s and Condi Rice’s faces.

The Iranians “pressured everyone for Jaafari to stay,” Khalilzad said. One senior Iraqi official said the gist of Iran’s letters was “stick with him, or else.” The phrasing was more subtle, including warnings that replacement of Jaafari could “create instability” and damage the political prospects of those who opposed Iran’s diktat. The decisive blow came from Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who let it be known in the final days that Jaafari had to go.

Ali al-Sistani has been a major stabilizing force ever since the fall of Baghdad. Americans should be thankful for his calming influence.

Maliki’s selection is something of a victory for Khalilzad, who has been a match for the Iraqis in his wily political wrangling. The American ambassador viewed Jaafari as too weak and sectarian. When Jaafari was renominated by the Shiite alliance in February, Khalilzad warned, initially in this column, that the United States wouldn’t support a government that did not put unity first. Khalilzad helped organize a rival coalition of Kurdish and Sunni politicians that represented 143 seats in parliament, more than the 130 seats of the Shiite alliance that had nominated Jaafari. Meanwhile, he began holding marathon meetings with all the Iraqi factions to hammer out the political platform for a unity government.

The President should get alot of credit in picking Khalilzad to succeed John Negroponte as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Khalilzad has obviously been a brilliant diplomat and power broker in Baghdad. In my opinion, it’d be justifiable to name him the next Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work in the region. I don’t expect that to happen, given the hatred that the committee has for the Bush Administration but I think a strong case could be made for Khalilzad.

Let’s hope that al-Maliki puts together a strong, credible government. It’s especially important for him to pick a strong leader for the Interior Ministry. That minister has to get a handle on the militias ASAP. If you get that controlled, most, if not all, of the sectarian violence will disappear. Once that hurdle’s been cleared, alot of positive things can happen, all of which this President should get credit for. Should but won’t, at least not with the Beltway media.

Technorati Tags: David Ignatius, al-Maliki, Khalilzad, President Bush

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: National Security, Iraq, Beltway Media, President Bush | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Reason For Hope!!! — April 26, 2006 @ 10:50 pm

2. 2006 Camaro Concept/

   If you’re looking for info on a 2006 Concept Camaro, we’re your answer

   Trackback by 2006 Camaro Concept — June 11, 2006 @ 10:16 am

1. New Iraqi Vice President’s Sister Killed

   Terror Alert Issued for Afghanistan

   Two reasons to take a big gulp of Koll-Aid…

   Comment by Devil's Advocate — April 27, 2006 @ 7:41 am

2. “A lot” is two words. Please make a note of it.

   Comment by maimonides — April 27, 2006 @ 7:45 am

3. Zal is a good man, and a good diplomat. Though I don’t agree with his politics, I respect him.

   Bush on the other hand (the decider) should get no credit for Zal. This was his FOURTH try to get it right. Jay Garner, Paul Bremer, John Negropnote were all ineffective.

   How the hell do you give this moron credit for getting it right (sort of) on the FOURTH try?

   Comment by Zal — April 27, 2006 @ 8:06 am

4. Devil’s advocate, When the US went through a civil war, we never had any violence or assassinations. And it only took us 11 or 12 years to ratify a constitution. Iraq has spent WAY TOO LONG, what, 2 years, to ratify theirs. When we went through a civil war (many countries do survive civil war, believe it or not, and sometimes they are necessary), a PRESIDENT was assassinated, not his sister. I guess we should expect MORE from a country that has suffered under a dictator who fed people through meat grinders when they disliked ‘his holiness’. Not to mention that Iraq has a warped religion working against it. Cut them some slack.

   Zal, your observations are wrong when you say: “This was his (Bush’s) FOURTH try to get it right. Jay Garner, Paul Bremer, John Negropnote were all ineffective.”

   You don’t know what you’re talking about. My husband served under Bremmer (82nd ABN DIV) in Baghdad. He probably made the most mistakes, but John Negropnote was very effective. We corresponded with him from Baghdad after my husband returned home. This is not a matter of Bush getting it right or wrong for a 4th time; there are rotations and the civilian leadership processes in and out of Iraq just like military leadership does. A year for civilian leadership (like Bremmer) is the norm.

   You have no ideas of the intricacies in dealing with a country like Iraq. Dealing with Imams whose call to prayer involves “Kill the infidels” (don’t worry, the 82nd got rid of those imams), who lie about military manuevers, get caught in those lies and get vengeful… I could tell stories that are pretty amazing. But I won’t.

   You guys don’t give Iraqis enough credit. THIS MISSION WILL NOT FAIL unless John Kerry gets his way and the troops come home pronto. Infrustructural progress aside, Iraqis themselves are making it work, despite the voilence and unrest. This IS a war, after all. You shouldn’t expect insurgents to plant daisies but IEDs.

   Comment by Amy Proctor — April 27, 2006 @ 8:34 am

5. PS.. it’s sad when military families find that Americans find it easier to arm chair quater back, totally out of their league, rather than support the mission.

   Comment by Amy Proctor — April 27, 2006 @ 8:35 am

6. Amy, I’m so glad you’re willing to put our troops in harms way, those IEDs certainly aren’t daisies, in order to stir up unrest in the middle east, drive up oil prices, increase terrorists recruiting, and of course to get Bush reelected. Those are all wonderful reasons to have something as morally concerning as a war.

   In other words, you have no moral center, the ethics you espouse have been passe since WWI, and God will judge you for it.

   Comment by maimonides — April 27, 2006 @ 8:41 am

7. I’m impressed with how well Khalilzad comes across on TV - very aggressive and articulate. It is sad there is so much vocal opposition to success in Iraq. These people want so much to get the Republicans out of office, they would prefer to see the US humiliated in Iraq if that would cause them to win elections. Very dangerous game.

   Comment by AthlonGuy — April 27, 2006 @ 8:57 am

8. “PS.. it’s sad when military families find that Americans find it easier to arm chair quater back, totally out of their league, rather than support the mission.”

   See Amy, there really are repercussions to not being upfront to American citizens on why they should support the war in the first place.

   If the people who wanted this war had been honest about their reasons for it before they started the war, we could have debated it and made a decision. All in or all out.

   The people who really get the short-end, as you mentioned, are the soldiers.

   Comment by Robert — April 27, 2006 @ 10:31 am

9. And remember folks, if this mission fails its all Kerry/Clinton/theliberals/theMSM’s fault!

   Bad stuff in general = not Bush’s fault.
   Good stuff in general = all Bush’s doing.

   Comment by shingles — April 27, 2006 @ 11:28 am

10. “In my opinion, it’d be justifiable to name him the next Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work in the region”

    Uh…give the peace prize to one of the principal neoconservatives who pushed for this elective war in the first place.

    You are now entering the twilight zone!

    Comment by Burango — April 27, 2006 @ 12:21 pm

11. Hey Maimonides,

    You believe that those who support the effort in Iraq, trying to bring democracy to the region, are “willing to put our troops in harms way, those IEDs certainly aren’t daisies, in order to stir up unrest in the middle east, drive up oil prices, increase terrorists recruiting, and of course to get Bush reelected.”

    Let’s break it down: First of all, (1) It is the military’s job to be in “harm’s way” — think about your talking points, before regurgitating. (2) There’s been plenty of unrest in the Middle East, even before we got there, or do you think Iran and Syria are tranquil nations? (3) As for oil prices, perhaps you haven’t read Amy’s latest post — what happened to “It’s all about oil” as the liberal anti-war mantra? (um, yeah, back to the drawing board), (4) terrorists have been recruiting for decades without interference, witness 9/11 and the advanced network of al-Qaeda, and — are you still with us? — (5) Bush is in his final term, so it’s not about re-election. It’s about commitment to establishing an anchor of stability in the violent hotbed of the Middle East.

    Which, Maimonides, you of all people should appreciate. Or do you want to Israel to be destroyed by savage radicals who seek to wipe it off the map? Maybe you should think twice about U.S. presence in the Middle East, and not worry about how God “judges” others but only yourself.

    Comment by California Conservative — April 27, 2006 @ 12:32 pm

12. First off, it is about oil (and who controls it). Although there’s also a piece in there about war-profiteering.
    No new drawing board needed!!

    Secondly, if the war is (supposedly) about setting up a Democratic Front and “anchor of stability” in the Middle East, it begs the question: Why start with our enemies? Couldn’t we have convinced our friends (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) to be democratic nations? Did we really have to kill (and have killed) all these people when we could have just spoken with our friends?

    It’s NOT the WMDs, and never has been (are you paying attention, those who are buying the “Fear Iran” program?).

    Finally, if its the job of the military to be in harm’s way, the Republicans have it “all over” the Dems as far as getting the military to do their job.

    Comment by Robert — April 27, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

13. Mr. Gross.

    You call yourself the silent “majority”. Have you checked the polls in Irak? .

    The president can start getting his due of recognition when there is actually good LASTING news. For now he can get his very well diserved share of the blame of the mess Iraq actually is TODAY…. That has been pretty lasting (like three years and counting).

    We can all B.S. about the future all we want. I would strongly advise you to hold on your horses and congratulations for now. You don’t want to end up looking like The Omellete In Chief with a “Mission Acomplished” moment for the history books.

    Comment by gil — April 27, 2006 @ 8:57 pm