Black Box Report

In a rare instance of going off-message, Bush delivered the following backhanded slap to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malikion on Tuesday:

"The fundamental question is: Will the government respond to the demands of the people?" Bush said. Stopping short of directly endorsing Maliki, as he has on several previous occasions, Bush continued, "If the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government."

In response, al-Maliki told US officials what they can do with their criticism, saying Iraq "can find friends elsewhere". Given Maliki's recent talks with Iran and Syria, this is not good news. The administration seemed to recognize this, folowing their critical comments with this on Wednesday:

Bush also offered fresh support for embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, calling him a "good man with a difficult job."
......
"It's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position. It is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy* and not a dictatorship."

(*Well, not really, but that's another issue)

You can see how Maliki's pushback to the criticism got Bush to soften his stance, but the fact remains that more and more people are calling for Maliki's replacement. On top of that, the latest Natioanl Intelligence Estimate does not bode well for the future of Iraq or Maliki, saying the Iraqi government “will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months.”

So, Bush's recent tepid support notwithstanding, is there a plot afoot to get rid of the Iraqi Prime Minister?

Republican lobbyists with close ties to the Bush administration are aiding and supporting the efforts of an Iraqi opposition leader who is calling for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The anti-Maliki crusader is former Iraqi interim prime minister Ayad Allawi, and the Washington firm retained to spearhead U.S.-focused efforts on his behalf is the Republican powerhouse group of Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers (BGR).

BGR International's president is Robert Blackwill, the one-time White House point man on Iraq, holding the title of Presidential Envoy to Iraq in 2004.

Glenn Greenwald notes this, recalls last week's Establishment-pleasing Op-Ed in the Washington Post by the former Prime Minister Allawi himself, and draws the not-difficult-to-make connection:

Allawi hires the most powerful GOP firm in the country, with former top Bush officials as partners, and almost immediately, the key Op-Ed pages of our nation's newspapers open up to him and all of official Washington, beginning with the President, changes course. Suddenly, key figures in both parties begin calling for Maliki to be replaced.

And according to Middle East scholar Juan Cole, it's rumored that there's an easy way, and a hard way to do this:

A rumor is circulating among well-connected and formerly high-level Iraqi bureaucrats in exile in places like Damascus that a military coup is being prepared for Iraq. I received the following from a reliable, knowledgeable contact. There is no certitude that this plan can or will be implemented. That it is being discussed at high levels seems highly likely.

"There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . [The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.]. . .

. . .[I]t is another [desperate plan], but one which many many Iraqis will support, since they are sick of their country being pulled apart by the "imports" - Maliki, Allawi, Jaafari et al. The military group is composed of internals, people who have the goal of securing the country even at the risk of no democracy, so they say."

Sure, Maliki still has some support - like the hilariously wrong Joe Lieberman - But clearly there are a wide array of forces lined against him. "Pin the Blame on Maliki" is the pasttime in DC right now. There's only one problem with this - there's no evidence that the problem in Iraq lies with Maliki. Yes, the buck stops with the Prime Minister, and Maliki may or may not be the best guy for the job, but simply replacing him will not make the pony magically appear. The sectarian dynamic in Iraq is - and always has been - so dysfunctional as to make a political solution practically impossible. But to the Lucy van Pelt war supporters, Maliki's departure would let them plant that football one more time, waiting for the Charlie Brown American public to try and finally give it a good kick:

If someone new takes over in Iraq it gives the pro-war crowd yet another excuse to insist that change is in the air and we need to give the new guy a fair chance to prove that he can make a difference. Odds of that actually happening? Nil. The whole idea is nuts.

No. That's not nuts. You want nuts? CNN is reporting that generals, on the ground in Iraq, are now saying an Iraqi Democracy is not likely, and they'll settle for less. And so, we move the goalposts yet again:

We can keep trying to establish a government that isn’t going to function, or we can aim for a new goal — stability over freedom.

I’m not necessarily denouncing that as a policy option, but it’s worth appreciating the implications. Bush had moved the goalposts so many times, they’re no longer in the same stadium. This war was necessary because of WMD. No, because of U.N. resolutions. Or rather, because al Qaeda. Make that “democracy promotion.” We’d establish a democracy in the Middle East that would, in turn, inspire the region and topple dictatorships. Yeah, that’s it.

Except it’s not. We’ll replace a malevolent-but-stable dictatorship with a benevolent-and-stable dictatorship. Let freedom ring.

Democracy!

Whiskey!

Sexy!

Unlikely.