The Foreign Policy Friday News Dumps

I told you there was a lot of news, right? First, North Korea called Bush's bluff and won.

President Bush is set to remove North Korea from the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring nations as early as Saturday in an end-of-term bid to save a deal to eliminate the secretive communist nation's nuclear weapons program, State Department officials said Friday.

The move was being finalized Friday after consultations with U.S. ally Japan, which opposes the action, and what appears to have been a fierce internal debate within the Bush administration, said the officials, who requested anonymity because the announcement hasn't been made yet.

The most interesting part of this is that Bush ALREADY AGREED to take North Korea off the terror list. When Pyongyang actually asked for the US to hold up their end of the deal, it set off a fiery internal debate. So obviously they initially planned not to do it.

Obviously a denuclearized North Korea is preferable, and if China is involved in the verification process, it could lead to further global cooperation. But this is just a window into how the White House operates. And, it shows their weakness at the end of the regime, as NORTH KOREA can twist their arm.

So can Iraq.

Al-Maliki said the U.S. had made major concessions, including agreeing to pull U.S. forces back to their bases by the end of June and to a full withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011.

President Bush had steadfastly refused for years to set a timetable for a troop withdrawal, saying that should depend on security conditions on the ground. Iraqi politicians say they cannot sell the deal to their war-weary public without a timeline for the end of the U.S. presence.

However, one senior U.S. official, close to the talks, confirmed Friday that the Americans had agreed to the June and 2011 dates.

The official, who requested anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said the United States still believes that security conditions should determine the withdrawal schedule but that Washington can live with the language in the draft deal.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has signed off on this deal, but only if it's ratified by the Parliament, so the US might need to make even more concessions.

I'd like Maliki to be the new Speaker of the House. He apparently understands how to deal with bullies.

Piecing Together The Puzzle Of Iraq

So I'm still trying to get a handle on the Iraqi leadership's comments about the need for a timetable for withdrawal in the status of forces agreement. Initially I saw it as a political statement designed to curry favor with Shiites opposed to the occupation, with enough caveats and strings attached so that US troops woudn't have to leave for a long, long time. However, if Ayatollah Sistani is involved, as he looks to be, then this could actually be real. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, made his remarks after meeting with Sistani, so his imprimatur may be on this.

I actually thought Bush would jump at the deal for those reasons. But so far, he hasn't, and John McCain has been completely flummoxed over how to react to this. First he tried to dismiss it and claim that success must be dictated by events on the ground. Then, a spokesman conceded that if the Iraqis wanted the US to leave, we ought to do so.

Aides to Sen. John McCain sought on Wednesday to clear up their boss' position on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's recent insistence that a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops be included in any security agreement between the two countries.

"John McCain has always been clear that American forces operate in Iraq only with the consent of that country's democratically elected government," Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told the Huffington Post. "The Senator speaks frequently with Iraq's leaders and they have made clear that they share his belief that any timeline for withdrawal must be dictated by the facts on the ground. He met with the foreign minister and President separately within the last month...He met with Maliki on his last trip to Iraq sometime in late March."

The DNC jumped all over this indecision and waffling.



And Sen. Obama is now going around saying that Prime Minister Maliki now agrees with him. Jon Soltz of VoteVets trumpeted this as well on Hardball, and McCain's own quote about how we should leave if the Iraqis want us to is being used against him.

There are still a lot of moving parts here. Today an Iraqi government spokesman kind of softened the message from one that was already pretty soft.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A deadline should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Iraq, and the pullout could be done by 2011, an Iraqi government spokesman said Tuesday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said any timetable would depend on "conditions and the circumstances that the country would be undergoing." But he said a pullout within "three, four or five" years was possible.

"It can be 2011 or 2012," al-Dabbagh said. "We don't have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

The only difference between this and what George Bush says is the listing of an actual date. Which he's not even adhering to. And of course, he can't. Maliki's government cannot credibly claim that violence has ended in Iraq - three dozen Iraqis died two days ago, and yesterday was similarly bloody. He requires US air support to maintain even a semblance of order. I think Eric Martin is on the right track:

There are at least two (perhaps overlapping) reasons for Maliki's recent pushback and sudden demand for clear timetables. First, Maliki and his advisors (never enamored with the prospect of US forces remaining in the country long term) caught a glimpse of the SFA and SOFA that the Bush administration had in mind (or caught an earful from Sistani/the Iraqi people), and balked at the onerous and overreaching terms. Combine this with the Maliki team's knowledge that a new administration is likely on its way in, and Maliki et al may have decided that their leverage has improved to the point that they can dictate the SFA/SOFA terms along the lines of their true preferences (or those of Sistani/the Iraqi people to the extent they differ).

The other possibility, the one McCain has been pushing, goes something like this: details of the SFA/SOFA leaked to the media/Iraqi population, and Maliki et al have been forced, by domestic political concerns (read: the nationalism of the Sadrists), to take a hard line position on withdrawal and the terms of the SFA/SOFA. Behind the scenes, however, Maliki will give the Bush team what it wants. This view is, circumstantially, supported by the fact the Iraqi people (outside Kurdistan) overwhelmingly prefer a timeline for withdrawal, and have reacted in strong opposition to the details of the SFA/SOFA that were made public - though that doesn't necessarily militate in favor of the argument that Maliki wants us to stay, just that there would be public opposition regardless.

It is actually quite difficult to determine which narrative is more accurate. Some, such as Swopa, have long argued that Maliki and his UIA allies have simply been biding their time, waiting for the right moment to evict the American interlopers - in which case, the first narrative seems more likely. Others, such as myself at times, have argued that the fragile Maliki/ISCI coalition view US support as essential to maintaining their grip on power (at least for a little while longer) - in which case, the second option would be closer to the truth (unless the pressure from Sistani/the Iraqi people proved irresistible). To clarify, it is been my contention that eventually Maliki/ISCI would want us out, as soon as they deemed their consolidation of power sufficient, but that such a moment might be some years off.

Martin continues that Maliki made the same kinds of unilateral statements about the expulsion of Blackwater after the Nissour Square shooting, and eventually Blackwater re-signed contracts to work in Iraq, and nothing happened to Maliki as a result. And he makes the key point - it is politically popular in Iraq to fight against the occupation. That is simply never going to change, and whether Maliki is blustering or not this has to be seen as the beginning of the end. Whether that will end in an orderly withdrawal or with helicopters off the rooftops of the Embassy depends on how this SOFA is negotiated and implemented - which is why having someone with the judgment to carry this off correctly is so crucial.

Some Context For The Iraq Timetable Remarks

Now that Iraq's national security adviser has joined the Prime Minister in calling for the US-Iraq status of forces agreement to include a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, it's time to place these remarks in context.

Nouri al-Maliki is trying to win an election. He wants to outflank the Sadrists who have been resisting the US occupation for some time. There have been massive demonstrations among the Shiite community to drive the occupiers out. It's significant that the NSA, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, made his comments in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, and after discussions with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, no less.

But the actual withdrawal proposal put forth by Maliki and the Iraqi government is far less than it seems.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

That's the key. This is a positioning document for al-Maliki, who wants to consolidate control in provincial elections. He's trying to prove that his rule has been successful and that he is not a puppet to the Americans. The other day he said that terrorism has been defeated in Iraq - it was his "Mission Accomplished" statement - as proof that he has been able to increase security all by himself.

The practical effect of the agreement described above is negligible. We've only handed over security responsibility in 9 of the 18 provinces to date. There's enough flexibility in this statement to hold off withdrawing all combat troops for potentially up to a decade. And 10 years is a long time and lots of things can change. This is an election-year "peace is at hand" statement that Maliki can wave around to the Iraqi public.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush jumped at it, actually. It's certainly a good deal for him - he gets to pretend to leave while locking in for a long-term arrangement. He helps Maliki consolidate power and break the back of the Sadrist movement. It perpetuates the myth that we aren't seeking permanent bases - there's nothing in the withdrawal document about after-action forces - and that Iraq has some form of soveriegnty.

So let's not kid ourselves - even with such an agreement in place it will be very important who is in the White House implementing the policy, which could result in a gradual withdrawal or no discernible change for decades. If Sen. Obama wanted to clear up confusion about his Iraq policy that the brain-dead media seeks to muddy, he could come out strongly endorsing this concept of a phased withdrawal and the right of the Iraqis to self-govern. And he could specifically explain that this document wouldn't necessarily do that, and that it would be up to the policymakers to determine the next course.

Freedom - And Proselytizing - On The March

This is simply unbelievable. And pointless - nothing good can come of it, only rage from the local population. This isn't Papua New Guinea we're walking into, it's a country with an ancient religious culture that isn't going to be swayed by a bunch of missionaries.

Fallujah, the scene of a bloody U.S. offensive against Sunni insurgents in 2004, has calmed and grown less hostile to American troops since residents turned against al Qaida in Iraq, which had tried to force its brand of Islamist extremism on the population.

Now residents of the city are abuzz that some Americans whom they consider occupiers are also acting as Christian missionaries. Residents said some Marines at the western entrance to their city have been passing out the coins for two days in what they call a "humiliating" attempt to convert them to Christianity.

In the markets, people crowded around men with the coins, passing them to each other and asking in surprise, "Have you seen this?"

The head of the Sunni endowment in Fallujah, the organization that oversees Sunni places of worship and other religious establishments, demanded that the Marines stop.

"We say to the occupiers to stop this," said Sheikh Mohammed Amin Abdel Hadi. "This can cause strife between the Iraqis and especially between Muslim and Christians . ... Please stop these things and leave our homes because we are Muslims and we live in our homes in peace with other religions."

Eventually, we're going to be kicked out of Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr is already demanding a referendum on future joint operations between the Americans and the Iraqi government, and the signs are that Sistani agrees with him. And the reason we're going to be kicked out is that you cannot run a counterinsurgency campaign and an occupation at the same time. The occupation is fueling the insurgency and at the very least fueling resentment toward the occupiers. And incidents like this, inevitable when you have 140,000 troops performing the counterinsurgency and the occupation simultaneously, trying to be nice and forceful at the same time, and thrust into a situation where they are not equipped, only increase the anger.

There's almost no question in my mind that Sadr will be the Supreme Jurisprudent of Iraq in five years. A bold prediction, but I'm sticking to it.

Sistani Offers Fatwas Allowing For Armed Resistance To US Troops

We have the potential for a major problem in Iraq. As Shiites jockey for power, the most prestigious cleric in the country is sensing the value among the population of fighting the US-led occupation, and very quietly permitting the targeting of US troops. It may have as much to do with internal politics as anything else, but it makes Iraq incredibly dangerous for any American, and reinforces the need to take our men and women off the front lines and out of gun sights and back home where they belong.

The AP story, based on information from Shiite officials, suggests that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has been out of the spotlight of late, is issuing under-the-radar fatwas to his followers:

Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible - a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

So far, al-Sistani’s fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private - rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population - according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf.

There is a lot at work here.

• Sistani is ill and has been out of the public spotlight for many years. In the meantime, popular resistance to the occupation from the Shiite community has been led by Muqtada al-Sadr. So there may be some reassertion of control here in the wake of attacks on Sadrist strongholds in Basra and Sadr City. However, Sadr and Sistani are essentially on the same side here, and this may be a signal to top deputies of the Sadrist movement that Sistani is behind them and just waiting for the right moment to call for, as Sadr put it, "open war."

• It would be hard for Prime Minister Maliki to continue to legitimately work with the US government if such a fatwa were made more public. After the 2006 sectarian violence it was Sistani who was most instrumental in keeping order and turning the situation around from the Shiite perspective. It would be hard for US troops to maintain safe havens inside Iraq under a Sistani edict to leave, and much harder for them to have any kind of visible role in maintaining security. This is already being shown to be the case - in the Sadr City offensive, US troops were put to the sidelines and even the Sadrists appreciated it. This begs the question of how, in such an environment, there could possibly be a role for US troops at all.

• However, this could be more like a "sense of the Senate" resolution than a call to murder - essentially putting a nail in the coffin of the idea that any permanent bases would be tolerated by the Iraqi population. I think this is ultimately about the SOFA agreement that Iraq and the US are currently negotiating. Today Barbara Lee (D-CA) got her amendment demanding Congressional authorization over any agreement passed the House, and basically Sistani just vetoed the whole thing.

• Maliki is acknowledging, through aides, that there's nothing he can do about this, and in the end he'll side with the will of the Iraq people:

A senior aide to the prime minister, al-Maliki, said he was not aware of the fatwas, but added that the “rejection of the occupation is a legal and religious principle” and that top Shiite clerics were free to make their own decisions. The aide also spoke on condition of anonymity.

As Cernig says, "Sadr now has a free hand from Sistani as long as he plays nice with Maliki. He won't shoot himself in the foot by openly opposing Sadr." Conservative gasbags may be gloating about Sadr's imminent demise, but he still holds all the cards and the support of a substantial part of the Shiite community. Maliki knows this and will not get in the way of resistance against Americans. That's because he understands that the occupation is massively unpopular and opposing resistance to it would be a death sentence.

This makes me extremely uneasy. I feel like there's a Beirut bombing in the future if we don't start planning an exit. We don't have much time:

“(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence,” he told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. “He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq.”

Juan Cole, a U.S. expert on Shiites in the Middle East, speculated that “al-Sistani clearly will give a fatwa against the occupation by a year or two.” But he said it would be “premature” for the cleric to do so now [...]

“Changing the tyrannical (Saddam Hussein) regime by invasion and occupation was not what we wished for because of the many tragedies they have created,” al-Sistani said in reply to a question on his Web site.

“We are extremely worried about their intentions,” he wrote in response to another question on his views about the U.S. military presence.

Matthew Duss, Eric Martin and Kevin Drum have more. The occupation has always been unsustainable. But Sistani's rulings appear to make that even more obvious. If he acts soon, our troops could be in a horrible situation over there. And I certainly don't think the White House is paying nearly enough attention to this growing crisis.

P.S. Pushing elections as the answer to all of our problems is really a mistake. Maliki's operations in Basra and Sadr City were political in nature - he wanted to crush the Sadrists and make it easier for his groups to win the elections - but it's taking too long, and elections already have been postponed until after our Election Day in November, we learned today in Senate hearings. If Bush pushes them to coincide with our political cycle, the Sadrists will win. The only way they don't is if Maliki rigs the election, and the result of that would be chaos.