You Be The Judge

Still following the evolution of the Iraqi governing coalition. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.

First the NYT reports:
Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists 10:15 AM

The NYT tells us that:

Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.

But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.

The report then goes on to tell us:

• SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.


• 38 bodies were found.


• Three bombs were set off.


• Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.


• Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.


• Then back to Gates.


• Then back to more troops.


• Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.

Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi Groups were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's one group according to their own report.

And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.

Second, the BBC:
Iraq Shia press for Sadr return 10:12 AM

This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.

No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?

Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda' 10:18 AM

The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...

"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...

The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan.

No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?

Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:
Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers 11:12 AM

Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...

Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government.

Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.

According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.

Conclusion (or, Questions):
1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?

While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?

2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?

...

Related:
Groundwork
What Next?

Groundwork

Following up on What Next with regard to the groundwork being laid for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq: Has everyone (Iraqi politicians) signed onto "Bush's" plan for isolating extreme elements of the society?

Two articles today provide some insight:
New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit (AFP)
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq (NYT)

From AFP:

Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".

"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"

Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.

al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.

From NYT:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...

Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr.

The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."

So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can finally confront his militia head on.

Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.

Lost in Translation

hattip scrappleface

I'm not a religous person. Which is why I've had to read more than a handful of books to understand the motives of radical islamist terrorists. It's that partial understanding that makes this video so amusing.



Gateway Pundit is taking bets on which Democrats will be the first to agree with Zawahiri about the need for us to negotiate with his gang.

That's fairly incendiary. In defense, the jab is being made within the context of the ISG recommending that we negotiate with Iran and Syria (known to sponsor terrorists) and visits to Syria by legislators of a certain political party. The catch phrase being, "all through the Cold War we held talks with the Soviet Union". Well, to that I say, we all know, this isn't our daddy's Cold War. A message that seems to be increasingly lost in translation.

Nature

Some may wonder, why debate all the Shiite this and Sunni that? Why are we even there at this point? Why don't we just leave? There are many reasons, Maj. Ben Connable illustrates some of them for us in his NYT piece.

A War That Abhors a Vacuum

THE niceties are up for debate: phased or partial withdrawal from Iraq would entail pulling troops back to their bases across the country, or leapfrogging backward to the nearest international border, or redeploying to bases in nearby countries.

But whatever the final prescription, the debate must include a sober look at the street-level impact of withdrawal. What will become of Iraqi villages, towns and cities as we pull out? Although past is not necessarily prologue, recent experience in Anbar Province may be instructive...

Read the rest

What Next?

Well, the sineman would seem to be on vacation. He's placed a white board on his fence with some markers. Passers-by have written various foolish things on it. None of which are worthy of comment. And he hasn't posted on his blog in quite a while.

So, what next? Well, President Bush is talking of sending more troops to Iraq. The NYT tells us about it. Quotes some Generals advising caution and then describes the latest attack in Baghdad. I have to say, they do a rather poor job of framing the issue...

It's understood that the Iraqi capital is the focal point of the insurgency in Iraq. At this stage the Shiite militias have the Sunnis backed into a corner, and are holding the government hostage. That is, the al-Maliki government needs al-Sadr's votes to remain in power as Prime Minister and therefore, cannot act against him. Additionally, there's Al Qaeda. Some Sunni groups have thrown in with Al Qaeda as a means of survival, others for theological or political reasons. They're a minority, 25 of 31 Sunni tribes in Anbar province have signed a pact against Al Qaeda.

Still framing here...Bush isn't just "throwing" troops into this. He recently met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an Iraqi Shiite leader, and Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni vice president of Iraq. Now we're done framing.

Is President Bush building support for al-Maliki? Or, building support for his replacement? To coincide with the infusion of additional troops. Is it wise to stick with al-Maliki (as it seems to me that we will)? Why? Why not?

Of course, there's no word on what was actually discussed during the talks. Did both parties "sign on" to "the plan"? If we're talking of sending more troops one would have to think so.

With al-Sadr isolated, how will he react? Will he back down and opt for national reconciliation? Or, all out civil war? Is that why we're sending more troops? Are we assuming he'll opt for war?

If anybody would like to offer some ideas, feel free. Someone recently commented that I'm "opinionated". Well, ok, maybe. But I am respectful and do listen and believe it or not, I do consider other points of view. Sineman can vouch for me ;)

Sanity

Wow. Who knew International Law could actually be enforced?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209844/

NEW YORK - Outgoing U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former diplomats from Israel and Canada called on the United Nations on Thursday to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide.

Flying Pig Watch

Every once in a while something is written which is so contrary, profound, and truthful that, well, "bring out the pig!".

Astonishingly, it's from TIME. Lisa Beyer has confronted one of the major premises of the Iraq Study Group. It's one that I have a lot of trouble with as well. I understand the issue being addressed upsets people, and creates tension in the region but, in this case, I think it's being used as a carrot. Although, to quote Mark Steyn, I think it's being used in a rather vulgar way, to "f--k the Jews".

No sensible person is against peacemaking in the Holy Land. Applause and hopefulness would seem the reasonable reaction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush Administration "act boldly" and "as soon as possible" to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. But as a front-row observer of similar efforts over the past 15 years, I could muster neither response. In lumping the Iraq mess in with the Palestinian problem--and suggesting the first could not be fixed unless the second was too--the Baker-Hamilton commission lent credibility to a corrosive myth: that the fundamental problem in the Arab world is the plight of the Palestinians.

Read it all.

Spinning Polls

Public optimism fades in Afghanistan

The poll was conducted by ABC and the BBC, and then "reported" by AP. I say "reported" because I don't believe the headline and subsequent "analysis" represents the situation comprehensively.

The number of people who think the country is on the right track has dropped 22 points — to 55 percent — in the last year...

OK, "on the right track" to what? What percentage of respondents were optimistic with regard to the question of getting on the right track?

Optimism had declined on a variety of fronts compared with a year earlier: a 17-point drop in the belief that security has improved since the Taliban was in charge of the country to 58 percent; a 13-point drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in the next year, to 54 percent; and a 15-point drop in the job approval rating of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to 68 percent.

That approval level would be welcomed by most politicians in the United States.

There are four elements in the two paragraphs cited above. First, a drop in the belief that security has improved. Fair enough, we're all aware of the increase in violence there. Were respondents confident in the government's and NATO's ability to clamp down on it? There's no information presented about population's prediction with regard to future events, only on past events and the present situation.

Second, a drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in a year. "Life"? For everyone? For the respondents family? For the respondent? Economic life? Social life? Quality of life? What factors are most important? But, at least this question deals with the future.

Third, the job approval of Hamid Karzai. Well, quite a number of factors affect that number as well all know.

Fourth, and finally, the gratuitous dig at western leaders by the anonymous authors.

Then we get to the zinger:

Most in Afghanistan still think the U.S.-led invasion five years ago had positive effects on their country. Almost nine in 10 call the invasion a good thing for their country. Three-fourths have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban.

Most in Afghanistan? Why don't they quantify that more precisely as they did with the previous questions? Because it doesn't fit with the headline??

With the rest though, they completely miss the larger point. For example, Three-fourths [are willing to admit to a stranger that they] have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban [without fear of reprisal].

No reason for optimism there.

EDIT: 12/19/2006 Gateway Pundit is writing about a newer poll in Afghanistan.

Isolating al-Sadr

Last night my wife and I were talking about Iraq and why al-Sadr was such an important person. His armed force aside, he's in control of 30 seats in parliment. The Prime Minister (to date) has relied on his support to stay in power and keep the government together.

So, I suggested that, given the ISG's dismissal of partitioning Iraq, perhaps the purpose of president Bush's meetings with Shia and Sunni leaders from Iraq was to build support for Maliki to a point at which he would no longer have a need for al-Sadr's votes. Originally I thought maybe they would be discussing partition or a conference as I describe here.

The NYT is reporting that the talks with Bush were part of an effort intended to build a coalition to isolate al-Sadr.

Assuming the effort meets with success. Once al-Sadr is politically isolated one would presume that he would "sue for terms" by joining the reconciliation effort and play to the part or, lash out.

With our planning to send more troops to Baghdad...what do you think commanders on the ground anticipate?

Reuters is on the ball

You know how important it is to frame people in the proper perspective right?

Insurgent vs. Terrorist?
Academic vs. Racist?

Iran opens conference questioning the Holocaust

Among the participants was U.S. academic David Duke, a former Louisiana Republican Representative. He praised Iran for hosting the event.

Four hours later, the same "reporter" "published" an updated "article", with a new title, Iran meeting questions Holocaust and gas chambers. The paragraph I cite above is, strangely, missing.

Ya'think there might be some shortcomings in the "process" over there at Reuters?

Apparently, there's also something behind the charaterization of the Jewish Rabbis in attendance. Although I admit to having no first-hand knowledge on the subject. Reuters: David Duke a "US Academic" (LGF)

These so-called "Jewish rabbis" that Reuters casually drops into the article are in actuality members of Neturei Karta—an insane sect with a tiny membership that makes a practice of supporting evil around the world. Sort of the Jewish equivalent of Fred Phelps and his sick bunch. But to Reuters they’re just like any other "Jewish rabbis."

Interestingly, this paragraph is also missing from the second "article" "authored" by the esteemed "journalist".