The Hadley memo in the NYTimes
The NYTimes has a front page story on a memo written by Hadley about Maliki and his government questioning their will and "capacity" and proposing the same shift to more "moderate"(read mainline Sunni) support for Maliki's government. (This proposal for the Saudis to arrange Sunni support was discussed in yesterday's NYTimes.)
There will be a lot written about this memo, I'm sure, but the politics of it intrigues me most.
So, it's not even couched under the pretense of a leak. The administration (Hadley?) wanted this out there ahead of the meeting today. (Was the memo written just for this release?)
Releasing this memo puts a clarified choice to Maliki as he comes to the summit today. With the Sadr threat of a boycott/ withdrawal, and a the public discussion of the Saudi/moderate Sunni plan, the administration has crafted a sharp decision point for Maliki.
If he takes one step towards the US/Saudi plan, Mahdi suddenly becomes his enemy which would stop his protection of Mahdi militias and force him onto the path the US wants.
If he doesn't, and chooses to stay with the Sadr backing, I'm guessing there's a threat of US withdrawal/redeployment outside the cities or other security threat to him.
Also: Add as a backside threat to Maliki, "the stick" of Saudi support for the Sunni militias. Nawaf Obeid (just coincidentally) publishes an editorial today in the WaPo saying that the Saudis will openly arm and supply the Sunnis in the case of a US withdrawal.
So, the choice being presented to Maliki, very publicly, appears to be, embrace the US plan and Sunni moderates or "we'll give you a civil war."
(Probably add to this threat the report last night that the US is considering pulling the Marines out of Sunni Anbar to put them in Baghdad.(A threat of a Sunni safe haven? to Sadr City?))
This is a big gamble and heavy handed politics. We'll have to wait and see.
There will be a lot written about this memo, I'm sure, but the politics of it intrigues me most.
An administration official made a copy of the document available to a New York Times reporter seeking information on the administration’s policy review. The Times read and transcribed the memo.
So, it's not even couched under the pretense of a leak. The administration (Hadley?) wanted this out there ahead of the meeting today. (Was the memo written just for this release?)
Releasing this memo puts a clarified choice to Maliki as he comes to the summit today. With the Sadr threat of a boycott/ withdrawal, and a the public discussion of the Saudi/moderate Sunni plan, the administration has crafted a sharp decision point for Maliki.
If he takes one step towards the US/Saudi plan, Mahdi suddenly becomes his enemy which would stop his protection of Mahdi militias and force him onto the path the US wants.
If he doesn't, and chooses to stay with the Sadr backing, I'm guessing there's a threat of US withdrawal/redeployment outside the cities or other security threat to him.
Also: Add as a backside threat to Maliki, "the stick" of Saudi support for the Sunni militias. Nawaf Obeid (just coincidentally) publishes an editorial today in the WaPo saying that the Saudis will openly arm and supply the Sunnis in the case of a US withdrawal.
So, the choice being presented to Maliki, very publicly, appears to be, embrace the US plan and Sunni moderates or "we'll give you a civil war."
(Probably add to this threat the report last night that the US is considering pulling the Marines out of Sunni Anbar to put them in Baghdad.(A threat of a Sunni safe haven? to Sadr City?))
This is a big gamble and heavy handed politics. We'll have to wait and see.
posted by mikevotes at
7:58 AM
2 Comments:
This memo is about as interesting as a child's book report on a novel well known to popular culture.
This seems like it was leaked to show plans for Maliki in the US press as the conference began. It really shows a very poor understanding, to this day, of the war in Iraq.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 1:05 PM
Right. The "sanitized" criticism, to me, sounds like it was written for outside consumption with a specific goal in mind.
But, our entire press is trained in "gotcha" coverage.
Because the US has been the superpower so long, they don't read this stuff through the diplomatic lenses unless someone paints it for them.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:33 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home