The Gray Lady Keeps the "Maliki to Blame" Headlines Coming

Yesterday this page opined that the U.S. reaction to the adjournment of the opening session of Iraq's parliament after less than a hour would be very illuminating in terms of what the Obama administration's position on an independent Kurdistan and a newly risen caliphate actually is. I said, "To continue to blame Maliki's government at this point when it is clear that he is on his way out and that the Shiite alliance has a replacement ready would be compelling proof of a conspiracy to aid the advance of Islamic State and the de facto partition of Iraq."

Well, we have a clear answer today. Rod Nordland, after providing a wonderful report yesterday about how Sunni and Kurdish politicians hijacked the formation of a new government, returns to the familiar "blame Maliki" script in "Iraqi Premier Places Unity Second to Fighting ISIS." The assumption I am making here, which I believe to be a safe one, one that is readily accepted by anyone who has read the Gray Lady everyday for years as I have, is that the New York Times largely reflects Foggy Bottom thinking, policies and priorities.

The story Nordland writes today is really no story, but more of an excuse to print a headline that places the horns yet again on the scapegoat Maliki. The Iraqi leader went on state television yesterday and made the innocuous statement that the first priority of the state should be security and not the parliamentary process to form a new government:

“Politicians in Iraq need to realize that it is no longer business as usual,” the top United Nations representative here, Nickolay Mladenov, said on Tuesday, criticizing the political impasse. And American officials have said that major military support for Iraq would be dependent on a new, inclusive government being formed. 

Mr. Maliki, however, appeared to reject that reasoning. “The battle today is the security battle for the unity of Iraq,” he said. “I don’t believe there is anything more important than mobilizing people to support the security situation. Other things are important, but this is the priority.” 

He said the political process would not be able to proceed without a strong military. “We will move on in the political process,” he said, “but we have to focus on the battle, which is on behalf of the people.” 

Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish politicians have refused to accept Mr. Maliki as a candidate for a third term, and the majority Shiite coalition was maneuvering to determine his replacement. Both the powerful Shiite marja, or council of ayatollahs, and the American government have shown little enthusiasm for Mr. Maliki to remain in power, although his party won the most votes in the April 30 elections.

But we know from Nordland's story yesterday that a third term for Maliki is not the issue. He is out. The Kurds and the Sunnis know this; they know that the Shiite bloc has a new candidate for prime minister ready to go; that is why they walked out of parliament so quickly. The Sunnis and Kurds don't want a rapid, smooth, successful formation of a government. They want to maintain the canard -- their cover story, a demonization of Maliki -- as long as possible while they establish facts on the ground and continue to extort concessions from the Shiite majority. The Gray Lady's Nordland does his part by pumping air back into the fiction of the al-Maliki bogeyman.

Nordland's story today, despite its headline, actually reinforces yesterday's narrative. The Kurds are digging in and are not about to agree to participate in a new government until they get what they want -- continued control of Kirkuk and its natural resources:

In Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by telephone to Massoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, and urged the Kurds to help with the process of forming a new Iraqi government. 

A Kurdish delegation, including Fuad Hussein, Mr. Barzani’s chief of staff, also met with Mr. Kerry on Wednesday.

Kurdish officials said later that the Kurds were prepared to play a role in forming a new government in Baghdad. But they stressed that the Kurdish participation was conditional on an arrangement that would grant the Kurds expanded political and economic autonomy. 

“If we are not going in the direction of restructuring Iraq radically toward federalism and toward democracy, then we cannot be part of that system,” Mr. Hussein said in an appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 

Mr. Hussein also said that the Kurds would not accept a government in which Mr. Maliki served a third term as prime minister. 

“If I was Nuri al-Maliki, I would go to the Parliament and I would say, ‘I am sorry I could not manage this country.’ So I would leave. But it seems he doesn’t recognize that,” Mr. Hussein said. “So we must wait for another one to be in charge.”

It would seem that the proper response to this never-ending demonization of Maliki would be for the Shiite unity alliance to publicly name its replacement candidate and be done with it. The problem here, which Nordland alluded to in his piece yesterday, is that the Sunnis and Kurds could, and almost certainly would, continue to block the formation of a new government, leaving Maliki exposed as a helpless wounded duck and the state of Iraq adrift. This is of course what the Kurds, the Sunnis and their USG and Saudi sponsors want.

Given this, I don't imagine that we will be seeing a new government formed anytime soon, even after parliament reconvenes next week. To keep blame from being properly apportioned, expect a steady stream of "Maliki to blame" headlines.