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.

Mexican Standoff in Iraq's Parliament

It is important to follow the action in Iraq's parliament because it lies at the heart of the U.S.-peddled canard. From the capture of Mosul last month by Islamic State in a blitz that brought jihadis to the outskirts of Samarra, to the Kurds mobilizing the Peshmerga to control Kirkuk, USG, accompanied by a chorus in the media, explained the revolutionary turn of events by blaming the government of Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. If only Maliki had been more inclusive of Sunni representatives, the story goes, Islamic State would not be flying the black flag over Iraq's second-largest city as well as claiming control of numerous border crossings. The United States has conditioned its support for a military response to Islamic State with a demand that Maliki has to go. 

Yesterday the Iraqi parliament, known officially as the Council of Representatives of Iraq, convened for the first time since the April 30 elections to give the U.S. exactly what it wants, a quickly formed  government without Nuri al-Maliki as the chief executive. And therein lies the rub. The Shiite parties are willing to oust Maliki. But this is not what the U.S. is really after; it has always just been a cover story to obscure the partition of Iraq. Hence the sudden turnabout by the Sunni bloc, effectively sabotaging the opening session of parliament and delaying the formation of a government for another week.

Rod Nordland has an excellent story today, "As Iraqi Violence Rages, Lawmakers Fail to Reach Deal on New Government," that lays everything out. But before we get to the pith of the Sunni sabotage, let's take a peek at the opening paragraphs where Nordland highlights Kurdish chutzpah:

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s major parties initially thought they had a deal ready when they sat down Tuesday to form a new government, but the effort collapsed in factional acrimony in less than half an hour. 

“We need our salaries,” shouted a Kurdish representative, Najiba Najib, complaining that the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad had not been paying Kurdish officials since the Kurdistan region all but broke away last month. When extremists with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, drove the Iraqi Army from northern Iraq, the Kurds took the opportunity to seize control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The Kurds have long laid claim to the city, and insisted that they intend to keep it.

“You brought ISIS into our country and took the Iraqi flag down in Kirkuk and put your flag up!” shouted Mohammed Naji, a Shiite politician, at Ms. Najib. “Go and sell your oil to Israel.” 

The meeting’s rocky start did not come about for lack of incentive. American diplomats have suggested that any major new military assistance against extremists would come only if the Iraqis form an inclusive government acceptable to all sects. The powerful Shiite religious establishment had issued an edict telling legislators they had to conclude the entire deal by Tuesday. And around much of the country, Sunni militants pressed the government on numerous fronts.

As Nordland clearly explains, the process to form a government in Iraq is that first the Sunnis elect a speaker; the speaker then oversees the election of the president, a Kurd; the president asks the the largest parliamentary bloc, which is Shiite, to designate the prime minister, who assumes power with a two-thirds vote. Everything was supposed to go like clockwork. The Sunni alliance had its choice for a replacement prime minister lined up. And then suddenly after less than a hour the Sunni and Kurds walked out. Can you smell a rat?

Sunnis and Kurds were to have agreed on Salim al-Jabouri, a Sunni, to become the new speaker, replacing Osama al-Nujaifi. In exchange, they expected the Kurds to announce their choice for president, who has to be a Kurd, and the Shiites’ National Alliance bloc to announce a Shiite prime minister to replace the incumbent, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Both Sunnis and Kurds, along with some Shiites, have insisted that Mr. Maliki has to go. 

Sunnis at the last minute faced a challenge from Mr. Nujaifi, who wants to hold onto his seat, said the Shiite politician Haider al-Abadi, a supporter of Mr. Maliki’s State of Law party. And Kurds were nowhere near agreeing on a candidate for president. Kurds and Sunnis, however, said the Shiites reneged by not coming to the meeting with a nominee for the post of prime minister.

Iraq’s complex system of choosing a government makes such deal-making difficult and essential. The speaker is necessary to preside over Parliament to elect a president, who then chooses the biggest bloc in Parliament, which picks the prime minister. But a two-thirds vote is required to choose the speaker, so politicians try to have the entire deal agreed on in advance. 

“We cannot jump to the last stages without taking the first step,” said Mr. Abadi, adding that it would be foolish for the Shiites to announce their candidate for prime minister now if the process ended up taking months. That, he said, might render Mr. Maliki a lame-duck leader in the middle of running a war, if someone else were chosen. 

So after Ms. Najib and Mr. Naji exchanged words, a recess was called by the temporary speaker, Mahdi Ahmed Hafith. Only 60 legislators returned from the recess, however, so there was no quorum to continue. Parliament was adjourned until July 8.

The United Nations pussyfooted around who was to blame for the failure of the opening session when it was obvious to all that Sunni prevarication was the root cause:

Within hours, the United Nations issued an unusually strong rebuke. “Politicians in Iraq need to realize that it is no longer business as usual,” said the top representative here, Nickolay Mladenov. “I call upon all political leaders to set aside their differences.” 

Mr. Mladenov called the June death toll “staggering.”

Keep watch for any statement issued by USG. 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.

What is going on behind the scenes is that the Sunnis and Kurds are bargaining. They want guarantees before they participate in any government. In the case of the Sunnis, they want the defense ministry; the Kurds want their seizure of Kirkuk blessed, as well as the right to market and sell oil. The Shiite bloc will not grant these guarantees. In order to shield the intransigent Sunnis and Kurds from blame and rebuke, the U.S., based on past practice, will step in with some sort of disinformation campaign. This looks to be the way things are going to go in the month of July.