MH17 Crash Site Canard + Maliki on His Way Out, So U.S. Moves the Goal Posts

Yatsenyuk submits his resignation as the junta prime minister of Ukraine, clearing the way for new parliamentary elections this fall. Europe is set to announce today a list of targets for a new round of sanctions against Russia. And the Western media monopoly persists in the canard, even when stories it publishes prove the exact opposite, that there is a Russian-backed conspiracy to tamper with evidence and block access to the Malaysia Airlines crash site in eastern Ukraine. Let's start there, with Sabrina Tavernise and Thomas Erdbrink and the misleading headline "Ukraine Disaster in Search of an Investigation":

There were a few new faces at the site on Thursday. Three Australian investigators worked in the field, joining three Malaysians. Before departing Thursday, the Malaysians said that they were surprised at the amount of access they had to the site and that they felt safe, Mr. Bociurkiw [a spokesman for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] said. 

There have been widespread reports of looting, but Mr. Bociurkiw said his monitoring group, which has now spent more time at the site than any other, had not seen any. The Malaysians said they had seen valuables in the fields untouched, he noted, including a bottle of duty-free perfume, auto parts, backpacks full of belongings, a watch and some jewelry.

The Dutch Safety Bureau said in a statement that an initial examination showed that both of Flight 17’s so-called black boxes had been damaged, but that their memory chips were intact. The bureau added that there was “no evidence or indications of manipulation” of either the cockpit voice recorder or the flight data recorder, and that the data from both had been downloaded by experts from Britain’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch in Farnborough, England.

Given the high-volume mendacity of the junta, one wonders what the condition of the black box would have been if it had fallen into the hands of Kiev instead of the DPR. What is important to note is the prevalence across a wide range of stories -- stories coming out of Kiev and Brussels and D.C. -- of the bald lie that the Novorossiyan militia is somehow restricting access to the site and impeding the collection of evidence. This is such a bald lie, supported by not a single shred of evidence, that it leads me to believe that it is being used to 1) justify a Western military footprint in Donetsk, and 2) dismiss any evidence that emerges which shows the junta was to blame. That is why the crash-site story is being kept alive, even as Tavernise makes clear there is no story there. It is strange to see the prestige press engaged in conspiracy theories. In this case though there are no inconvenient facts exposed or complex theories limned; it is all bald lies and misleading headlines.

Speaking of bald lies, the goal posts are now being moved on the "It's All Maliki's Fault" canard. You'll recall from last month that as soon as Islamic State launched its blitzkrieg that captured Mosul the messaging across all sectors of the Western media and government was that the success of the ultra-jihadis was due to the Iraqi prime minister's authoritarianism driving normal Sunnis into the ranks of the Salafis. Therefore Maliki had to go.

Well, come to find out, now that it appears that Maliki is on his way out, he really isn't the problem after all. The Kurds selected their choice for president yesterday, clearing the way for the Shia to select their candidate for prime minister and seating a new government. According to Tim Arango and Suadad al-Salhy in "Iraq Picks New President to Confront Militant Threat":

The Parliament voted to approve Fouad Massoum, 76, a Kurdish politician and former guerrilla fighter against Saddam Hussein’s regime, as the country’s new president. He replaces Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who had been president since 2005 and was seen as a rare unifying figure among Iraq’s many factions but has been largely absent from the political scene since suffering a stroke in late 2012.

“Everyone likes him,” Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite lawmaker, said of Mr. Massoum. “He is a moderate man and was agreed to by everyone.”

A week before, Parliament elected Salim al-Jubouri, a moderate Sunni Islamist, to the position of speaker, which was the first step in forming a new government after national elections in April. Under an informal political bargain forged after the toppling of Mr. Hussein in 2003, the Iraqi presidency is held by a Kurd, the speaker of Parliament is a Sunni Arab and the position of prime minister, the most powerful post, goes to a Shiite. 

The next political step, the selection of a new prime minister, will be more fraught. That process will determine the future of Mr. Maliki, who has been in power since 2006 but who has become an increasingly polarizing figure as the insurgency has grown and sectarian violence has intensified to a level not seen since 2006 and 2007.

***

Mr. Maliki has insisted that he will seek a third term, but he faces an array of opponents and has lost support from abroad. American officials, who believe he has become too divisive to lead the nation out of its current crisis, have been working behind the scenes to push Iraq’s leaders to select someone else. And Iran, which exerts enormous influence here, has signaled it would like to see new leadership. 

Last week, several Iranian officials, including Ali Shamkhani, a top national security official, visited the holy city of Najaf, in southern Iraq, and conveyed to religious leaders that Iran would prefer that Mr. Maliki be replaced, according to a senior Shiite lawmaker in Baghdad. 

But even if Mr. Maliki were replaced, there is little sense that the Iraqi political class would be able to establish a new political bargain that could bring peace. “There’s no glue to hold whatever grandiose governing coalition that emerges together,” said Ramzy Mardini, an Iraq expert and fellow at the Atlantic Council. He added, “the idea that if Maliki should leave and then we’d be on the path of reconciliation and compromise is wishful thinking.”

Lo and behold! Once the Iranians line up with Great Satan and agree that Maliki should be ushered off the main stage in order to get down to business of smashing the caliphate rising and piecing Iraq back together the story is changed. Now it is not Maliki's fault but the inherent politically instability of Iraq. Brett McGurk was back in front of Congress arguing for a friendly neighbor policy towards Islamic State:

In testimony before the House on Wednesday, Brett McGurk, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran and Iraq, portrayed an increasingly decentralized Iraqi government as the most likely way forward. “There is a recognition in Iraq that from the center out you’re never going to fully control all of these areas, and particularly given the capacity of ISIL,” he said, using an alternative acronym for ISIS.

Combine that with yesterday's soft focus almost loving portrayal of Islamic State's stewardship of Raqqa that appeared on the front page of the Gray Lady and it is not hard to make out the handwriting on the wall. The caliphate, backed by the United States and its client Gulf Sheikhdoms, is the answer the people of the Middle East are being given to the question raised by the Arab Spring.

Iraq's Parliamentary Standoff + Avakov Parades in Slovyansk

Yesterday an announcement was made that the Iraqi Council of Representatives would not meet for another five weeks, delaying the formation of a new government until August. After an outcry from Iraq's allies and its religious establishment a new statement was made. Parliament will convene this Sunday. According to the Alissa Rubin and Suadad al-Salhy, reporting in "Iraqi Parliament Wobbles Over Forming Government," the "Maliki Must Go" motto is a facade masking Sunni and Kurdish backroom demands -- Kirkuk for the Kurds and control of the defense ministry for the Sunnis -- that if acquiesced to by the Shiite majority will amount to the de facto partition of Iraq:

“The session was postponed until Aug. 12 because of the disagreement and the conflict between the blocs,” said Aboud al-Essawi, a member of Mr. Maliki’s predominantly Shiite State of Law party, referring to other political parties.

The Sunnis said they were ready to proceed, but wanted the Shiites to make the first move. “We are still saying that we are ready to present our candidate for speaker whenever the National Alliance presents its candidate for prime minister, and it can be anyone else but not Maliki,” said Dafar al-Ani, a spokesman for the main Sunni bloc, referring to a coalition of Shiite parties.

“The National Alliance asked for more time to make their final decision,” he added.

Beneath the blame game are real differences in what is acceptable to different groups. For instance, a large number of Shiites now want to remove Mr. Maliki, but his party won the most parliamentary seats, so he cannot be summarily kicked aside. And there are differences of opinion about who might be an acceptable successor, first to all the Shiite blocs, but then also to the Sunnis and the Kurds.

Mr. Maliki says that removing him just as Iraq is trying to reconstitute its demoralized army would undermine those in the fight. While that might seem a convenient argument to prolong his time in power, at least some lawmakers appear to agree.

Even a senior leader in the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite party that now opposes Mr. Maliki, said that “replacing Maliki now could be seen as a victory for the terrorists, and it also could adversely reflect the security leadership’s morale because if Maliki is not there anymore, they could be dismissed or accused of corruption.”

The Sunnis are demanding an amnesty for the tens of thousands of Sunni imprisoned — unjustly, they say, in most cases — by the Maliki government and a bigger say in how the country is run, including its security services. While some Shiites might be willing to give that to them, others are adamantly opposed.

The Kurds believe they have an absolute right to include Kirkuk and some surrounding disputed villages in the autonomous Kurdish region, but neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites want to cede that ground, especially since the Kurds have made it plain that their ultimate goal is independence.

While each group has defensible reasons for its views, taken together they amount to stasis.

I think Maliki is gone. The only way that he stays is if the Shiite National Alliance bloc agrees to all the demands of the Sunnis and Kurds. Then all the fulminating about the menace, the corruption of Maliki will disappear overnight and he will be touted as a singularly necessary statesman. But majority of the Shiites that constitute the National Alliance are not going to go for this. The next largest Shiite political formation to Maliki's State of Law coalition is the Sadrist Al-Ahrar Bloc whose raison d'etre is dump Maliki. Then there is the clerical establishment's willingness to part ways with the prime minister. Granted, Sistani has not come right out and said "Maliki must go," but this is only because the Grand Ayatollah does not believe it is his role to publicly dictate the official composition of parliamentary government.

My understanding last week was that the National Alliance had its PM lined up, and it wasn't Maliki. Realizing this and not wanting the Shiites to succeed so quickly in forming a new government the Kurds and Sunnis walked out. Now the Kurds and Sunnis want the Shiites to "show" their candidate for prime minister before they "show" their candidates for speaker (Sunnis) and president (Kurds). The Shiites are loath to do this because once they name Maliki's replacement, if the Sunnis and Kurds continue to delay, Maliki will be the lamest of lame ducks; his authority will be gone, and his ability to actively prosecute the war against Islamic State will be nil.

Absent complete capitulation by the National Alliance to Sunni and Kurdish demands, expect the stasis to continue.

Some words about Ukraine this morning. David Herszenhorn writes from Kiev, "Ukraine Rebels Are Retreating for Last Stand," about Strelkov's forces, retreating from Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, blowing up bridges leading to Donetsk and erecting barricades around that city as well as Luhansk. The junta military is establishing a blockade.

Two things. First, a passage reaffirming the position that Russia has already won the conflict, if one believes, as I do, that this conflict has always been about Germany's economic alignment with Russia. The United States wants to block that, wants to keep the European Union under the sway exclusively of the military North Atlantic alliance. The U.S has failed.

Negotiations have faltered since Mr. Poroshenko called off the cease-fire, saying it was playing into the rebels’ hands. An abridged session in Kiev on Sunday involved representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but Mr. Lavrov described it as pointless without the participation of militants, who he noted could not travel to the capital “for obvious reasons.” 

Echoing Mr. Lavrov, the German government on Monday issued an urgent plea, calling for a rapid, unconditional and mutual cessation of hostilities, and said it was urgent to organize talks that included the separatists. However, in a television interview, the deputy chief of staff of Mr. Poroshenko’s administration, Valeriy Chaly, said Ukraine would follow its own course.

Finally, I am very critical of the Gray Lady and the reporters who labor for her. Yes, these reporters are careerists; but even when they are scribbling the party line, they often find ways to subvert the official narrative. Occasionally, they are even brilliant, as is Herszenhorn at the end of his story when he describes the Goebbelsian junta interior minister Arsen Avakov taking a victory lap in a shattered, terrorized, bomb-strewn Slovyansk:

On Monday afternoon in Slovyansk, Ukraine’s interior minister, Arsen Avakov, stood under a statue of Lenin, promising to bring the “terrorists” to justice and restore basic services to the city by the end of the day.

Residents greeted him with questions about reconstruction and compensation for damage as a light mist coated the central square. Some shed tears at the mere mention of running water.

“What kind of future is there for Ukraine?” one elderly woman in a blue plastic poncho asked the minister.

“A beautiful one,” Mr. Avakov said, flashing a smile.

But beauty was nowhere to be found in Slovyansk, where broken glass, severed electrical cables and a wasteland of unexploded mortar shells define the landscape. Control came at the expense of untold destruction.

Outside a gold-domed church on the northern edge of the square, Ukrainian soldiers distributed water from the back of a truck. While thirsty residents accepted the aid, their attitudes toward the new armed arrivals were decidedly mixed.

Sveta Zinovyeva, 17, spent the end of her school year holed up in a basement with her family. She said she had read romance novels to distract from the “horrible fear.”