Maliki Stands Against Malitias For United Iraq
Monday, April 21st, 2008
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s stand against Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army is essential to establishing the political authority of the popularly elected Iraqi government. Anything less would result in the Lebanization of the country mirroring the chaos of competing militias that has plagued the Lebanese and Palestinians for decades. It also sends notice that the Maliki government will take the initiative against Shiite militants just as the Coalition Forces have against Sunni militants. (more…)
General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker presented concise summaries along with two days of testimony to House and Senate Committees on the current situation in Iraq and the consequences of the surge. Though their reports and testimony were anything but rosy, some Liberal Democrats maintained their posture that these were embellished to suit the posture of the Bush Administration. In fact, they were somber assessments of the challenges we face in helping Iraq realize a stable secular government and achieving security for the region. 
The clamor of Senators preaching the failures of our military leadership was as if they were Roman and Caesar just crossed the Rubicon. The Senators joined MoveOn.org in flooding the media with propaganda dispelling any successes anticipated in the report from General Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Force Iraq . The report from the General was to be discredited at any cost lest the ability of the Democratic Congress to manage the conflict and to end it with the Bush Administration, whatever the repercussions, would be lost. 
With September 11 in recent memory, Saddam Hussein’s defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iraqi artillery firing on U.S. and British aircraft in the no-fly zone and horrendous treatment of Kurdish and Shia populations within Iraq, President Bush enjoyed widespread political support for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Allied Forces. Major detractors would be France, Germany and Russia who’s substantial financial interest in the Saddam regime led them to delay U.N. actions and assure Saddam the U.S. would not follow through with warnings of the pending invasion. Still, on the home front, most Republicans and Democrats alike supported what was not only perceived as a retaliatory strike but the removal of a tyrannical despot as well.