tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3463907.post8412155013728898045..comments2008-11-25T12:34:06.343-05:00Juan Colehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05794922740548563607jricole@gmail.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3463907.post-22418820895659957452008-11-25T10:02:00.000-05:002008-11-25T10:02:00.000-05:00According to the ridiculous LAT article, Maliki is a strong man who has won big concessions from the US amking him popular in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>But it was Maliki, no other, who signed with Bush a Strategic Relations memorandum which gave the Americans breath-taking long-term rights in Iraq: dozens of mitiary bases, running the Iraqi intelligence forces and air space, preferential treatment for US corporations, immunity to the likes of Black Water ..etc.<BR/><BR/>The Iraqis know that Sistani said no, and Maliki had to agree. If that is a strong man (as LAT claims) what would a weak man be like?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3463907.post-15612855015351878202008-11-25T09:26:00.000-05:002008-11-25T09:26:00.000-05:00The Iraqi general election is due in just over a year, and Maliki's chance of retaining his job is virtually nil.<BR/><BR/>To win outright, his party must win the majority of the seats in parliament, but it is a faction of the small, unpopular, Da'wa part(ies.) To top it up, he is been unbelievably inept in providing the most basic functions despite the huge resources at his disposal, so his very presence in any list will be a major turn off.<BR/><BR/>Maliki is very good at scheming and back-stabbing, but he is too simple to manage anything. Last year, he promised to create 3 million jobs by "building factories to employ people", which goes to explain his amazing failure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3463907.post-63870135660123733692008-11-25T05:23:00.000-05:002008-11-25T05:23:00.000-05:00I have to admit that I'm a bit confused on Iran's stance towards the SOFA. First they were against the agreement. Now they are almost in agreement with it although the Sadrists still stand firmly opposed.<BR/>Is it because of a split amongst the shiites? Is it because they have something up their sleeve for the coming parliamentary vote on the 24th? Or is it a message of conditional cooperation they are sending to the new American administration?<BR/>I've also read that it is a tactic to prove Iran's influence in Iraq. That they can fashion a consensus any which way they want - for or against. I am thoroughly unconveinced by this. Any theories, suggestions?Gitanjalihttp://www.strategicforesight.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3463907.post-1980788508169754432008-11-25T03:32:00.000-05:002008-11-25T03:32:00.000-05:00Actually, that was third wife, not second.Leohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17963738495850930779noreply@blogger.com