Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, in a wide-ranging interview with McClatchy Newspapers (which has consistently produced exceptional coverage of Iraq over the past several years), insisted that the surge is a result of political machinations within his government, not the US force escalation:
"The positive development in the security situation is owed to national reconciliation much more than to our security forces or coalition troops. Some would want to hide this fact, but it is a fact not to be hidden," he said.
The interview covered a variety of topics, and is absolutely worth reading for anyone interested in the details of Iraq. Frankly, Maliki comes across as having a fairly accurate read on his circumstances, if not entirely believable on the issues of sectarianism. This sums things up well, in terms of his hold on power:
At one point, asked if Iraq's parliament could agree on anything, let alone replacing him, he laughed and said, "So, the government is safe, then."
Maliki certainly hasn't distinguished himself as a transcendent leader, but it's not clear to me precisely what he's supposed to do given the demographic and political realities of the country. In the same position, Allawi failed and then Jaafari failed; it's not like Maliki took over a great situation and ran it into the ground. The US set up a political system in which unhappy minorities can derail most legislative efforts; disbanded the military and much of the government bureaucracy, preventing the national government from having power of either force or services; sponsored elections that virtually guaranteed a divided and crippled government; and then expected Iraqis to compromise in wholly unlikely ways.
But hey, maybe another $200 billion will magically fix all these strategic and structural problems.
