Senate GOP Would Undermine al-Maliki
So disappointed in what they saw of the al-Maliki government on their Thanksgiving tour, GOP senators Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss are now talking openly of a January 2008 deadline for political reconciliation measures. Incredibly, both senators say that if al-Maliki cannot get his government to take advantage of the surge and overturn Paul Bremer’s disastrous de-Baathification law by the end of this year, they would support any effort to cut off funds for the Iraqi government and steer our funds around Baghdad and directly to the provinces. They would also support calling for al-Maliki’s ouster and a change in government, which would only serve to confirm to the Iraqis that we intend to dictate Iraq’s leaders and behavior, undermining any claim to independence that an Iraqi leader would have. I’m sure that would harden the Shiite leadership in the country against us.
Think about this for a moment. Two enablers of this permanent war have no problem funding $200 billion a year without strings for military operations, but now want to render the Iraqi central government impotent and directly bankroll local leaders. And do you think these GOP senators would steer money to the Shiites in the south? Not a chance. The same GOP that is against Biden’s two-year old rush to the endgame of a partitioned country now would support directly bankrolling the Sunnis and the Kurds, as if that wouldn’t destabilize the country further and confirm Shiite suspicions about our motives behind the arming of the Sunnis.
They went on this trip with Lieberman and McCain, so it should be no surprise that this is what passes for foreign policy brainpower from the War for Israel/permanent war crowd.
So how long will it take Hillary, Obama, and Edwards to ask McCain and the rest of the GOP field if they support shoveling US taxpayer dollars directly to local leaders and undermining the central government, a government the GOP still insists our soldiers die for? If GOP senators eventually feel that Baghdad is no longer worth funding, then how can they argue for keeping our troops in harm's way? And wouldn't this make a mockery of the agreement that Bush and al-Maliki signed yesterday committing the United States to a long term presence in, and support for a central Iraqi government?