A few days ago, Wayne White, a former State Department intelligence analyst on Iraq, wrote a piece about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that noted:

One major question is why Maliki was named prime minister in the first place. Early last year, Washington pushed hard for Maliki to replace the disappointing Ibrahim al-Jafaari. Yet, Maliki hails from the same Da'wa Party origins, as does Jafaari. He was not the chosen candidate among the majority of Iraqi Shi'a powerbrokers.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Maliki's behavior of late is his criticism of US military cooperation with Sunni Arab insurgents against al-Qa'ida in Iraq in al-Anbar, Salahedin and Diyala governates, as well as some neighborhoods in Baghdad. In some instances, Iraqi security forces supposedly answering to Maliki have actively tried to disrupt this valuable work. His opposition threatens to get in the way of what appears to be developing into the one potential US success story in Iraq at this time.

It's important to recall that George W. Bush's strategy is to boost the U.S. military presence in Iraq in order to create political space for Maliki. That is, American GIs are dying to give Maliki a chance. But given White's not-very-radical description of Maliki, one has to wonder: does Maliki deserve to be supported by American blood and treasure?

White goes on to note:

Despite all these negatives [about Maliki], the most significant question now is whether any prime minister of Iraq can deliver on critical issues such as unity, security and public services at this juncture.

White seems to doubt that it's possible, Maliki or no Maliki. And White adds,

In Maliki's case, however, the situation might be darker still. Given his association with a militant Shi'a party and his seeming lack of a consistent sense of urgency regarding US priorities, it could very well be that he is not interested in progress toward goals set by Washington. His current efforts to pull things together appear only transitory at best.

This is why, in part, the recent political debate in the United States over Iraq has focused on Maliki. More than four years after the invasion of Iraq, what are U.S. troops fighting for? The answer: for the government led by Maliki. But if U.S. soldiers are making the ultimate sacrifice for a fellow who does not share US priorities, their deaths may be in vain. So Maliki is indeed a critical issue--because Bush has made it so.

Posted by David Corn at August 23, 2007 10:25 AM