Iraq's prime minister promised to use "maximum force"

[warpedskydiver 0]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Iraq's new prime minister promised Sunday to use "maximum force" if necessary to end the brutal insurgent and sectarian violence wracking the country, while a suicide bomber killed more than a dozen people at a restaurant in downtown Baghdad.

Although he focused on the need to end bloodshed, Nouri al-Maliki also had to address unfinished political negotiations at a Cabinet meeting on the government's first full day in office.

Al-Maliki said the appointment of chiefs for the key Defense and Interior ministries should not "take more than two or three days." He is seeking candidates who are independent and have no ties to Iraq's myriad armed groups.

The two ministries, which oversee the army and the police, are crucial for restoring stability, and al-Maliki needs to find candidates with wide acceptance from his broad-based governing coalition of Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

Failure to set the right tone could further alienate the disaffected Sunni Arab minority, which is the backbone of the insurgency. Or it could anger Shiite militias, some of which are thought to number in the thousands.

"We are aware of the security challenge and its effects. So we believe that facing this challenge cannot be achieved through the use of force only, despite the fact that we are going to use the maximum force in confronting the terrorists and the killers who are shedding blood," al-Maliki said.

Disarming militias, whose members are believed to have infiltrated the security services, will be a priority, he said, along with promoting national reconciliation, improving the country's collapsing infrastructure and setting up a special protection force for Baghdad.

It is unclear if al-Maliki, a Shiite with the conservative Islamic Dawa party, will be able to persuade others in the religious United Iraqi Alliance to use their influence to try to disarm Shiite armed groups.

Many Sunni Arabs think some Shiite militias are behind death squads blamed for sectarian violence that has escalated in recent months, leaving dozens of bodies to be found scattered around Iraq every day.

Al-Maliki decried what he called "sectarian cleansing."

"The militias, death squads and the killings are all abnormal phenomena," he said. "We should finish the issue of militias because we cannot imagine a stability and security in this country with the presence of militias that kill and kidnap."

The new government was welcomed by several Arab leaders, many of whom worry that the violence in Iraq could spill over to its neighbors and that their own extremists might find fertile training ground in Iraq and eventually return to their homelands to wreak havoc.

In neighboring Jordan, King Abdullah II said he hoped the seating of al-Maliki's government proves a "significant step toward building a new Iraq that would be able to fulfill the aspirations of its people for a better life, democracy, (political) pluralism and stronger national unity."

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said the new Cabinet could open the way for a conference in Iraq bringing together representatives of the country's diverse ethnic and political forces, possibly as early as next month.

Kuwait's leader, Emir Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, whose country was invaded by Saddam Hussein's army in 1990, expressed hope the Cabinet members will succeed in "closing their ranks and using their capabilities in building Iraq."

Political infighting, however, kept al-Maliki from filling the defense and interior posts before the Cabinet was sworn in Saturday.

Sunni Arabs are demanding the defense ministry, which controls Iraq's army, to counterbalance the Shiite-controlled interior ministry, which is responsible for the police.

Al-Maliki has said he wants to accelerate the pace at which army and police recruits are trained in an effort to speed up the withdrawal of U.S.-led international troops from Iraq.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the new government must "get the security ministries to transform in such a way that they will have the confidence of the Iraqi peoples."

"The next six months will be truly critical for Iraq," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said al-Maliki needed five or six days to pick the two men to head those two ministries.

"The prime minister has made very clear to us and to the people in the other parties that he wants to have people in whom he has supreme confidence because of the importance of this," she told Fox News.

She said al-Maliki told her during a visit in late April about the need "to re-establish confidence in the police, to re-establish confidence in the ability of the government to deal with this."

President Bush telephoned al-Maliki on Sunday to assure him the Untied States would support his government.

"I fully understand that a free Iraq will be an important ally in the war on terror, will serve as a devastating defeat for the terrorists and Al-Qaida, and will serve as an example for others in the region who desire to be free," Bush said.

Shortly after the first Cabinet meeting, a suicide bomber killed at least 13 people and wounded 17 by blowing himself up among filled lunch tables in a downtown Baghdad restaurant popular with police officers. Three of the dead were policemen.

The attack at the Safar restaurant was part of a spree of bombing that killed at least 19 Iraqis and wounded dozens Sunday.

One bomb attack hit a busy fruit market in New Baghdad, a mixed Shiite, Sunni Arab and Christian area in an eastern part of the capital. Police found one bomb and detonated it after trying to evacuate the market, but a second, undiscovered bomb exploded moments later, killing three civilians and wounding 23.

A car bomb targeting a police patrol in northwestern Baghdad killed a bystander and injured 15 people.

[billvon 3,120]

>"The next six months will be truly critical for Iraq," he said in an
>interview with The Associated Press.

I really hope they get their situation under control, but I have heard the "six months" thing so often that it just makes me laugh now. Take comments from just one political commentator, Tom Friedman:

------------------------------------------------

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
(New York Times, 11/30/03)

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of—I know a lot of these guys—reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
(NPR's Fresh Air, 6/3/04)

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 10/3/04)

"Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."
(New York Times, 11/28/04)

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one."
(NBC's Meet the Press, 9/25/05)

"Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
(New York Times, 9/28/05)

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 12/18/05)

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election—you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it."
(PBS's Charlie Rose Show, 12/20/05)

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it—and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."
(New York Times, 12/21/05)

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand."
(Oprah Winfrey Show, 1/23/06)

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."
(CBS, 1/31/06)

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
(NBC's Today, 3/2/06)

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."
(CNN, 4/23/06)

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."
(MSNBC's Hardball, 5/11/06)

-----------------------------------

Six months is a popular time because it doesn't seem impossibly far away, but it's far enough away that the media will forget about the prediction when it arrives.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Of course then you have the Democrats calling for a timetable and people like Kerry and Murtha demanding we begin withdrawing from Iraq in 6 months and the Administration refusing to set a timetable.

[billvon 3,120]

>and the Administration refusing to set a timetable.

Yep. One result of that is that six months from now, we'll have people saying "the next six months will be absolutely critical to the future of Iraq."

[briguy 0]

a beginning is a delicate thing. it is worth the time, effort, blood, sweat, tears and human life to see another democracy in the middle east.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>and the Administration refusing to set a timetable.

Yep. One result of that is that six months from now, we'll have people saying "the next six months will be absolutely critical to the future of Iraq."

I think evrything that happens in the next 5 years will be critical to Iraq's future. This is an emerging democracy and just as the US went through growing pains, so will Iraq. Now that a democratically elected govt. is in power, I expect them to exert more control over the security of their citizens.

Iran is behind much of the violence and the sooner we can start reducing our prescence, the sooner the violence will dwindle as we deal with them.

[billvon 3,120]

>This is an emerging democracy and just as the US went through
>growing pains, so will Iraq. Now that a democratically elected govt. is
> in power, I expect them to exert more control over the security of
> their citizens.

We said the same thing about the handover of sovereignty.

>Iran is behind much of the violence . . .

Right! And Hussein was behind much of the world's terrorism. (Which is why terrorism worldwide has increased since we invaded Iraq.)

Sorry - no one is going to buy it this time. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Iraq's new prime minister promised Sunday to use "maximum force"

So, they're going to bring out Chuck Norris??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>This is an emerging democracy and just as the US went through
>growing pains, so will Iraq. Now that a democratically elected govt. is
> in power, I expect them to exert more control over the security of
> their citizens.

We said the same thing about the handover of sovereignty.

>Iran is behind much of the violence . . .

Right! And Hussein was behind much of the world's terrorism. (Which is why terrorism worldwide has increased since we invaded Iraq.)

Sorry - no one is going to buy it this time. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .

Bill do you dispute that Iran via the Pasadran, and its surrogates have not been behind many of the terrorist acts perpetuated upon the US and other western countries for the last 25+ years?

Also that Iran right this very minute is not providing PIR switches to the Insurgents and anyone else who will use them against the US or it's allies?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Right! And Hussein was behind much of the world's terrorism. (Which is why terrorism worldwide has increased since we invaded Iraq.)

Right, lets just ignore the fact they fund Hamas. In fact lets just go over there and give'em a big ole hug and a sloppy kiss. I'm sure that will prevent them from destroying Israel the first chance they get.

Quote

Sorry - no one is going to buy it this time. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .

and then the third time when you aren't prepared, it happens. Good thing you aren't in charge.

[billvon 3,120]

>Right, lets just ignore the fact they fund Hamas. In fact lets just go
>over there and give'em a big ole hug and a sloppy kiss.

When we funded the Mujahideen, would you have supported military action against the US?

Pakistan has helped North Korea develop their nuclear program. Which is a greater threat to the US - a country that gives an anti-Israeli terrorist group money, or a country that gives a country that has stated it will destroy the US nuclear weapons? Which one do you want to give that big wet sloppy kiss to?

(I know, I know, Big Brother says to hate Iran right now - but THINK, man!)

>I'm sure that will
>prevent them from destroying Israel the first chance they get.

Right! Thank god we stopped Hussein from destroying the US with his massive arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons!

> and then the third time when you aren't prepared, it happens.

Who said anything about not being prepared? Killing fifty thousand people does not equate to "being prepared" no matter how much you try to scare people.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Right, lets just ignore the fact they fund Hamas. In fact lets just go
>over there and give'em a big ole hug and a sloppy kiss.

Quote

When we funded the Mujahideen, would you have supported military action against the US?

We support groups who can help us with our Nat'l Interests at that point in time. That doesn't permanently tie us to these groups forever if our interests or the groups goals and/or leaders change.

Quote

Pakistan has helped North Korea develop their nuclear program. Which is a greater threat to the US - a country that gives an anti-Israeli terrorist group money, or a country that gives a country that has stated it will destroy the US nuclear weapons? Which one do you want to give that big wet sloppy kiss to?

Neither. However Pakistan is currently able to provide us with assistance in our fight against terrorism. See above answer.

Quote

(I know, I know, Big Brother says to hate Iran right now - but THINK, man!)

As do the Press and almost any other source I can think of. I don't hate Iran, I just consider them to be the biggest threat at the present. I'd rather be wary than naive'.

>I'm sure that will
>prevent them from destroying Israel the first chance they get.

Quote

Right! Thank god we stopped Hussein from destroying the US with his massive arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons!

Except we know Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and they have stated their hatred of Israel and desire to destroy them.

> and then the third time when you aren't prepared, it happens.

Quote

Who said anything about not being prepared? Killing fifty thousand people does not equate to "being prepared" no matter how much you try to scare people.

Explain.

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>We support groups who can help us with our Nat'l Interests at that
> point in time.

In other words - we're much like Iran in that area.

>Neither. However Pakistan is currently able to provide us with
>assistance in our fight against terrorism. See above answer.

Just as we once assisted Iran for our own benefit. There's nothing wrong with assisting/condemning other countries that help or hinder us. But there is something very wrong with destroying countries who have the temerity to not aquiesce to our demands.

>I don't hate Iran, I just consider them to be the biggest threat at the
>present. I'd rather be wary than naive'.

?? North Korea HAS nuclear weapons, IRBM's, a lunatic as a leader, and have stated that they will destroy the US - and they're less of a threat? Iran has no nuclear weapons and wants to destroy Israel rather than us - and they are the ones we should fear the most? I'm glad you're not making the calls on what we should be concentrating on!

>Except we know Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and they
>have stated their hatred of Israel and desire to destroy them.

Just like we "knew" that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and could develop a nuke within a year. We could not ignore the threat to the safety of the United States, or wait for proof "in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Sounds strangely familiar. Yet it all turned out to be a lie exaggeration intended to garner support for a disastrous war. It would be wise not to fall for the same trick to drum up support for yet another poorly thought out attack.

We should be prepared to defend ourselves against any attack from any country, and be working to defuse dangerous situations worldwide. That's not the same as being willing to kill 50,000 people in a 'pre-emptive' invasion. Believe it or not, there are middle grounds between "a big ole hug and a sloppy kiss" and killing tens of thousands of people - even if those middle grounds are not as fun as a war.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>We support groups who can help us with our Nat'l Interests at that
> point in time.

Quote

In other words - we're much like Iran in that area.

No not just Iran, we're like most countries in that regard.

>Neither. However Pakistan is currently able to provide us with
>assistance in our fight against terrorism. See above answer.

Quote

Just as we once assisted Iran for our own benefit. There's nothing wrong with assisting/condemning other countries that help or hinder us. But there is something very wrong with destroying countries who have the temerity to not aquiesce to our demands.

I haven't said that, but I agree.


>I don't hate Iran, I just consider them to be the biggest threat at the
>present. I'd rather be wary than naive'.

Quote

?? North Korea HAS nuclear weapons, IRBM's, a lunatic as a leader, and have stated that they will destroy the US - and they're less of a threat? Iran has no nuclear weapons and wants to destroy Israel rather than us - and they are the ones we should fear the most? I'm glad you're not making the calls on what we should be concentrating on!

N. Korea is nothing but a puppet of China. They aren't going to do anything that China doesn't approve. Who do you think supplies N. Korea with food and weapons? Iran OTOH is a rouge state run by religious fanatics bent on expanding their ideology who has threatened Israel, a democracy. Glad you aren't in charge if you can't see the difference.

>Except we know Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and they
>have stated their hatred of Israel and desire to destroy them.

Quote

Just like we "knew" that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and could develop a nuke within a year. We could not ignore the threat to the safety of the United States, or wait for proof "in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Quote

Sounds strangely familiar. Yet it all turned out to be a lie exaggeration intended to garner support for a disastrous war. It would be wise not to fall for the same trick to drum up support for yet another poorly thought out attack.

Seems as if you have found a slogan to use everytime the U.S. does something you disagree with. Nice, real nice.

Quote

We should be prepared to defend ourselves against any attack from any country, and be working to defuse dangerous situations worldwide. That's not the same as being willing to kill 50,000 people in a 'pre-emptive' invasion. Believe it or not, there are middle grounds between "a big ole hug and a sloppy kiss" and killing tens of thousands of people - even if those middle grounds are not as fun as a war.

Exactly, and that's the point I was making. You are the one bent on claiming the only alternative is to kill 50,000 people in a pre-emptive invasion.

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>N. Korea is nothing but a puppet of China. They aren't going to do
>anything that China doesn't approve.

That presupposes a sane and thoughtful ruler. Jong Il is neither.

>Iran OTOH is a rouge state run by religious fanatics bent on
>expanding their ideology who has threatened Israel, a democracy.

In other words, we see them as Islamic countries see us.

>Glad you aren't in charge if you can't see the difference.

I can see a big difference between the two, but for some reason I consider a madman with nuclear weapons and missiles to be a big threat. I guess I'm just funny that way. But no worries. To use your rhetoric, feel free to give Jong Il a big ol hug and a sloppy kiss.

>Seems as if you have found a slogan to use everytime the U.S.
>does something you disagree with. Nice, real nice.

It's called 'learning from your mistakes.' It can be a painful process, because first you have to admit that you _made_ a mistake. But the good news is that once you admit that, you can learn to not make the same mistake again!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>N. Korea is nothing but a puppet of China. They aren't going to do
>anything that China doesn't approve.

Quote

That presupposes a sane and thoughtful ruler. Jong Il is neither.

You mean like Saddam Hussein?

>Iran OTOH is a rouge state run by religious fanatics bent on
>expanding their ideology who has threatened Israel, a democracy.

In other words, we see them as Islamic countries see us.

>Glad you aren't in charge if you can't see the difference.

Quote

I can see a big difference between the two, but for some reason I consider a madman with nuclear weapons and missiles to be a big threat. I guess I'm just funny that way. But no worries. To use your rhetoric, feel free to give Jong Il a big ol hug and a sloppy kiss.

I see and unrestrained madman with missiles as a greater threat than one without. But then again we've had this same discussion before. The sloppy kiss comment was to demonstrate the other extreme to your passivity about Iran. Please continue to use it since you like it so much.

>Seems as if you have found a slogan to use everytime the U.S.
>does something you disagree with. Nice, real nice.

Quote

It's called 'learning from your mistakes.' It can be a painful process, because first you have to admit that you _made_ a mistake. But the good news is that once you admit that, you can learn to not make the same mistake again!

I call it applying the same template to a different problem.

• Quote