Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out

[Abu Buckwheat]

Ok, here is where I say ... excuse me? Seems the fight is over MNF arming Sunni militias ... Krauthammer's 20% doctirine at play?

Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:44am BST 28/07/2007

Stormy relationship: Nouri al-Maliki and Gen David Petraeus


Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

advertisementGen Petraeus admitted that the relationship was stormy, saying: "We have not pulled punches with each other."

President Bush's support for Mr Maliki is deeply controversial within the US government because of the Iraqi's ties to Shia militias responsible for some of the worst sectarian violence.

The New York Times claimed yesterday that Saudi Arabia was refusing to work with Mr Maliki and has presented "evidence" that he was an Iranian intelligence agent to US officials. "Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the war," it reported.

Alongside the firm support of Mr Bush, Mr Maliki also enjoys the backing of Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador and his predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's representative at the United Nations.

Mr Khalilzad took a swipe at Saudi Arabia in an editorial published earlier this month that was widely seen as an appeal for a larger UN role in stabilising Iraq.

Mr Crocker, who attends Mr Maliki's stormy weekly meetings with Gen Petraeus, said the Iraqi leader was a strong partner of America.

"There is no leader in the world that is under more pressure than Nouri al-Maliki, without question," he said. "Sometimes he reflects that frustration. I don't blame him. I probably would too."

[SWJED]

Telegraph: SWJ Best Fiction Award Winner of the Week

Damien McElroy, foreign affairs correspondent for the U.K.’s Telegraph, “headlines” today: Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out...

One problem - the events as reported in the Telegraph never happened. This from COL Steve Boylan, MNF-I CG Public Affairs Officer, in an e-mail he sent earlier today to McElroy...

[Abu Buckwheat]

Originally Posted by SWJED

Telegraph: SWJ Best Fiction Award Winner of the Week

Well if this is all fiction then the Associated Press's sources are piling on.

Heat Rises Between Iraq PM and Petraeus

STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | July 28, 2007 02:05 PM EST

BAGHDAD — A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.

Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."

It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.

An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.

History shows that the strain of war often turns allies into uneasy partners. The reality of how these allies get along may lie somewhere between the worst and best reports about the relationship, one central to the future of Iraq and perhaps to the larger Middle East.

We shouldn't be so quick to judge everything the press reports as wrong. They use sources ... and the PAO demanding to be a counter-source is not really journalism, but dictation. Allowing a chance to spin a story will make war supporters feel good but doesn't explain what is happening.

Every Supreme Commander in war has political problems with the host nationals ... Eisenhower v. DeGaulle for example. I am surprised this hasn't broken out into open media before with other commanders.

However, the blow-back that could occur from the PAO's statements and the Rightwing bloggers calling these reports lies when high level Iraqi officials are going on the record and confirming them is that the Iraqis are now going to get defensive at being called liars.

We may regret it if we cross the Respect-Honor line ... as it stands this is going to get VERY big and help no one except for the Insurgents, who are laughing at us all.

We all want Petraeus to execute his strategy but we should be very concerned about the impact of stoking a "he said-they said" personal integrity war ... the leaks or statements that may come out may not be in the best interest of Iraq or our warfighters.

[SWJED]

... is not a "good thing", I agree. There are times however when a story with "wings" that is indeed fabricated needs to be called-out. I believe now is one of those times. Moreover, I'd hardly categorize the SWJ as a "right-wing" blog. The mere fact you are a blogger there speaks volumes and we don't much toe any "party-line" - kind of call them as we see them.

Not much to fear though - the IO damage was done as soon as the Telegraph's story hit the 'Net. Google it (news and blog searches) - the "left-wing" blogs are in hog-heaven.

Yep, the AP is "piling on"...

On edit: "Calling them like we see them" by definition for the SWJ means each individual blogger and as many here well know, the SWJ regular and guest bloggers are quite a diverse crowd. As for the SWC, you must admit that different points of view, if presented in a professional manner as well as well sourced or based on personal experience, is not only tolerated - but welcomed.

[Abu Buckwheat]

Originally Posted by SWJED

Moreover, I'd hardly categorize the SWJ as a "right-wing" blog.

Litte error here ... I was referring to the other non-professional, personal bloggers (who actually think rational opinions make SWJ a Leftist site) not the SWJ itself.

Heck, this is the only professional scholarly military blog of any merit and thats why I am proud to be a part of it (also because I was given the Hugo Chavez/Raul Castro Comrade's decoder ring when I joined!).

On the other hand I acknowledge that the IO damage was done with the first story and we should whack 'em where we see 'em.

Many of our IO mistakes in theater are so amateur as to be laughable and wiggling about on this one makes the PAO look like an offended school principle's secretary. We should acknowledge that its a superfluous debate, the facts were wrong on that report and move on.

[SWJED]

All this talk of left and right finally made the Norwich Google ad go away (but now probably will be back since I typed Norwich) and an Obama Barak campaign ad appear. Who said big brother isn't watching ?

[SWJED]

Hat Tip PrairiePundit (Merv Benson) - Paper Backs Off Maliki-Petraeus Row

I think they are admitting that the earlier report was based on a rumor.

General Petraeus Rebuts Iraq Row Claim - London Daily Telegraph (Damien McElroy)

America's top general in Iraq yesterday quashed reports of a breakdown in his relationship with Iraq's prime minister over American support for Sunni Muslim fighters battling al-Qa'eda.

General David Petraeus poured scorn on a claim by an Iraqi politician that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requested his dismissal after bitter rows. "I don't know where that is coming from," Gen Petraeus said. "He and I have truly had frank conversations but he has never yelled or stood up. This is really, really hard stuff, and occasionally people agree to disagree."...

Col Boylan said Mr Maliki had embraced the policy but dissidents were trying to throw "sand in the gearbox" with claims the two were at loggerheads.
While exchanges between the two had been "direct," the discussions fell a long way short of Mr Maliki telling Gen Petraeus he could no longer work with him...

[Uboat509]

My experience is that the British print media tends to be more overt with their partisanship. I have seen some things printed in Brit newspappers that make the New York Times look like the Weekly Standard. Articles like the one that started this thread seem to be par for the course for some Brit media outlets.


SFC W

[tequila]

Uboat's correct about British media partisanship. Note, however, that the Telegraph is a Tory paper.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

Originally Posted by tequila

Uboat's correct about British media partisanship. Note, however, that the Telegraph is a Tory paper.

So? Blair and the current government in the UK are Labour, not Tory. The war in Iaq isn't popular with large segments of the British voters, and this may be seen as a chance to stick it to Labour and win the next election, especially now that Blair is gone.

[tequila]

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Tequila,



So? Blair and the current government in the UK are Labour, not Tory. The war in Iaq isn't popular with large segments of the British voters, and this may be seen as a chance to stick it to Labour and win the next election, especially now that Blair is gone.

Except that the Tories are also prowar.

Most likely is that the reporter chose to report gossip as news.

[Nat Wilcox]

Is it true that Brit media are quicker on the draw with rumor and relatively unsubstantiated material?

It would be interesting (and puzzling) if in fact true, because British libel and slander laws are apparently much more friendly to plaintifs than defendants, relative to what we find in the U.S....or at least so Geoffrey K. Pullum, a (very funny) linguist argued in a short but amazing article called The Linguistics of Defamation in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 371-377.

[tequila]

My experience reading the Brit news media is absolutely, yes. This goes even for better publications as for the national tabloids like the Daily Mail or the Sun.

Even the best British publications like the Financial Times and the Economist are quite open about inserting editorial slant into their news stories. That being said, the FT is still among the best papers in the world.