...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

June 20, 2006

From One Who Should Know...

I'll be really busy today, but I did want to link this WaPo op-ed by none other than Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser. It contains information that should please all political stripes, and is definitely worth reading.

I was perplexed by this cryptic passage.

While Iraq is trying to gain its independence from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms of security, there are still some influential foreign figures trying to spoon-feed our government and take a very proactive role in many key decisions. Though this may provide some benefits in the short term, in the long run it will only serve to make the Iraqi government a weaker one and eventually lead to a culture of dependency.
Do any of you have ideas on who Mr. al-Rubaie meant when he referred to "some influential foreign figures?"

h/t Michelle Malkin.

Posted by annika, Jun. 20, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


I know what you're thinking: Iran?

Posted by: reagan80 on Jun. 20, 2006

Oh wait! You were thinking China, weren't you?

Posted by: reagan80 on Jun. 20, 2006

actually, from the context, it sounded like he was looking at us.

Posted by: annika on Jun. 20, 2006

I bet they are the same foreigners John Kerry met with during the election.

Posted by: jcrue on Jun. 20, 2006

"it sounded like he was looking at us."

D'oh! That actually makes more sense.

In that case, Rumsfeld and Rice would be my guesses.

Posted by: reagan80 on Jun. 20, 2006

If recent history is any clue -- France, Germany and Russia have had their dirty little paws all over many of the parties that are trying to build the new government. They still think they can get back to the way things were before OIF.

But, since it is a WaPo article, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. al-Rubaie's comments were "edited" to better make "his" point.

Posted by: mesablue on Jun. 20, 2006

After catching bits and pieces of the debate in the House over a motion trying to determine when to bring the troops home from Iraq, it occurred to me that we are all missing the simple solution. Put the republican hawks in charge of determining when to bring the troops home but require that they each spend 2 weeks out of every month IN Iraq until they decide it is time to end their personal occupation along with the troops. Furthermore, if we really want to do this right, we include the President and the Vice President on the panel determining the withdrawal date for themselves and our troops. Oh, yes. And the committee setting the withdrawal date should be limited to the accommodations, meals and support equivalent to that of a lieutenant in the services. I guarantee we will get an answer quickly. God, we also might balance the budget and eliminate pork in their absence.

Posted by: Robert Messman on Jun. 20, 2006

Children all rebel at some point. It doesn't mean that they don't love their parents. It means that they are individualizing, and that's a good thing. We want them to flex their muscles and take charge.

Posted by: Casca on Jun. 20, 2006

Annika, your intuition seems the most likely to me, as this fit in with "The New American Century" MO. It makes one wonder what kind of interference (and in which areas) was he talking about. The next step: will the Administration stop interfering?

Posted by: will on Jun. 21, 2006

Okay, from his context, it does sound like he's talking about someone in the administration (when he refers to a culture of dependency as a possible consequence of such meddling). I don't think he means Bush, and I don't picture Rice or Rummy micromanaging the Iraqi govt. That leaves who...?

Posted by: annika on Jun. 21, 2006

Wild speculation, but it could be a highly placed surrogate of Rumsfeld or Cheney (since most important positions in the Adminstration are Cheney loyalists).

Posted by: will on Jun. 21, 2006

"God, we also might balance the budget and eliminate pork in their absence."

Without this last sentence, I would have assumed that Messman was a typical hippie liberal shithead, but that might not be the case.

So, is Robert a paleo-con or a Libertarian?

Posted by: reagan80 on Jun. 21, 2006