NationStates Jolt Archive

US envoy 'calls for new Iraqi PM'

The US ambassador to Iraq has told Shia leaders that the US government does not want Ibrahim Jaafari to remain prime minister, senior Shia politicians say.

Zalmay Khalilzad said President George W Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" the retention of Mr Jaafari, Rida Jawad al-Takki said.

Mr Jaafari's spokesman accused the US of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty.

The Shia United Iraqi Alliance chose Mr Jaafari as its candidate in February after winning December's election.

But Kurdish and Sunni Arab parties have rejected the UIA's nomination and have threatened to boycott a national unity government unless it is withdrawn.

The delay in forming a government is also thought to be partly responsible for fuelling the increasing sectarian violence which has struck Iraq since last month's bombing of the al-Askari shrine at Samarra, one of Shia Islam's holiest.

'Unacceptable'

Mr Takki said the US ambassador had passed on his government's dissatisfaction with Mr Jaafari at a meeting with the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, on Saturday.

"George Bush sent a message via Khalilzad to Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, as head of the Alliance, telling him that George Bush doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister," he said.

The US embassy in Baghdad confirmed Mr Khalilzad had met Mr Hakim on Saturday, but denied he had made such a demand.

"Iraq's democratically-elected Council of Representatives has the mandate of affirming a prime ministerial nomination," an embassy spokeswoman said.

"We will not intervene with this process."

But a spokesman for Mr Jaafari said the prime minister had heard of the message.

"How can they do this?" Haidar al-Ubaidi asked.

"An ambassador telling a sovereign country what to do is unacceptable," he added.

"The perception is very strong among certain Shia parties that the US, led by Mr Khalilzad, is trying to unseat Mr Jaafari."

Source (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4855210.stm)

Yup, just as well they were able to vote in 'free and fair' elections without worrying about their choice being ignored. While being car bombed.

Oh, so does this mean the elections were a sham?

So much for those elections in Iraq (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=475042)

OH, sorry. Didn't see that :)

No.

Just that in most civilised countries, the will of the people is an important source of legitimacy - but not an omnipotent one.

Would you accept the election of, say, Stalin, as rendering his behaviour as legitimate?
More down to earth: to what extent would you accept a decision - say by Referendum, the most democratic decision that can be made - to kill all the gays in a country as a legitimate and binding decision?

Some people do - it's a matter of what you consider as the source of all legitimacy.
( Most people - including me - would accept that being democratically elected or decided does not constitute a Divine Right. )

More down to earth: to what extent would you accept a decision - say by Referendum, the most democratic decision that can be made - to kill all the gays in a country as a legitimate and binding decision?

That would be a completely different matter. That's removing rights from people. This is the country that supposedly brought democracy trying to severely undermine the elected leader because they don't like him.

I don't really get the point of the rest of your post. It all seemed a bit irrelevent.

They're only free to elect as long as they elect the pro-Bush, pro-US candidate they want. Otherwise putting a puppet government might be a bit difficult.

That would be a completely different matter. That's removing rights from people. This is the country that supposedly brought democracy trying to severely undermine the elected leader because they don't like him.

I don't really get the point of the rest of your post. It all seemed a bit irrelevent.

It's easy enough.

A body ( say, Bush ) may have good reasons to oppose a democratic decision anywhere.

We haven't examined those reasons.

Until that examination occurs, we can't say much about the decision of Bush to question the appointment in question.

You seem to be certain that you have good grounds to support the appointment, and deride Bush for opposing the appointment.
Considering Bush' record, it may be that you are quite right in deriding him - but the closing argument of your article, concerning the sovereignty of Iraq, is utter bollocks.

[quote]An ambassador telling a sovereign country what to do is unacceptable," he added.[quote] Boldened by you.

Frankly, the argument you were trying to make is very weak.

It's easy enough.

A body ( say, Bush ) may have good reasons to oppose a democratic decision anywhere.

We haven't examined those reasons.

Until that examination occurs, we can't say much about the decision of Bush to question the appointment in question.

You seem to be certain that you have good grounds to support the appointment, and deride Bush for opposing the appointment.
Considering Bush' record, it may be that you are quite right in deriding him - but the closing argument of your article, concerning the sovereignty of Iraq, is utter bollocks.

An ambassador telling a sovereign country what to do is unacceptable," he added. Boldened by you.

Frankly, the argument you were trying to made is very weak.
I seem to be certain I have good grounds to support the appointment?

Where have I said anything of the sort?

I neither support nor oppose the current Iraqi Prime minister. My point is about the blatant hypocracy of a government that invades in order to 'bring democracy and freedom', and then when somebody they don't like is democratically elected they oppose and try to udnermine him.

And yes, I agree the statement about Iraqi sovereignty is bollocks. It was highlighted just so people wouldn't miss the absurdity of it. Anyway, there's no such thing as a "closing argument" in a news article. At least not with the BBC anyway, I don't know how other, more political, news agencies do things. The BBC generally just presents both sides and leaves it at that.

From the other thread. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1301202000&en=15493a3118442a2c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

and what the BBC article is missing

The Americans have harshly criticized the Jaafari government in recent months for supporting Shiite militias that have been fomenting sectarian violence and pushing Iraq closer to full-scale civil war. Ambassador Khalilzad has sharpened his attacks in the last week, saying the militias are now killing more people than the Sunni-led insurgency.

There is growing concern among American officials that Mr. Jaafari is incapable of reining in the private armies, especially since Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric who leads the most volatile of the militias, is Mr. Jaafari's strongest backer.

another quote that the BBC left out.

"The decisions about the choice of the prime minister are entirely up to the Iraqis," Ms. Colton said. "This will be an Iraqi decision."

Statements that Mr Jaafari is also not liked among the Iraqis as well...
The surging violence has shaken confidence in Mr. Jaafari. Among Iraqis, he has come under widespread criticism for failing to smash the Sunni-led insurgency, letting Shiite death squads run rampant and doing little to improve reconstruction.

Mr. Jaafari won the nomination by one vote in a secret ballot last month among the 130 parliamentarians of the main Shiite bloc. Mr. Hakim, the bloc's leader, had put one of his deputies, Adel Abdul Mahdi, up for nomination. But Mr. Jaafari, believed to be a favorite of Iran, won with the support of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric who controls at least 32 parliamentary seats.

The Constitution approved by voters last fall says the largest bloc in Parliament, in this case the Shiites, gets to nominate the prime minister. But a two-thirds vote of the 275-member Parliament is essentially needed to install the new government. So as long as the other major blocs remain opposed to Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill.

so it's not just the Americans that don't want to accept Mr Jaafari. however, no where does it state that the US will act should Mr. Jaafari remain PM.

I seem to be certain I have good grounds to support the appointment?

Where have I said anything of the sort?

I neither support nor oppose the current Iraqi Prime minister. My point is about the blatant hypocracy of a government that invades in order to 'bring democracy and freedom', and then when somebody they don't like is democratically elected they oppose and try to udnermine him.

And yes, I agree the statement about Iraqi sovereignty is bollocks. It was highlighted just so people wouldn't miss the absurdity of it. Anyway, there's no such thing as a "closing argument" in a news article. At least not with the BBC anyway, I don't know how other, more political, news agencies do things. The BBC generally just presents both sides and leaves it at that.


You either support or oppose the appointment. If you don't actually have a position on the appointment ( which would make your post slightly spurious ) , you could have stated so very clearly. Anything else is flipflopping.

Hipocrisy is in the eye of the beholder. If you wish to make a case out of that, you really should try the Speaker's Corner. I'm assuming you know where it is.

when somebody they don't like is democratically elected they oppose and try to udnermine him.

I'm thinking I already disposed of the argument you wish to make in my first reply. Being democratically elected does not constitute having a divine mandate. I'd gladly agree with you that there is a high possibility that Bush' refusal to accept such an election is made on tenuous grounds ( since the record shows that Bush' batting average on such matters isn't all that impressive ), but you seem to be unable to decide what you want.

Apart from displaying righteous indignation, that is. Which is best displayed in Hyde Park.

You either support or oppose the appointment. If you don't actually have a position on the appointment ( which would make your post slightly spurious ) , you could have stated so very clearly. Anything else is flipflopping.
What a narrow minded view. If the issue being raised is that of the hypocricy of the US claiming it is bringing Democracy and then using undue pressure to try to overturn a democratic decison, why does he have to either support or oppose the the appointment. He can be utterly neutral with regard to the appointee without making the issue that he raised spurious. This is not about whether Mr. Jaafari is a good or bad leader, but about the behaviour of the US with regard to his appointment.



I'm thinking I already disposed of the argument you wish to make in my first reply. Being democratically elected does not constitute having a divine mandate. I'd gladly agree with you that there is a high possibility that Bush' refusal to accept such an election is made on tenuous grounds ( since the record shows that Bush' batting average on such matters isn't all that impressive ), but you seem to be unable to decide what you want.
Being democraticaly elected does constitute a reason for uneqiuvocal approval by the US administration if the justification for a war that has cost thousands of lives is to impose democracy on a country that simply is not prepared for, nor necessarily desirous of it. Otherwise the war, and the loss of lives, was all for nothing, wasn't it?

It was a nice idea. We thought they didn't like getting killed but aparently they love it. Now I know how Rome felt...

What a narrow minded view. If the issue being raised is that of the hypocricy of the US claiming it is bringing Democracy and then using undue pressure to try to overturn a democratic decison, why does he have to either support or oppose the the appointment. He can be utterly neutral with regard to the appointee without making the issue that he raised spurious. This is not about whether Mr. Jaafari is a good or bad leader, but about the behaviour of the US with regard to his appointment.


And a judgement on that must be made contingent upon the examination of the motives and correctness for said behaviour.
Unless you wish to take the narrowminded view that everything goes - as long as it shows Dubya in a bad light.
I don't think that's sensible or logical, for even a clock that stands still is right twice a day. ( My attack on the POTUS for the day. )

The thing is that the only issue that appeared to be raised in the original post was the 'wrongness' of doubting the Sovereign right-ness of mr Jaafari's defenders. An issue that the original poster now seems to repudiate.


1. Being democraticaly elected does constitute a reason for uneqiuvocal approval by the US administration if the justification for a war that has cost thousands of lives is to impose democracy on a country that simply is not prepared for, nor necessarily desirous of it. 2. Otherwise the war, and the loss of lives, was all for nothing, wasn't it?

1. For reasons I have already explained, that position is bollocks. Being democratically elected is a great asset for legitimacy - but it's hardly a thing that makes your appointment into a Divine Right.

2. Do you take that particular view seriously yourself? One might reasonably believe that the war is justified because it stopped Saddam from supporting Al Qaeda. Mind you - I think the Saddam-OBL connection is tenuous at best and a fabrication of neocon spindoctors at worst - but your point doesn't prove anything at all. The 'otherwise' you raise has no more logic to it than the average 'otherwise' raised by the defenders of Intelligent Design.

Oh, and I should really point out that no defender of the war in Iraq has as yet expressed the view that the justification for the war or the purpose of that war is 'to impose democracy on a country that simply is not prepared for, nor necessarily desirous of it'.



Hipocrisy is often taken as a sound reason for moral outrage - but hipocrisy is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't see how it actually matters a damn.

To summarise: a great deal of moral outrage - but a dearth of facts or arguments.

What's democratic is not always right. Sometimes, the public can be right bastards too.

That would be a completely different matter. That's removing rights from people. This is the country that supposedly brought democracy trying to severely undermine the elected leader because they don't like him.

I don't really get the point of the rest of your post. It all seemed a bit irrelevent.
He wasn't elected. A Shiite coalition was elected and they chose him. The Bush Admin is merely telling the coalition that the leader they have chosen doesn't appear to have the stones or the clout to keep the country in order. They are asking the Shiities to remove him and put in someone with more legitimacy and balls. I hate Bush and this war, but might as well be accurate.

And a judgement on that must be made contingent upon the examination of the motives and correctness for said behaviour.
No judgement has to be made on Mr Jaafari to make a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the US actions in this case in principle. The facts are that the US went to war in Iraq with the express intention of bringing democracy to the nation. The US did not go to war with the intention of providing a good, honest, morally upright leader for Iraq, but to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own leader. That the Iraqi people have chosen to elect someone that does not suit your or my moral sensibilities is irrelevant to the conflict between the express intention of the US and their recent actions.
No this is not an attack on Bush particularly, it is an attack on the idea that democracy is fine so long as it returns the people we like to power. Twice recently in the middle east a democratic process has returned to power individuals or groups that the US is unhappy with. In each case they have moved to unsettle the choice of the people concerned. If they wish to do this they have the power, but do not then sing their praises as bringers of democracy. That is the hypocrisy.

Unless you wish to take the narrowminded view that everything goes - as long as it shows Dubya in a bad light.
I don't think that's sensible or logical, for even a clock that stands still is right twice a day. ( My attack on the POTUS for the day. )
See above. You are entitled to criticise Bush personally if you wish. My concern is more with the 'holier than thou' attitude of the US when it comes to supporting democracy, but their reluctance to accept the choice of the people when it does not coincide with their interests.

The thing is that the only issue that appeared to be raised in the original post was the 'wrongness' of doubting the Sovereign right-ness of mr Jaafari's defenders. An issue that the original poster now seems to repudiate.
That was your interpretation of his post, mine was different. I laid out what I thought he was trying to say, and have repeated it above.



1. For reasons I have already explained, that position is bollocks. Being democratically elected is a great asset for legitimacy - but it's hardly a thing that makes your appointment into a Divine Right.
I agree with you with respect to democracy per se. What I am arguing though is something different. I am not saying that being democratically elected gives Jaafari carte blanche to do whatever he likes. What I am saying is that being democratically elected is sufficient reason for the USA to accept that he is the legitimately chosen leader of a foreign nation and to stop trying to interfere in the internal politics of that nation. They can censure his actions, they can criticise him, but they can not demand that he be removed from office.

2. Do you take that particular view seriously yourself? One might reasonably believe that the war is justified because it stopped Saddam from supporting Al Qaeda. Mind you - I think the Saddam-OBL connection is tenuous at best and a fabrication of neocon spindoctors at worst - but your point doesn't prove anything at all. The 'otherwise' you raise has no more logic to it than the average 'otherwise' raised by the defenders of Intelligent Design.
Do I take the view that the war was justified by the introduction of democracy. No. I personally do not think that the war is justifiable at all. However I am not arguing on the basis of what I think about the war. I am arguing about the incoherency of the US position with regard to the war, if they ten try to ride rough shod over the results of the incipient democracy that they are trying to install. The Al-Qaeda/OBL stuff is irrelevant. It is known that there was no real connection there of any meaningful nature. The White house has consistently attempted to justify its actions on the basis that it was removing a dictator and 'freeing' the people. It now acts contrary to this express justification and that is incoherent at best.

Oh, and I should really point out that no defender of the war in Iraq has as yet expressed the view that the justification for the war or the purpose of that war is 'to impose democracy on a country that simply is not prepared for, nor necessarily desirous of it'.
No. That is my personal view. Democracy is something that depends on a culture of individual autonomy. This culture took nearly five hundred years or so to develop in Western Europe from the first rumblings of democratic feelings to the full implementation of democracy (The magna Carta in 1215 through to the French revolution). The culture in the middle east is one of tribes and religious groups, of being subject to the decisions of the elders, of not being autonomous. To impose a system that depends on autonomy on a culture that rejects the notion is not the most intelligent of actions.



Hipocrisy is often taken as a sound reason for moral outrage - but hipocrisy is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't see how it actually matters a damn.

To summarise: a great deal of moral outrage - but a dearth of facts or arguments.

Moral outrage is based on the facts of the situation. These are that the USA government claims they are introducing democracy and then they object to the results of that democratic process. Those are facts, not opinion, not hearsay. The argument I presented is that this combination is incoherent. They can adopt one position or the other. To adopt both they have to be lying abut one of them. To lie about something to appear good in the eyes of others is a classic example of hypocrisy

.

Let me be brief, AB.

I've heard the following theories advanced for going to war on/in Iraq.

1. Oil.
2. OBL.
3. Saddam.
4. WMD.
5. Democracy.
6. Imperialism.
7. ( Tony's latest stunt ) To support the Americans in general.

On what grounds do you conclude that number 5 is the one and only true article?

The whole thing seems to be based on your personal view.

Moral Outrage seems, at least to me, nothing but a collection of emotive statements.
If there was any one single factor that persuaded me - avant la guerre, no less - that the entire reasoning for going to war in/on Iraq was balderdash from start to finish, it was the plain and obvious fact that the arguments of the pro-war-party were nothing but a collective of emotive statements, which is to say, nothing but Moral Outrage.

And as I've said before: hipocrisy doesn't matter a damn.

No judgement has to be made on Mr Jaafari to make a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the US actions in this case in principle. The facts are that the US went to war in Iraq with the express intention of bringing democracy to the nation. The US did not go to war with the intention of providing a good, honest, morally upright leader for Iraq, but to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own leader. That the Iraqi people have chosen to elect someone that does not suit your or my moral sensibilities is irrelevant to the conflict between the express intention of the US and their recent actions.See my post above yours.

Let me be brief, AB.

I've heard the following theories advanced for going to war on/in Iraq.

1. Oil.
2. OBL.
3. Saddam.
4. WMD.
5. Democracy.
6. Imperialism.
7. ( Tony's latest stunt ) To support the Americans in general.

On what grounds do you conclude that number 5 is the one and only true article?

The whole thing seems to be based on your personal view.

Moral Outrage seems, at least to me, nothing but a collection of emotive statements.
If there was any one single factor that persuaded me - avant la guerre, no less - that the entire reasoning for going to war in/on Iraq was balderdash from start to finish, it was the plain and obvious fact that the arguments of the pro-war-party were nothing but a collective of emotive statements, which is to say, nothing but Moral Outrage.


I do not. I am simply reporting what the Whitehouse is saying. Will you please understand that my beef is with their incoherence.

You undervalue emotion if you dismiss anything that is emotive. Emotion drives this world, not reason.

I do not. I am simply reporting what the Whitehouse is saying. Will you please understand that my beef is with their incoherence.

You undervalue emotion if you dismiss anything that is emotive. Emotion drives this world, not reason.

So the White House doesn't want him. that doesn't mean we're going to topple him.

See my post above yours.

POTUS is not elected either then. He too is chosen by a select group. The argument that Jaafari was not elected is splitting hairs. He was selected by the Iraqi people, either directly or indirectly. Either way he has a legitimate claim to the position, and that is the problem.

So the White House doesn't want him. that doesn't mean we're going to topple him.

I agree that you will not necessarily topple him. My concern is that even expressing a desire to do so is contradictory.

I do not. I am simply reporting what the Whitehouse is saying. Will you please understand that my beef is with their incoherence.

You undervalue emotion if you dismiss anything that is emotive. Emotion drives this world, not reason.

Thank you for making that clear.

My beef with the White House is that it has wasted human life on a grand scale, pissed away human blood as though it were petrol, for no better reason than to express their moral outrage.


If anyone sends God only knows how many people into death, I hope - as Jesus Christ is my witness!!! - that they have a better reason than emotion!!!

I agree that you will not necessarily topple him. My concern is that even expressing a desire to do so is contradictory.

please show me where we expressed the desire to topple him? We have asked the Shi'ites to have him step down. Thatis vastly different from toppling him.

So the White House doesn't want him. that doesn't mean we're going to topple him.
"We" referring to the White House? Say, Corneliu, what's your job?

POTUS is not elected either then. He too is chosen by a select group. The argument that Jaafari was not elected is splitting hairs. He was selected by the Iraqi people, either directly or indirectly. Either way he has a legitimate claim to the position, and that is the problem.
the Shiite coalition was chosen by the people and no one is challenging them. The admin is just worried that this guy does not hold enough sway with the Iraqi people to prevent what looks like an impening civil war and is telling them they may want someone else. They want a strong government and they're not sure that the guy the elected coalition has chosen can deliver that. They're not threatening to do anything if they stick with this guy, they're just saying he may not be a very good choice.

"We" referring to the White House? Say, Corneliu, what's your job?

We being the country.

As for my job. I actually have 3! Scoreboard operater, School Mascot, Intramural Supervisor :D

We being the country.

As for my job. I actually have 3! Scoreboard operater, School Mascot, Intramural Supervisor :D
Damn, I thought I was dealing with a man of immense political power. :(

Damn, I thought I was dealing with a man of immense political power. :(

sorry. I do know both senators do. Even met one of them