blaming iraqi prime minister nouri al-maliki is politically expedient for americans who want to absolve the u.s. for its responsibility for the debacle in iraq. but is it bad for iraq? does trashing the democratically elected government there better or worse in that country?
i don't know the answer. on the one hand, generally if you're trying to create a democracy in a country it's a good idea to try to bolster the credibility of the leaders who come out of that process. on the other hand, if you want to foster a sense of accountability, you have to call out leaders when they screw up.
maliki really is a flawed leader, he's too much a product of sectarian politics not to be. but he's also in a position where he can't possibly succeed, at least if success is defined in terms of the benchmarks imposed by the u.s. so is it a legitimate criticism that maliki didn't get a law through the iraqi parliament that would permit u.s. companies to grab the rights to iraqi oil wealth, when that law has virtually no support in iraq and the people voting on it are (at least in theory) accountable to the iraqi public? doesn't ought imply can? the only reason such a law would pass is if iraq were not democratic; if the political leaders were so corrupt and detached from their constituents they would pass a law directly contrary to the overwhelming will of the people.
in any case, with all this dumping on maliki and even talk of toppling him in a coup, it's really no wonder that maliki is gonna lash back. that makes good headlines. reporters love a good spat between politicians.
but does it do any good for iraq? does it make things the least bit better?
