Good news is no news, at least with the media these days.

I’ve only been able to get hold of the text of one of the laws so far - the amnesty law. As with the deBaathification reform, it’s hard to tell how extensive the amnesty will turn out to be from the text of the law. Gven the long list of exceptions detailed in article 2, it all comes down to interpretation and implementation. If applied generously and in a spirit of reconciliation, it could be quite extensive and build considerable goodwill (even if it also puts a sizable number of insurgency-age young men, fresh from prison, back onto the streets). If applied rigorously and in a sectarian spirit, a lot of the prisoners who the Sunnis hope to see released might not get out and backlash would set in very quickly. So as with all these laws, wait and see.

The most interesting part of the amnesty law is actually Article 6: “The Iraqi Government shall undertake the necessary measures to transfer those detained in the MNF-I jails to the Iraqi jails in order to implement the provisions of this Law on them.” What this means in practice will be worth following. Last week I noted that the potential complications posed by this provision: will the US honor an Iraqi request for prisoners held in US facilities to be transferred and amnestied, given its own military interests, and if not how would the Iraqi government respond?”

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/02/cause-without-l.html

Al-Zaman (The Times of Baghdad) reports in Arabic that there was not actually a vote, but rather the laws were passed as a package by consensus. The consensus reflected a political deal among the major parties rather than a recorded vote of a majority of the MPs. Al-Zaman calls the method of the vote “unconstitutional.” (They are protesting the lack of a recorded individual voice vote; it may be they also object to the bundling of the three separate laws together, which made MPs vote up and down, yes or no). Many MPs had interests in some of the laws but opposed a third, and therefore had to choose between betraying their interests or accepting legislation they really opposed. Al-Zaman quotes MP Salih Mutlak (a secular, ex-Baathist Sunni who is in the opposition) and MPs of the Sadr Movement as expressing fierce opposition to the law regarding amnesty for prisoners because it allowed for a delay in their release of six months.

This undemocratic and unconstitutional way of passing through legislation that the Americans insist be approved, in the teeth of opposition from a majority of MPs, was ironically employed in passing the constitution itself. Some version of it was passed without an individual voice vote in late August of 2005 (after the deadline set by the Transitional Administrative Law) and then the US embassy went on tinkering with the text right up until the October 15 referendum! It is ironic that when the Americans make their influence felt most strongly in the Iraqi government, that government acts least democratically.”

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/provincial-elections-set-amnesty.html

Wow.

Dear Leader Bush is once again shown to be wise and benevolent! Rehang the mission accomplished banner! Star up the parades and get the flower tossers!

And you know what? I bet next year you’ll be saying the exact same things about Iraq and how it’s oh so darn good progress but the Bush hating MSM won’t tell anyone because they hate freedom and love terrorists.

Stupid reporters, thinking that people places and things being blown up in Iraq everyday is bad. Everyone knows that if the reporters stopped reporting on the attacks the terrorists would stop.

It’s a miserable failure Sparky but it’s cool that you don’t let that get in the way of your delusions or your endless vendetta against the messengers of that fact.

[note from neo-neocon: Why, “salvage”—welcome back, old troll “stevie” (along with all your other alter-egos/sockpuppets that begin with the letter “s”). You reveal your identity in so many ways, including your inimitable style. Hope it’s not too cold this winter up in Toronto.]

This is why blogs are so significant, important.

Do independent voters care about Dem bad judgment and Dem cravenness regarding Iraq? Sometimes it’s easier to get away with the big lie, and the big mistake in judgment, as opposed to the moderated lie or the moderated mistake in judgment.

If McCain is to make Hillary and Barack pay, then McCain must continue to explain and explicate why a successful Iraq democracy is important to America, and why a failed Iraq is a disaster for our children. With Barack and Hillary trying to hang “stay 100 years” around McCain’s neck, McCain’s hopes may pivot on his ability to make the case for the Iraq far better than Pres. Bush ever made the case for Iraq. Or, rather, better than Pres. Bush ever progressed the case for Iraq past the media filter, and to the people.

I don’t think McCain can successfully attack Hillary or Barack for their vote. They will successfully parry due to citizen confusion over the importance of Iraq. McCain must make the case for Iraq more effectively thaqn it has ever been made.

Maybe an extremely effective case could not have been made earlier. Maybe America, the West, and the Middle East had to progress our thinking to a place where we could hear the truth about why Iraq is important. Maybe McCain has an opportunity Pres. Bush never had: to make the case, now, to evolved listening, via the perfect, over-the-heads-of-the-media device of a Presidential campaign.

Certainly Pres. Bush could have made the case much better than he did. However, I do think McCain has an opportunity to speak to evolved listening, and a campaign opportunity to bypass the media. Probably McCain must succeed in making the case, if he is to be elected. I think he can do it. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Was that an argument on why we should stay? Or was that an assessment salvage’s attitude?

You guys continue to misunderstand issues and arguments. I guess that why they call you people “progressive”.

“Many MPs had interests in some of the laws but opposed a third, and therefore had to choose between betraying their interests or accepting legislation they really opposed.”

Honestly, how is that different from how things work in any parliament in the world? Congressmen routinely vote ‘Yes’ on laws that contain some provision they are strongly in favor of, even though the same bill contains elements they oppose. They have to decide whether the pluses outweigh the minuses. Getting everything they want and nothing they don’t want is not generally an option. That’s what democratic compromise is. Your example purports to illustrate antidemocratic principles in action when in reality it does just the opposite.

I saw an interview of Gen Odierno the other week on The PentagonChannel, and he spoke of the great progress the surge had made, but that it was fragile. If we don’t keep up the pressure, or if the Iraqis fall short of their own commitment, all could be lost. He made the point that progress has to be made from the bottom up and the top down “and they’ll kind of meet in the middle”. Given that he’s the guy who implemented Petraeus’ plan, I’d say he knows what he’s talking about.

So were the political benchmarks important? The answer is that they’re important but only if we defeat AQI and provide security for the population as well. Everything has to work together.

This particular event should have been the lead article on the front page of every newspaper. It should have been the big subject of all the talk shows. It ought to have been acknowledged by every critic of the surge—you know, the ones who initially said the surge wouldn’t work before it even began.

Or, for a more measured response, Marc Lynch:

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/02/cause-without-l.html

The Iraqi Parliament’s passage of the budget, amnesty, and provincial laws after much political theater is potentially a rare bit of good news. But as with the deBaathification reform (which looked so promising on first blush and then not so much when the details emerged), it all depends on the details of the laws, the implementation, and the reception. Thus far, the reporting in the Western, Arab and Iraqi press has been very light on the details, mostly repeating what Parliament spokesman Khaled al-Attiya said in his press conference. Given the centrality of the details, it isn’t encouraging to hear that “the parliamentary success was clouded because many of the most contentious details were simply postponed, raising the possibility that the accord could again break into rancorous factional disputes in future debates on the same issues.” [quote fixed - thanks, Eric] I’m relieved that the speaker didn’t have to exercise his threatened nuclear option - dissolving the Parliament - and that these three crucial laws have finally been passed after so many months of wrangling. That’s good news on its merits. But I’m also reserving judgement on the implications of the laws until we see the details and the fallout.

Which granted, is a little harder to package on ABC, CNN, etc., etc.

nyo…. did you forget to take your lithium?

To a man that knows not his ultimate destination, no wind is favorable. In this case, people see the war as being a Bush manufactured product in order to acquire power, wealth, and to silence his opposition through hurting foreigners in Iraq.

Thus what you see as positive progress towards human liberty in Iraq, is seen by many Americans as negative progress towards human rights because it is only positive for Bush.

The only reason why the United States hasn’t broken out in Civil War is due to the American institutions in place to handle strife, conflict, and disagreement. Those institutions were built upon blood and guts, by Lincoln and others. They are solid as a result. Compare that to the rather finicky and weak foundation of Iraq in 2003. They indulged in violence against each other because nobody said no, nobody offered an alternative, and they didn’t trust that alternative to work even if it was offered.

In America, we still have the means to resolve things peacefully. But just as we see in Iraq, social conditions do break down with an extremist group stoking up rage and conducting attacks.

We shall see whether the Democrat party can truly succede in overthrowing the US Constitution in the end.

I would take that proposition, gladly. In real-life, most world affairs do not begin and end within 4 election cycles. After all, Bush went to war in Iraq based on what he inherited from the Clinton admin. In other words, Bush took ownership of President Clinton’s Iraq dilemma despite that Bush was elected as the anti-Clinton. If Obama or Clinton becomes President, it will be as an anti-Bush. By the same token as Bush in 2001, we want him or her to claim ownership of OIF. If the Dems are claiming good news out of Iraq over the next 4-8 years, that means Obama or Clinton took the baton from Bush and didn’t drop it. If that also means President Bush took the hardest steps just so a Democrat President could take credit for historic success in Iraq, so be it.

Just whose throat are we shoving democracy down here?

When you hear people are threatening to dissolve the parliment or walk out on a negotiation, then you know the real bargaining is finally under way. All the rest is just posturing.

Iraq’s a mess largely precisely because the Democrats took a historic win from Vietnam, which totally degraded the US military’s ability to learn from such a shameful loss.

I don’t think trying to repeat the issue is going to do Americans any favors in the next century.

Now there’s a liberal buzzword;

sustainability.

Can you toss the right balance of human beings under the bus in the correct and well timed order to fool the people left riding that they wont be next?

Good observation!!

…The Sadrists were victims of their own success. Their movement’s vastly increased wealth, membership and range of action led to greater corruption, weaker internal cohesion and a popular backlash. Divisions within the movement deepened; splinter groups – often little more than criminal offshoots – proliferated. As a result, anti-Sadrist sentiment grew, including among Muqtada’s Shiite constituency. The U.S. surge, which saw the injection of thousands of additional troops, particularly in Baghdad, worsened the Sadrists’ situation, checking and, in some instances, reversing the Mahdi Army’s territorial expansion. Finally, in August 2007, major clashes erupted in the holy city of Karbala between members of Muqtada’s movement and the rival Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which further eroded the Sadrists’ standing.

In reaction, Muqtada announced a six-month freeze on all Mahdi Army activities. It applies to all groups affiliated (loosely or otherwise) with the Mahdi Army, and Muqtada reportedly dispatched his most loyal fighters to tame holdouts. Most importantly, his order removed the veil of legitimacy and lifted the impunity that many groups – criminal gangs operating in the Mahdi Army’s name and Sadrist units gone astray – had enjoyed.

The ceasefire largely has held and, together with bolstered U.S. and Iraqi military presence in Baghdad, helps account for a dramatic drop in violence. But the respite, although welcome, is both slightly misleading and exceedingly frail. Muqtada’s decision likely reflected a pragmatic calculation: that a halt in hostilities would help restore his credibility and allow him to reorganise his forces and wait out the U.S. presence. Their retreat notwithstanding, the Sadrists remain deeply entrenched and extremely powerful in a number of regions. Fleeing military pressure in Baghdad, Mahdi Army fighters redeployed to the south, thereby setting up the potential for an escalation of the class-based confrontation with the U.S.-backed ISCI.”

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5286&l=1

As a result of the pervasive distrust, if not open hostility, SCIRI encountered upon its return from Iranian exile in April 2003, its quest for power (political in Baghdad, religious in Najaf) has first and foremost taken the form of a quest for respectability. It has made strenuous efforts to distance itself from its Iranian patron, whitewash its embarrassing past, build political coalitions, profess the importance of Iraq’s unity, maintain the semblance of government and, as conditions deteriorated, use the state’s security apparatus to protect the Shiite community from insurgent attacks. Although it continues to receive Iranian funds, it is in this not all that different from other parties, many of which became beneficiaries of Tehran’s strategy of diversifying support.

…If SCIRI/ISCI has so far failed in achieving respectability, it is because it has never quite managed to shake off its past as an Iran-bred group of exiles with a narrow sectarian agenda enforced by a potent militia. SCIRI claims with justification that it was established and inspired in response to the Iraqi regime’s tyranny and crimes but perceptions forged during the hard years of the Iran-Iraq war, in which the party and its Badr militia fought alongside Iranian forces, have been slow to change; suspicion that SCIRI remains guided by a foreign hand even as it plants its roots in Iraqi soil has hobbled its ambition.

Hakim’s calls for the establishment of a Shiite super region in the nine southern governorates have provoked widespread opposition, including among fellow Shiites. Equally suspect to many Iraqis has been the party’s more recent cosy relationship with the U.S. As a result, SCIRI/ISCI enjoys little popularity.

Still, the party is a formidable force. As a result of the U.S. surge, it is benefiting from coalition efforts to suppress not only al-Qaeda in Iraq but also ISCI’s principal rival, the Sadrists’ Mahdi army (Jaysh al-Mahdi). As long as the U.S. remains in Iraq, its alliance with ISCI will help entrench the party in the country’s governing, security and intelligence institutions, in Baghdad as well as most southern governorates. Its only true challenger remains the Mahdi army, which despite its ruffian credentials and bloody role in sectarian reprisals enjoys broad support among Shiite masses. Their rivalry now takes the form of a class struggle between the Shiite merchant elite of Baghdad and the holy cities, represented by ISCI (as well, religiously, by Sistani), and the Shiite urban underclass.

…The U.S. has fully backed ISCI in this rivalry. This is a risky gambit. Unleashing ISCI/Badr against the Sadrists is a dangerous policy that will further deepen intra-Shiite divisions; it also is a short-sighted one, given the Sadrists’ stronger mass base. Instead, the U.S. should adopt a more even-handed approach between the movements, while pressuring ISCI to reform its behaviour. The U.S. can help ISCI move away from its controversial past, and it has an interest in further anchoring the party within the current set-up. An ISCI fully transformed into a responsible, non-sectarian political party could make a significant contribution to the country’s rebuilding.”

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5158&l=1

Nothing I hate more than having to scroll through a miles-long post just to get to the next one.

You know, I wrote a column about that in college for my school newspaper, “When Anti-war is Anti-peace”: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/23957

That’s not how I meant my comment, though. I’m hoping for the optimistic view that if the Democrats win the White House they will take the Presidency seriously rather than as only a hoard of parochial political spoils. Bush largely ran in 2000 as a right-wing (foreign policy) realist opposing Clintonian interventionism, not as a liberal. But as a serious leader, Bush rose to his job after 9/11, and changed course to champion the liberal world order. In other words, Bush took the baton from Clinton and didn’t drop it, despite what Bush said during his first election campaign. I’m hoping the next President - Democrat or Republican - proves to be a good war-time President, notwithstanding what he or she says during the popular election campaign.

Then again, leadership often is not so smoothly transferred. There is relatively recent precedent for your pessimism: a Democrat President could very well opt for an Eisenhower in Korea or a Nixon in Vietnam change of course. Both Republican Presidents fulfilled their campaign promises and did exactly what they’d said they’d do: extract American troops from combat in wars begun under Democrat Presidents, despite the long-term consequences of those withdrawals. (I’m a believer that our flawed decision-making in Vietnam stemmed from the Korean War.)

If that’s as far as the Dems and their media allies will go in order to wrest the White House from the GOP, I can accept that. Bending the national interest for parochial gain is one thing, but actually breaking it is something else. What you say implies that the Dems aren’t really sincere about their current frightening mob-mentality election-driven agenda and actually have a serious plan for leadership. (Eg, given that the 2006 Dems-elected Congress has not taken substantive steps toward “ending the war” implies they secretly understand the stakes in Iraq.) It’s a scary gamble, but I hope that’s the case if the next President is Obama or Clinton.

I tend to think a lot of wars come about because of previous wars. True for the World War series as well as other conflicts that weren’t decided decisively for all factions. And in war, there will often be factions that ally together to defeat one foe, only to fall out and start fighting each other over the spoils.

Generals fight the last war, never the current one, probably because the last war was always inconclusive one way or another. Rarely does one get a WWII, and even in WWII, Communism was left alive for some day latter in the future when the earth might be immolated in nuclear fire.

Plus, some guy, I could get less vapid direction from a friggin’ Fortune Teller. Competing with the nonsensical, “You should always do what turns out to be the right thing before it turns out to be the right thing,” is simply not that difficult.

Moreover, given some facts and outcomes, I’d trust even an average Fortune Teller to not be so sub-rational as to judge the success of a strategy and the thought process of those designing the strategy to be mere happenstance/just-getting-lucky-in-spite-of-themselves to the point of then advocating instead a change to the Obama unknown, or else to only have recourse to essentially making vague and meaningless pronouncements such as contained in the above blatantly post modern mantra.

some guy, you and your informants are simply repeating the same narcissistic, sub-rational mistake all over again, and again, and again. But since you are all “human”, your inveterate echoings must be “rational”, eh what?

Hoo boy. I was so wrong. I still hope American voters will punish the Dems, yet I am not holding my breath. Demanding American defeat doesn’t look to have ruined the Democratic Party.

American voters simply do not perceive the strategic importance of successful Iraqi democracy. The relationship of a successful Iraq to American security does not compute. The case remains to be made. John McCain is maybe the only person positioned to bypass the media filter, and to successfully make the case to the American public.

I’d prefer that people provide links and short excerpts from those links in the comments section. Also, (except briefly, for humor’s sake), to keep to one name and one identity. No sock puppets.

Without looking it up on wikipedia - how much do you know about Iraqi politics? It’s one thing to talk in vague, general terms - if the issue is so incredibly important, take the time to learn about it? Not PajamasMedia reporting, but actual scholarly work on the topic?

Again: I’m not making a case for or against anything that was said here. Just recommending some reading.

Well, the Dems don’t have the Presidency yet, and that’s the power they want.

“American voters simply do not perceive the strategic importance of successful Iraqi democracy.”

The hope is that the Dems in the White House would be able to reverse that trend, which does seem to be a quixotic hope, given that the Dems’ anti-war politics are the main reason that many Americans don’t understand the importance of the mission. The optimistic view is that progressive liberals, which the Democrats ostensibly are, ought to be the best champions of a definitively liberal mission. I mean, Obama is supposed to be the 21st century JFK, right? It was JFK who predicted and attempted to institutionalize our ability to fight this kind of war in defense of a liberal world order - Bush is in line with that tradition.

On the pessimistic side, I did also bring up the Eisenhower and Nixon precedents for relatively recent anti-war Presidential candidates who did exactly what they said they’d do as Presidents. Certainly, Obama or Clinton can go the way of Ike and Nixon, too, as overtly anti-war candidates.

For the Long War, McCain is the safest choice. Clinton’s track record, as well as her husband’s, says she should be the most familiar with our history and the stakes in Iraq, but she’s also resorted to the anti-war mantra. Obama is the high-risk/high-reward gamble because of his great potential to galvanize support for the liberal mission while also neutralizing the anti-war factions in a way Clinton couldn’t. However, beyond Obama’s aggressive Wilsonian principles, the only evidence of what he’ll do is the anti-war mantra sans a Clintonian track record to hint that he might champion the mission.

I won’t clutter the comments with embedded links(they are all easily Google-able) or long excerpts from these think tanks.

If urged I might also recommend some books for them on the Middle East but think it best for now to offer easily accessible and free fare - except to suggest that one can’t go wrong with reading anything on the subject by Daniel Pipes or Bernard Lewis – both recognized, respected experts(unless one is of a Left-wing or Jihadist apologizer persuasion - then they are anathema).

… just trying to be helpful …

Much appreciated. I myself, cannot claim to be familiar with all the current players and nuances on what motivates who. All of that input is welcome. Im quite sure the political situation in Iraq is much more complex and in flux, and this is certainly one holy mess we’re involved in; however, I dont see what you’ve relayed changes anyones mind. For those who advocate withdrawal, any reason, any cause would suffice. I doubt, say, Code Pink studies the ins and outs of Iraqi real politick, nor would need to. If things were better and there were more real cooperation among factions in Iraq, Code Pink would still be clamoring for withdrawal. For me, I dont see how the US leaving helps either the US or Iraq. What Iraq becomes after we abandon it, would be worse than our prolonged presence in the region.

If you have an opposing viewpoint, Id be happy to hear it.

Brookings is especially great for their Iraq Index.

Pipes was certainly an accomplished historian once, but has basically gone insane.

Bernard Lewis’ histories are excellent - though rarely do they get into specifics and rarely do they deal with contemporary politics.

Two more suggestions: Mark Tessler, Middle East Review of International Affairs. Just think an informed debate is always better than an uninformed debate. Even if you don’t change your mind, at least you know what you’re talking about.

Everyone knows a different set of facts based on what their world-view and interests are. You read one set of sources, I read another, someone else reads a third set. So we have different sets of facts, but it doesn’t mean any of us is ignorant on the topic. Maybe you need to get out a little more, maybe read a more diverse set of sources, like:

http://www.memri.org/ (articles, etc., translated from ME media)

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/ (Middle East Strategy at Harvard)

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ (Michael Yon, who’s been reporting from Iraq or Afghanistan nearly continuously for the last several years)

What do you mean exactly that Pipes has gone insane?

I think he means that Pipes is anathema to him.

On Bernard Lewis: It would seem to be wise to ground oneself on the history of a region before pontificating on its current affairs. Myself, I find that Bernard Lewis deals frequently in specifics. Of course, I perhaps have the advantage on that, since I’ve actually read a couple of his books.

His latest volume, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East,(which I have not read) judging from the Table Of Contents, seems to be chock full of contemporary subjects. I suppose he has changed his approach since the above writer last read him.

That shows an obsession with power that is only fueled by getting power in the Legislature. Such tendencies usually only lead to self-destruction when such folks are given military powers.

The hope is that the Dems in the White House would be able to reverse that trend

That hope panned out for Hollywood in WWII because Hitler attacked Stalin and the Communists. Until Al Qaeda blows up something the Democrats actually care about in this country, that bet won’t have very good odds. And even then, they will only go after Osama or the single group that made the attack. Then it will be an endless pursuit of Osama or some other terrorist leader, given fecklessness and concern over Lawfare in assassination policies, which will provide an endless justification for more and more power given to the Presidency and more civil rights restrictions created in the name of national security and expedience.

Such things become even more likely precisely because that is what the Democrats believe Bush has been doing for the last 6-7 years.

The optimistic view is that progressive liberals, which the Democrats ostensibly are

Real classical liberals like Neo Neocon, Bookworm, Lieberman, etc either got shoved out of the Democrat party or moved over closer to the Republicans by choice.

There are no more progressive liberals of worth in the fake liberal party calling themselves Democrats, unless those fake liberals are progressing towards maximum entropy.

I mean, Obama is supposed to be the 21st century JFK, right?

And my peers are convinced that the Republicans will assassinate Obama like they assassinated JFK. Cause those two were real Presidents. Bush stole the election, you see.

All of this is an ingredient for factionalism and the downfall of a civilization. Two or more hostile camps inevitably devolves into barbarianism and then the whole cycle of civilization starts all over again.

It is more like “American security” is meaningless and is only used to enrich rich white people in the eyes of most Americans.

Add in most of the Democrat party and the cynics that don’t like either party, and you get “most Americans”.

So any issue of passing laws and bills should first taken in account the security matter very well before pushing to gain some bench mark here to tell us , um things in right track.

Is it really things in the right direction?

This question hard to answer from our comfort offices and homes the real answers are from the streets of Baghdad and from the mouth of Iraqis who will tell the reality.

But if we looking for gains let presume there is some light coming, yes there is but its long way to go and to say we win.

Just last thing here some reports that fall in the number of Iraqi dead bodies around the streets and towns is some how due to a new tactic now. These poor Iraqis who kidnapped or detained are taken to a neighbouring country (Guess which) where they striping some body parts from their bodies to be on sale in some Gulf countries.

How much truth in this story you need to guess and search, but every thing possible as we can see for the last five years.

Now, take that difficulty and multiply it by a thousand. Who are Iraq’s leaders? Prime Minister, president, cabinet, parliamentary leaders? What parties do they belong to? Who are those parties’ constituents and what do they stand for? Who makes up the opposition? What do they stand for? What are the ideological and pragmatic alliances and conflicts that exist between and among parties? Who are the armed groups, who are their constituents and what are their political platforms and objectives?

For example: lots of talk of American defeat. But who exactly would be defeating America? AQI - a handful of foreign fighters with no base of domestic support, a group that even Bush said was on the outs? The Mahdi Army, the militia of a major parliamentary party? The Badr Brigade, the militia of the parliament’s largest party? One of the dozens of Sunni groups, many of which are now on the US payroll? Right now, those Sunni militias are frequently fighting Shi’a militias for control of Iraq, though both have and will fight the US. If we leave, what does it matter for US policy if Badr or ICI wins?

Go back to the basics. Who would take your opinion on the US seriously if you didn’t know what party the president belonged to? Who should take your opinion of Iraq seriously if you don’t have a basic grasp of Iraqi politics?

The Iraqi political scene is way too complicated to make simplistic arguments from general theory about “good guys” and “bad guys.” Very, very few in Iraq fall into categories as simple as “good” or “bad.”

FYI: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki belongs to al-Da’wa, a political party that used to be a terrorist group that attacked the US and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983 in retaliation for strikes against Hezbollah. If the US withdraws while he’s still securely in office, does that mean the US has been defeated?

I like that argument made about Jihadists in Afghanistan when US support them and those” insurgency” now in Iraq.

But let clear things out, Iranians and Iranian proxy with Al-Quads forces are their and playing well in Iraq which made Iraqi so disappointed with what US did and doing and are very suspicions about US gaols in Iraq.

There is no question that Da’awa Party (Iranian midwife party and backed 20 years ago) has bloody records inside Iraq and outside Iraq but what the doing now it’s very bloody and a polling behaviours to Iraqi citizens with all Sec’s of Iraqi society.

I dont know that anyone here has offered an argument based upon such simplicity, nor have you made one as to whether or not we stay. Give me the benefit of all that you have read, if you will, and give in your words what you think the US should do at this point. Id appreciate your opinion on that.