And some Sadrist fool throws his shoes at the President! Is that all the fight the jihadis have left?
US President George W. Bush steps off of Air Force One at Baghdad International Airport during an unannounced visit to Baghdad, Iraq, on December 14, 2008. The trip marks Bush’s fourth visit to the country during his presidency. Unlike previous visits, today’s landing by Air Force One was in broad daylight which underscores the improvement in the security situation.
In this image from APTN video, an man throws a shoe at President George W. Bush during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008, in Baghdad. The man threw two shoes at Bush, one after another. Bush ducked both throws, and neither man was hit.
The journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi from Al-Baghdadia channel which broadcasts from Cairo, was frogmarched from the room by security staff, an AFP journalist said.
President Bush, alongside Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, motions for everyone to sit down after the shoe throwing inciden during a joint press conference at Maliki’s private office.
Obviously the trip wasn’t all bad as President George W. Bush smiles during a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
The purpose of the trip was three fold: First, the President wished to thank our troops who continue to serve in Iraq and whose excellent performance has transformed Iraq. Second, the President wished to say good bye to Iraqi leaders who have risked their lives to begin rebuilding their country. Third, the President and Iraqi leader signed the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) that covers our overall political, economic, and security relationship with Iraq, and a Security Agreement – otherwise known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) – that implements our security relationship. (White House Fact Sheet)
Charles Krauthammer has this excellent op-ed on that agreement:
Milestone in Baghdad
By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Friday, December 5, 2008The barbarism in Mumbai and the economic crisis at home have largely overshadowed an otherwise singular event: the ratification of military and strategic cooperation agreements between Iraq and the United States.
They must not pass unnoted. They were certainly noted by Iran, which fought fiercely to undermine the agreements. Tehran understood how a formal U.S.-Iraqi alliance endorsed by a broad Iraqi consensus expressed in a freely elected parliament changes the strategic balance in the region.
For the United States, this represents the single most important geopolitical advance in the region since Henry Kissinger turned Egypt from a Soviet client into an American ally. If we don’t blow it with too hasty a withdrawal from Iraq, we will have turned a chronically destabilizing enemy state at the epicenter of the Arab Middle East into an ally.
Also largely overlooked at home was the sheer wonder of the procedure that produced Iraq’s consent: classic legislative maneuvering with no more than a tussle or two — tame by international standards (see YouTube: “Best Taiwanese Parliament Fights of All Time!“) — over the most fundamental issues of national identity and direction.
The only significant opposition bloc was the Sadrists, a mere 30 seats out of 275. The ostensibly pro-Iranian religious Shiite parties resisted Tehran’s pressure and championed the agreement. As did the Kurds. The Sunnis put up the greatest fight. But their concern was that America would be withdrawing too soon, leaving them subject to overbearing and perhaps even vengeful Shiite dominance.
…That any of this democratic give-and-take should be happening in a peaceful parliament just two years after Iraq’s descent into sectarian hell is in itself astonishing. Nor is the setting of a withdrawal date terribly troubling. The deadline is almost entirely symbolic. U.S. troops must be out by Dec. 31, 2011 — the weekend before the Iowa caucuses, which, because God is merciful, will arrive again only in the very fullness of time. Moreover, that date is not just distant but flexible. By treaty, it can be amended. If conditions on the ground warrant, it will be.
…
A self-sustaining, democratic and pro-American Iraq is within our reach. It would have two hugely important effects in the region.First, it would constitute a major defeat for Tehran, the putative winner of the Iraq war, according to the smart set. Iran’s client, Moqtada al-Sadr, still hiding in Iran, was visibly marginalized in parliament — after being militarily humiliated in Basra and Baghdad by the new Iraqi security forces. Moreover, the major religious Shiite parties were the ones that negotiated, promoted and assured passage of the strategic alliance with the United States, against the most determined Iranian opposition.
Second is the regional effect of the new political entity on display in Baghdad — a flawed yet functioning democratic polity with unprecedented free speech, free elections and freely competing parliamentary factions. For this to happen in the most important Arab country besides Egypt can, over time (over generational time, the time scale of the war on terror), alter the evolution of Arab society. It constitutes our best hope for the kind of fundamental political-cultural change in the Arab sphere that alone will bring about the defeat of Islamic extremism. After all, newly sovereign Iraq is today more engaged in the fight against Arab radicalism than any country on earth, save the United States – with which, mirabile dictu, it has now thrown in its lot.
No discarded footwear is going to take away the fact that our plan in Iraq is succeeding. No wonder the jihadis are upset!
Print This Post
Trackbacks
65 comments so far
Leave a reply
Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: