Who Forgot to Call the Iraqis?

I think one of the most under-reported facets of President Bush's "New Way Forward" in Iraq is how little the Iraqis seem to like it. What we did hear, in a pretty full-throated form, is questioning of Sec.of State Rice and Sec. of Defense Gates by members of Congress as to exactly why this time the Iraqis would actually make good on their commitments regarding troop strength and their non-interference with respect to entering and clearing Shiite areas like Sadr City. As one American military official put it, as quoted in this New York Times article in today's edition, "We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem. We are being played like a pawn."

To me, that statement says it all. There have been many suggestions (here and here, to offer just a few) that the Administration is engaging in a delicate act. To the American people, they are portraying the new plan as essentially an Iraqi creation which we modified a bit to suit or strategic objectives. Nevertheless, the above reports contend (and common sense would imply as well) what the Shiite-controlled government really suggested was they we get out of Baghdad and allow them to clean up the violence as they see fit (read: with a distinct lack of sectarian sensitivity, to put it mildly).

I think the almost guaranteed non-cooperation of the Shiite-led Iraqi government, due to fundamental differences in how to "handle" the violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, is the key factor which virtually guarantees that we will be disappointed with the 'New Way Forward"