Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari broke off from the Dawa party, the Shiite Prime Minister's party, and announced the formation of his own political bloc, Islah or Reformation Party.
Jaafari was ousted from his position as head of the Islamic Dawa Party and head of the state in 2006 due to rejections by President George W. Bush and a parliament of Sunnis, Kurds and secularists who did not want his premiereship to continue. He refused to stand down until the top Shiite religious leader in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani intervened.
His tenureship was tarnished by infiltration of militias into the security forces and escalating violence in the nation. He blames the U.S. for turning a blind eye to militias in 2004 and 2005.
While Maliki is trying to forge a semblance of national reconciliation between factions and sects in his government, his own party is splitting a part.
Jaafari is using the unpopularity of Maliki's negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, his alienation of the Sadrist bloc and his inability to bring the Sunnis back into the government to stage his come back.
He told reporters that the party would "renounce the sectarian quota system and fight the militias," according to Aswat al Iraq, an Iraqi News Agency. The soft spoken academic added that the negotiations of the agreement with the United States was "humiliating." A sentiment many Iraqis echo.
The Islamic Dawa Party later announced that Jaafari was out of the party.
The change could throw off the balance in the parliament. So far the Dawa party has barely beaten out the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq twice for the Prime Minister's seat. Sadrists will not go to Dawa in the next elections and Jaafari always handled the young Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr with care. Sometimes he spoke to him late into the night to calm him down. Maliki has largely ignored the Sadrists who are responsible for getting him enough votes to become head of state.
We'll see what this brings.
(Photo above is from the Associated Press)
I can envision a compromise Status of Force agreement that would be satisfactory to both the US military commanders, the US Congress and the Iraqi parliament. I would start with the premise there should be no US bases, only joint US-Iraqi bases. Then the question becomes who is going to defend those bases in the event they are attacked by rockets or mortars? Does the Iraqi government envision Iraqi politicians should have a committee to decide what to do, or do they think the bases have to be defended immediately - no matter who or what country attacks them?
Then is it simply a coincidence that Turkey, Iran and Syria are all blocking rivers that flow into Iraq, or do they somehow have dreams of occupying some Iraqi natural resources? Iran is bombing Iraqi territory and Turkey is practically invading. Syria apparently has claims on Iraqi territory.
US military commanders are probably looking for the realization that Iraq can't get along with an Iraqi army that has to beg Americans for food and ammunition, together with some obsolete tanks and helicopters and perhaps now some French military equipment. Iraqi politicians strutting around bashing Bush's proposed Status of Force agreement is expected, but eventually the Iraqi government has to develop a plan to establish a modern military. With that plan the Iraqi's can determine the necessary role of the US military, if any.
However right now nobody is volunteering to assist Iraq to stand up a modern military except the US, and probably the Russians. The French have their own political problems. The Iraqi government needs to grasp the opportunity while they can.
Posted by: Chris Baker | June 07, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Leila Fadel ... is the current Status of Forces Treaty between Iraq and the US in force and passed as federal law by the Iraqi Parliament currently? Secondarily, does al Jaafari actually think his support of it will be key to bringing him back to power? How do you see this? JohnOsborneNY
Posted by: JohnOsborneNY | June 07, 2008 at 10:01 PM