Breaking News: Iraqi Parliament Inflicts Defeat on al-Maliki, "Coalition" Forces

By a vote of 80-68, the Iraqi Parliament has rejected the draft law setting a withdrawal date of 31 May 2009 for troops from Britain and five other countries. Technically, the rejection means that the troops of the six countries should be out of Iraq by 31 December, when the UN mandate for their presence expires.

Practically, it's hard to see how the British contingent of 4100 --- who had a grace period until 31 July under the law to leave --- will be able to load up with all their equipment within the next 11 days. But that's only a secondary issue.



Instead, the significance of this news is symbolic. This is a major slap-down for the al-Maliki Government. For weeks, especially after the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement for US forces, many in the US and British  media have portrayed Parliamentary opposition as limited to the Sadrist faction of about 30 members. This vote indicates that there are a folks beyond Moqtada al-Sadr --- Sunni and Shi'a --- who are ready to see the back of al-Maliki.

That wish is exacerbated by unease at the Government's approach to foreign powers and what it means for Iraqi "sovereignty". The immediate reason for the defeat was that the Government tried to rush through an umbrella agreement, rather than submitting bilateral agreements with each of the six countries. The background reason was resentment at the deal with the US, which --- as it was not a formal "treaty" --- bypassed normal legal processes. As a Sunni member told the BBC, the deals should be "arranged, according to international law, through treaties or agreements".

Breaking News on the Iraq Non-Story: British Troops to Withdraw

The BBC has just reported from Baghdad the confirmation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that British troops will withdraw from Iraq in the first half of 2009.

This, of course, is as dramatic as predicting that the Sun will set in the west. You can expect declarations today--- because they are already being trailed in the British press --- that this is because Britain's "mission is complete" rather than that it will no longer have legal authority to operate in Iraq.

Gaza: This is News, This is Not News

BBC Radio 4's Today programme has an extended item on Israel and Palestine this morning, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown is meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, but its only reference to Gaza is "Palestinian militant groups, of which Hamas is the largest" and "the possibility of incipient violence." The New York Times does consider Hamas but in the context of a possible division in the leadership over continuation of a truce with Israel. The Washington Post is concerned about a parade in which Hamas "bragged about its violent exploits".

Hmmm....what could be missing here? I don't know, maybe....

Gaza Families Eat Grass as Israel Locks Border

Africa: Where to Intervene?

Over the weekend, with the catalyst of the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, the British media played up the possibility of a military intervention to free the country from the rule of Robert Mugabe. There was a consensus from The Observer, with the Archbishop of York's call for the toppling of Mugabe, to the BBC's headlining of Desmond Tutu's call for action to The Daily Telegraph's featuring of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration, "Enough is enough." This morning, the BBC's Today programme ran the story in its prime slot after 8 a.m.

This coverage was absent, however, in the United States.



Apart from one editorial, I could not find a single story in The Washington Post or The New York Times. Shankar Vedantam, who writes the lofty-sounding Department of Human Behavior analysis for the Post, may want to sharpen his finding, "When nearly 600 people in Zimbabwe died in a cholera outbreak a week ago, the international response was far more muted," and look at his own newsroom.

Why the disparity? I suspect in part that it's because any immediate intervention against Mugabe would have to be a show of military force, and the US has no troops --- and, more pertinently, a priority to use any troops it might have --- in that effort.

In part, it may be the Obama Administration is selecting another African country for attention. The Post, while ignoring Zimbabwe, has a long Page One article today, "Sudan's Leaders Brace for U.S. Shift; Obama Team Seen As Tough on Darfur". A lot of the Post's piece is speculation, drawn from past statements of Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton and hanging its hat on a task force report which "recommends, among other things, that the Obama administration create a high-level forum in the White House to direct the government's response to threats of mass violence". Moreover, the paper notes cogently that Obama "has not called for direct U.S. intervention".

So it's not a safe bet to say that the US will be ratcheting up the pressure for a move, direct or indirect, against Khartoum. It is a pretty good wager, however, that the Obama folks will be even less inclined to join others in a march on Harare.

Meanwhile, there is a cautionary tale from the Bush Administration's interventions in Africa. Two years ago, Washington supported the overthrow of the Mogadishu Government, led by the Islamic Courts, through intervention by Ethiopian troops. On Sunday, The New York Times woke up to the outcome of that venture:

Somalia’s transitional government looks as if it is about to flatline. The Ethiopians who have been keeping it alive for two years say they are leaving the country, essentially pulling the plug.

For the past 17 years, Somalia has been ripped apart by anarchy, violence, famine and greed. It seems as though things there can never get worse. But then they do.