THINGS WILL GET EVEN WORSE IN IRAQ BEFORE THEY GET TOTALLY CATACLYSMIC

The first image I saw on the boob tube when I woke up this morning was a puffy, whining John McCain. He seemed-- as he does more and more frequently these days-- confused and disoriented. And he was all over the map on Bush's plan, which even he was conceding could very well be a loser. He was on CNN to do his part to roll out the coordinated GOP Talking Point du jour-- that if the Democrats take away our soldiers bullets, they'll be responsible for the loss of Iraq. You'll be hearing the drivel whenever you turn on your Hate Talk radio and you'll be reading it in the columns of all the right-wing propagandists. Jonah Goldberg, the actual bottom of the barrel, already has his swarmy version up. But McCain said something else that struck me: he expressed his disdain for the very person upon whom Bush's "plan" depends: Shi'a leader and Bush's puppet "prime minister" al-Maliki.

While al-Maliki makes a show of demanding his Shi'a overlords behave themselves, Iraq hands are already saying kaddish over his political grave. McCain might be the only one disoriented enough to blurt it out, but, despite Bush's boldfaced lies to the contrary, no one has any confidence in al-Maliki's abilities or honesty. Stratfor, a global intelligence outfit that guides businesses ad government agencies in figuring out what's going on in places like Iraq, points out that while Bush was making his speech last night, Baghdad was awash in rumors that al-Maliki would resign well before the "surge" would peak. They're suggesting that he'd be out by spring.

The leading contender to replace him is Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi, who was al-Maliki's main rival for the position when he was elected in April 2006.

Should he leave office, al-Maliki would be the second elected Shiite prime minister in two years to have met with failure. Both al-Maliki and his predecessor, interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, are members of Hizb al-Dawah (HD). They were able to take power when the other main Shiite factions-- the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the al-Sadrite Bloc-- agreed to give HD the prime ministership, each to prevent the other from gaining power.

Al-Maliki's potential resignation is an indication that the problem is not a question of performance (or lack thereof) for any individual prime minister, but rather has to do with intra-Shiite politics. If Abdel Mahdi, the No. 2 man in SCIRI, were to become prime minister, it would upset the internal balance of power within the Shiite community and, more important, exacerbate intra-Shiite tensions, thus leading to further violence and instability within the country.

Should al-Maliki resign and Abdel Mahdi take his place, the Shia would have to agree on someone to assume the position of vice president, and the other factions would have to compensate HD in some way for the loss. This also would likely deepen tensions between the Iraqi government and the Mehdi Army, the militia loyal to radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, since SCIRI is al-Sadr's main rival.

Should SCIRI take the top post, it would mean the prime ministership would be controlled by the most pro-Iranian Shiite group. This would further undermine Washington's influence in Baghdad, given that the Bush administration does not want to negotiate with Tehran over Iraq-- at least not from its current, weakened position.

Al-Maliki's resignation also could bring about the collapse of the Shiite coalition, which is currently hanging by only a thread, with deep internal differences between its members. The Shia cannot afford for their collective position to be further weakened.

Thus far, the Shia have chosen to sacrifice effective governance for the sake of unity. They will continue to do so. Therefore, it is unlikely that any new prime minister, particularly one from SCIRI, will be able to govern the country effectively.

If you think lightweights like George Bush and Condoleeza Rice and Silvestre Reyes have any chance of comprehending this kind of stuff, let along navigating through it, you must be mad. Partisan imbeciles on the right like McConnell and Lieberman are threatening to filibuster attempts to block funds for escalation. The ante should be upped so that they have to defend against what is really needed: impeachment of Bush and Cheney.


UPDATE: EVEN REPUBLICANS RECOGNIZE BUSH HAS HAD IT

Chuck Hagel is a conservative senator from Nebraska. Bush's policies in Iraq haven't impressed him. This morning he came down strong and unequivocally against escalation: "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam if it’s carried out.” That "if" indicates to me that at least one Republican senator will be voting to break the McConnell-Lieberman filibuster.