Update: Al-Maliki Showdown with Parliament over Troop Withdrawal?

Here is CNN's headline, which is misleading and misses the point, "Iraqi Lawmakers Reach Deal on Non-U.S. Troops".

What has happened is potentially more dramatic. "Main political parties" have agreed on a way to bypass Saturday's Parliamentary rejection of an agreement under which troops from six countries, including Britain, would withdraw by 31 May 2009. This would come through "a resolution that would empower the Cabinet to authorize international troop presence without requiring Parliament to pass a law".



In other words, Parliament is being asked to withdraw itself from the matter, allowing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to push through the agreement before the current UN mandate for military presence expires on 31 December. Of course, Parliamentarians may bow to the will of the "main parties" --- which I presume include Daw'a and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Then again, members may choose to make a stand, as they initially did with the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States.

If they do, it means British troops will be confined to their bases as of 1 January 2009. Far more importantly, there will be a political crisis in advance of provincial elections next year.

Afghanistan: When in Trouble, Call on Adolf Hitler

John Hutton, the British Defense Secretary, demonstrates a sensitive understanding of the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan. Just compare it to Germany in the 1930s:

We know that we must tackle the [terrorist] threat at source, it is not just going to go away. It is a struggle against fanatics that may not challenge our borders but challenges our way of life in the same way the Nazis did.

With statements like this, who can have doubts about a political and military strategy which, as Hutton notes, is "going to be years" in duration?

Iraq Non-Story of the Day: Bye, Bye Britain

Deborah Haynes of The Times, in a near-imperial huff, headlines today:

British Forces will leave Iraq by the end of next July under a humiliating proposal that lumps the once-valued deployment with five smaller contingents, including those of Romania, El Salvador and Estonia.

You know we're in a sorry state on this island when we're lumped with El Salvador, but this is about as undramatic a piece of news as you can get. Britain's mandate to stay in Iraq, like that of US troops, was under a United Nations agreement with Baghdad that expires on 31 December.

That was the reason why Washington had to fight for its extension under the Status of Forces Agreement. No time left for London to get its version, so British forces have to pack up and come home. The proposed Iraqi legislation for Britain and the other five countries sets a deadline of 31 May for military duties, with a two-month grace period for British troops.