The Iraqi congress O.K.’d a resolution yesterday to force Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to consort with them before asking the United Nations to extend the mandate for American-led forces in their country.
The resolution, drafted by lawmakers within the coalition of vitriolic Shi’i cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s, doesn’t ring as true as some might think: Of the 275 members of Parliament, only 144 voted, the measure passing 85-59.
A regular bunch of John Edwards’, those Iraqis. Except they face mortal danger stepping outside their homes. And aren’t getting $400 haircuts. Anyway.
While the U.S.’s mandate runs through December 31 of this year, this resolution has two interesting upshots. First, the assertion of power in a political arena by someone other than the U.S.-backed Maliki. This cuts one of two ways. Either it shows that the Iraqi political institutions are gaining their legs as serious chambers of debate (debate-able), or that opposition groups have found that they can manipulate things to their liking within existing political institutions (more likely.)
Second, the implication for American domestic politics remains to be seen. Will it be held up by Democratic presidential contenders as proof that the Iraq people (well, 85 of the 274 representatives, anyway), want U.S. troops to be gone? Or will Bush and Co. be able to hang it on Democrats as proof that “Jihadists” want the Americans gone?
