From TheRealNews:

Last year, when the time of renewing the United Nations mandate approached, Maliki cabinet and the Iraqi presidency went ahead and bypassed the Iraqi parliament, despite the fact that the parliament is the entity that has the exclusive constitutional authority over ratifying or approving the international treaties. This year, I think, the situation is different because the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution earlier this year, in May, stating that any United Nations renewal that doesn’t come back to the parliament is illegal and unconstitutional.

It may only be coincidence, but for the last few years, every time this particular vote comes up in the Iraqi parliament, talk of a coup against prime minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to peak. For instance, in 2006 after Maliki waivered before ratifying the UN mandate outside of the parliament’s authority, rumors began to circle that former regime elements might stage a coup. DemocracyNow had this:

I don’t think any of this could happen without American support, but I do know that there are a number of people inside the Baker commission, within the U.S. government, in the CIA and elsewhere, who are thinking about this. And just the other day, I spoke to Salah al-Mukhtar, who is a Baathist and former Iraqi official, who said that there are rumors all over Jordan that the CIA has been going around looking — the military going around looking for a general or two, who could take over in the event of a coup d’etat in Baghdad.

In August 2007, two months after Maliki passed on vetoing the parliament’s authority over international treaties, the rumors of a coup again burst into the open, even being speculated about on major cable news outlets. InformedComment offered this from private sources:

“There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . [The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.]

The six-member board or commission would be composed on non-political former military personnel who are presently not part of the government OR the military establishment, such as it is in Iraq at the moment. It is said that the Americans are supporting this behind the scenes.

The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election which would not have lists, but real people running for real seats. The two year period would be designed to take control of security and restore infrastructure.

Could the surge in rumors of a coup actually be US pressure on Maliki? Why do the rumors only surface during controversies surrounding the UN mandate, as opposed to the countless other scandals and errors that plague Maliki on a daily basis? The most interesting thing to note about all of these rumors is that they are all supported by the US, either overtly or through the CIA. While it’s highly unlikely that the US is actually spending the time and money to shuttle around the middle east and train mini-Iraqi juntas, it’s almost certainly a signal to Maliki that his status as favored son of the US is not guaranteed forever.

It’s pretty clear, however, that this time the US will continue to attempt to push the UN mandate through the approval process secretively and away from the oversight of the Iraqi parliament, probably even without resorting to overtly pressuring Maliki. With rhetoric between Iran and the US at its current escalation point, the US wouldn’t dare subvert the Iraqi constitution with a coup given that it may send a dangerous message to Tehran, that nothing is sacred in the battle for control of Iraq. Even rumors of a US-backed coup may fatally destabilize Maliki’s Shiite coalition, some of whom would gladly side with Iran over yet another Sunni police state.

Unfortunately, that does not mean Maliki’s position is entirely safe. Concerning a coup, Maliki had this to say to McClatchy’s in August of this year:

MALIKI: This is a sick mentality, a hangover, from the Baathist era. The era of coups has departed. Rule was through security and military agencies, but now the people rule. Coups were the distinguishing character of rule in the country and the people were excluded from the process. Now no one has the capability or the power to pull off an overthrow in this country and those who travel to the capitals of the world begging for support are delusional. This country will see no more such overthrows. The only possible overthrow is from within the constitutional democratic establishment. And if it were to be achieved through the parliament and the democratic political establishment then I am happy and it is welcome. Indeed I would cheer it on because for the first time we would have effected change through political means and not by weapons and tanks.

FADEL: But can the parliament really agree on anything?

MALIKI: So, then the government is safe. (laughter)

Essentially what Maliki is saying is that the parliament doesn’t need a coup to get rid of Maliki. They only need the political will to throw him out of office using legitimate constitutional processes. It’s almost certain that any replacement would be nowhere near as compliant as Maliki, and given his results, it could prove disastrous for the US effort. Worse yet, any major destabilization of the central Iraqi government, even if it is a normal constitutional process, could prove fatal. If that happens, the freshly ethnically cleansed Iraq may no longer be able to contain its civil war, whether US troops are present or not.

Popularity: 2% [?]

From Kavkaz-Center:

The US is considering a plan to create gangs of mercenaries from local population in the border areas of Pakistan to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban, emulating its tactics in Iraq’s Anbar province.

The plan would involve increasing the number of US trainers in Pakistan by dozens from the current number of around 50, and the direct financing of a separate tribal “paramilitary force” that has so far proved largely ineffective. Washington would also pay militias that agreed to fight al-Qaida and foreign “extremists”…

Some other elements of the campaign, approved in principle by the US and Pakistan, await funding. They include 0m (£170.7m) over several years to help train and equip the frontier corps, a “paramilitary force” that has around 85,000 members and is recruited from border tribes.

The Pentagon has this to add, from GlobalSecurity via Voice of America:

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says the idea of trying to engage Pakistani tribal leaders came from a visit to Pakistan by the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, Admiral Eric Olson. Admiral Olson is the lead defense official in the effort to increase international cooperation in the global war on terror, and to enhance the capabilities of partner nations.

“Admiral Olson went there,” he said. “He met with the Pakistanis. And they were both desirous of figuring out ways in which there could be greater cooperation. That’s it.”

Morrell says the Admiral’s staff at Special Operations Command developed some proposals, and the New York Times says those ideas are now being circulated among experts outside the Defense Department. But Morrell says the ideas have not been endorsed by Admiral Olson or anyone else.

Note that the Pentagon isn’t disavowing the report, they’re simply saying it hasn’t been officially endorsed. Additionally, given that the US policy in Anbar could be reasonably considered a success from a PR point of view, it’s only natural that they would look elsewhere to see if the same policy could be useful. However, it does raise some questions about the consequences of such policy, something that remains unknown even in Anbar. Are these militias pro-US or simply anti-Taliban, and at the heart of it, who is using whom?

Popularity: 2% [?]