Iraq's Problems Go Beyond Maliki

These are certainly not justifications condoning that Maliki built a monopoly of power. Rather they can be a helpful standpoint from which to interpret the shortcomings of the Iraqi political reality, and to answer questions surrounding the role of Maliki in creating these flaws.

While Maliki succeeded in subjecting Iraq to the powers of the state by striking at al-Qaeda and the disparate militias between 2007 and 2009 in an operation dubbed Charge of the Knights, the parliament of Iraq was hapless in confronting the task of building the state, which required resolving more than 100 essential pieces of pending legislation.

At that time, the political center was preoccupied with disagreements that distracted it from the dangers of leaving the country without a legal framework to regulate the functions of its institutions.

Thus the Iraqi parliament neglected to pass laws governing the security forces and the army, failing to even heed the importance and gravity of these laws. This legal void led to accusations of Maliki monopolizing power with military resolutions, which have escalated more recently to accusations of a more serious nature. Maliki’s political associates have pleaded their non-involvement regarding Maliki’s expansion of power, despite the fact that they represent the majority in both parliament and government.

This reality expands beyond military regulations to many other functions of the state, which Maliki has also in turn been accused of monopolizing. Regardless of the credibility of these charges, the pivotal question is: Why were those functions of the state left undefined in the first place?

2 Responses to Iraq's Problems Go Beyond Maliki

  1. Lorenzo 4th February 2013 at 20:17 #

    It is a shame that Iraqi citizens dies at the hand of Iraqi army again. So, yes I understand the Anbar wrath. The history repeats itself and this time against the Sunnis in Anbar.

    It must be incompetency at the highest level when the heart of the Iraqi country, it's oil will be mostly sold to Chinese interests and Iranians middle-men.

    Is it so difficult to understand the american and other international IOC's reasons for not investing in Iraq and choosing Kurdistan? Is it so difficult to agree in the Parliament to something? With so many laws pending and no willingnes to compromise and agree to anything?

  2. james 7th February 2013 at 18:01 #

    The security of contract and the security in general is alot better in Kurdistan than Iraq which is why the western companies flock to Erbil. You only have to wonder why the IOC's are all wishing to leave their concessions in Iraqs south.

    Dealing with the SOC and inherent corrupt practices and lack of infrastructure is crippling the oil majors who could progress so much faster if left to their own devices. In many cases the production levels they were given were false which is why all the fields have negotiated lower plateau levels. Im sure they wish they had waited 5 years before diving headlong into Iraq.