When I read the criticism being aimed at Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq last week, I couldn’t help but think how we can further screw up a mess that is already fatally screwed up. What is particularly disturbing were remarks that were made by Senator John Warner who after spending two days in Iraq, unequivocally stated that Maliki needed to go. Now, don’t get me wrong. Maliki doesn’t appear to be the man for the job. But after all, that should be left up to the Iraqi people. He is a duly elected Prime Minister of a sovereign nation and a bold, new democracy that we propped up…uh, I mean that we helped get established. So, who are we to say who stays in charge or not? This is similar to calls for partitioning of Iraq on the part of U.S. politicians as though Iraq were some sort of offshore American colony. I firmly believe our constant meddling is what is hurting Iraq the most. But the U.S. government seems to be completely obsessed with not only preemptive democracy, but constant meddling. When will we ever learn?

Now, we not only have Senator Warner calling for Maliki’s ouster, we also have the former Bush Envoy to Iraq, Ayad Allawi speaking out about Maliki’s incompetence. If you don’t remember who Allawi is, he served as Presidential Envoy to Iraq in 2004 when he was appointed the country’s interim prime minister with the U.S. government’s blessing. It was reported today on Iraqslogger.com that Allawi has even gone so far as to hire a prominent Washington, D.C. lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, LLC, to lobby against Maliki. Can you believe that? It’s true. If you would like to read the acceptance letter from the firm to Allawi, you can read it here.

I find it amusing that Maliki’s chief Iraqi opponent would stoop so low as to hire the same lobbying firm used by Republicans in their own lobbying campaigns against Bush’s man himself in Iraq. I find this to be the highest level of irony and certainly a twisted turn of fate that is laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. It just goes to show you that the powerhouse Republican Washington lobbying firms will stop at nothing to make a buck, in this case, 300,000 bucks. This is the same lobbying firm headed by President’s Bush’s one-time White House point man on Iraq, Robert Blackwill.

So, exactly what is at stake in our continuing meddling in Iraq’s political games? I believe our fatally flawed strategy in Iraq is best described on AmericaBlog.com by A.J. Rossmiller. He feels the attacks on Maliki while true, are misguided. The problems with ousting Maliki, however expedient, would only expose the gross error in this type of thinking: that if only we could find the “right guy” in Iraq, our problems would be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is Rossmiller’s arguments broken down into three major areas of concern:

There are three major problems with the pattern of U.S. indecision, transitory support, and constant meddling in internal Iraqi political affairs over the last four years.

First, the approach distorts the American public’s understanding of the conflict by perpetuating the absurd idea that Iraq can be fixed if we just get the right Iraqi leader in power. There is no Nelson Mandela waiting in the wings, no Ataturk — not even a Yeltsin or a Nasser. The internal conflicts in Iraq, not to mention a constitution that essentially mandates proportional ethno-religious representation in parliament, currently preclude the ascendance of such a unifying leader. […]

Second, such relentless meddling in political conflicts we do not fully understand ensures that neither Iraqis nor other regional powers can establish any reliable relationship with the United States. […] American inconsistency therefore fuels unpredictable behavior in and around Iraq, seriously damaging military and diplomatic efforts. And for all of these difficulties, our careening policies in the region never seem to actually gain anything.

Finally, the constant search for the “right” policy or the “right” Iraqi leader epitomizes the “Quiet American” idea that the United States can — and should — affect everything everywhere. […] Sometimes the best thing to do in a delicate and difficult political situation is to take a step back from the fray.

So, what do we do? Being that the problems in Iraq are structural and political for which our presence as an occupying force is only continuing to inflame the realities on the ground, we need to start stepping back from the chaos. Right now, we are right in the middle of it all trying to quell the violence by imposing a false security on the population because the minute we withdraw, it will all fall apart. But the irony is that as along as we stay and continue to meddle, the Iraqi government will never be able to stand on its own. What we need instead is a phased, gradual withdrawal that will force the government to reconcile or die. Yeah, that’s the reality and those really are the only two options. Unfortunately we have proven over and over again that America has never been good at letting things take their natural course. Maybe it’s time we start.