Talk:Tariq al-Hashimi

Mischaracterization of USA Today news report

Under Political Views is a paragraph that states:

"USA Today reported in December 2006 that Hashimi was involved in forming a multi-sectarian alliance to replace the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, with the encouragement of U.S. President George W. Bush and Muqtada al-Sadr.[4]"

The footnoted article makes no reference to replacing al-Maliki. The point of the alliance was to counter the political power of al-Sadr, which certainly wouldn't be "encouraged by al-Sadr" It even specifially states that Hashimi's support would allow Maliki to remain in power.

Al-Maliki has been reluctant to break politically with al-Sadr, whose party controls 30 of the 275 seats in parliament. Support from al-Hashimi, whose bloc has 44 seats, could allow al-Maliki to stay in power without relying on al-Sadr. USA Today

I would suggest the paragraph be edited to something like the following:

"USA Today reported in December 2006 that Hashimi was involved in forming a multi-sectarian alliance, with the encouragement of U.S. President George W. Bush, to counter the political influence of Muqtada al-Sadr.[4]"

This would completely change the meaning of the paragraph, so in the interest of peace & harmony, it would make sense for the edit to be made by someone who is more invested in the article.--Bg357 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bg357, you're right, the relationship is much more complicated. This article could give more light to those who want to correct those (old) news: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/moktada_al_sadr/index.html

As I see it, Al-Sadr has supported Al-Maliki recently, as recently as July 2012, against Hashimi. Al-Sadr and Al-Maliki are political adversaries competing for the same Shiite constituency and the support by Iran, while Hashimi is a political enemy of both, with a Sunni constituency and with the support of Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Mr. Al-Maliki has used both, Hashimi and Al-Sadr, in a game of musical chairs, in first place owing both terms of his presidency to Al-Sadr support and then using Mr. Hashimi as a "temporary political crutch" when clashes with Al-Sadr surfaced. He apparently received Al-Sadr support last year when both agreed to expel all US military personnel, a point of contempt for Mr. Al-Sadr. Effectively, in December 2011 all American forces were, if you allow me to put it in this way, expelled from Iraq. At that moment Mr. Al-Sadr tried to create a block with Sunnis against Al-Maliki, but then his grass root political support waned, as you can read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/world/middleeast/moktada-al-sadr-recast-as-political-insurgent-in-iraq.html?ref=iraq (Al-Sadr is a Shiite and widely seen as an ally of Iran, so an alliance with the Sunnis was not well received among his supporters, as there were real battles between those parties while the Americans managed Iraq).

So, you could say that both Al-Maliki and Al-Sadr are competing for a Shiite government supported by Iran, Al-Maliki as a secular leader, Al-Sadr as a religious one, while Hashimi and the Kurds tried to construct an alliance with any of them to regain a kind of Baathist rule. Al-Maliki has a larger constituency, but not the majority. To achieve majority he has allied with Hashimi and now, after clashing with Hashimi, with Al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, on his part, is positioning himself toward new elections, in hopes of displacing Al-Maliki, who is a master of "middle way" politics. That's how I see it. However, I think you're right: an alliance between Al-Sadr and George Bush seems highly improbable, so I corrected the paragraph as you suggested, because you might have conclude by now, if you've read all this, that the position you redacted is correct. However, as you put it, in search for POV neutrality (which, in articles like this, does not mean to find a middle path, but to show both, opposite points of view, if you ask me) I won't make any corrections if someone corrects me.--Ciroa (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

End of office in 2012?

Please clearly attribute Hashemi's Iraq VP office ending in May 2012. Wakari07 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

By whom? The Iraqi government.Egeymi (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but the VP/President functions are not named by the government. It's in the Constitution and the National Assembly of Iraq's (as succeeded by the Council of Representatives of Iraq) job. See this which is still not repealed afaik. Wakari07 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wakari07, I deleted the date of term end. But searching for the details. Thanks.Egeymi (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do my best too to see more clearly in the jungle. Wakari07 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Art 69 par. 2 of the UNIRAQ English version of the Constitution (which is the one apparently approved in Arabian language) says "the provisions for nomination to the office of one or more Vice Presidents of the Republic shall be regulated by law", which has not happened afaik, so by default the Transitional (bremer) law is in effect. Wakari07 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Again THANKS, Wakari07.Egeymi (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

زحراب

از طارق ھاشمی 115.167.67.90 (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)