It is called amnesia. In this case, however, it might be also sour grapes syndrome as Maliki has procured an 4.2 billion arms deal with Russia.

Baghdad and Moscow have agreed to renew an arms deal worth $4.2 billion that was put on ice in 2012 amid corruption allegations. Russia reportedly agreed to send four extra assault helicopters as part of the renegotiations.

It will be post-Saddam Iraq’s largest arms deal with a partner other than the US and its key allies. The agreement has not yet been formally signed, but will be soon, Russian newspaper Vedomosti reported, citing a source in the Russian arms export industry.

The trade agreement was initially signed in October 2012 during Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s visit to Moscow. Russia agreed to supply Iraq with 48 Pantsir-S1 short-to-medium-range air defense systems and 28 Mil Mi-28NE strike helicopters, among other arms.

But the deal faced scrutiny in Iraq over corruption allegations. At the time, conflicting reports emerged over whether the contract had been scrapped entirely or subjected to renegotiation.

The situation was aggravated by turmoil in the Iraqi parliament, which saw heated debate over the national general budget for 2013. The disagreement was finally shelved in March 2013 after months of debate, as the country’s Defense Ministry was given a free hand in procuring military hardware.

A new version of the multibillion-dollar arms deal was presented in Moscow last Monday after a delegation of top Iraqi military officials visited Russia, according to Iraqi news agency Al-Mada Press.

Moscow met the corruption concerns undermining the deal by offering four extra Mi-28 attack helicopters, the source told Vedomosti. An Iraqi MP reported similar terms last week to Russian news agency RIA Novosti. Ali al-Sha'la from al-Maliki’s Rule of Law coalition said the new deal covers more advanced technology, including aircraft weapons and instruments that will beef up Iraq’s air capabilities.

Compare to arms deals with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait

n a deal that was announced in Washington on Christmas Eve, the Americans are shipping US $60 billion worth of fighter jets, helicopters and upgrades to the Saudis.

Just five days later the Pentagon announced another deal to sell missiles and related technology worth $3.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE package includes an anti-ballistic missile system called THAAD which is designed to destroy missiles both within and beyond the earth's atmosphere.

This marks the first time this highly sophisticated system has been sold outside America.

Washington has also approved plans to sell over 200 Patriot missiles to Kuwait.

And as the US and its Gulf allies continue to shore up defensive preparedness in the face of threats from Iran, pressure is growing on the smaller Gulf states to consider throwing in their military capabilities with the Saudis.

...

Still behind the scenes there are signs pressure from Washington is growing to bring together the military capabilities of the Gulf states.

In response to a question at a press briefing on the Saudi sale on 29 December state department Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro came close to endorsing a unified military force.

"We are interested in working with all the gulf nations in developing a regional security architecture that will enable them to meet the challenges and threats posed in the region," he said.

Although he refused to be drawn on whether the Saudi sale was aimed at containing Iran, Mr Shapiro spoke of "sending a strong message that the United States is committed to security in the Gulf and broader Middle East".

Jeremy Binnie of Jane's says that with tensions rising the most that the Americans can hope to achieve is to "co-ordinate local militaries in the event that hostilities with Iran look likely".

Given the current level of distrust between the other Gulf states and the Saudis, even that could prove a challenge.

So the cold war has morphed into three way billiard with Iran now.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 2 2013 12:46 utc | 1

It will be like the Syrian rebels: the rule is light arms only. Israel says no.

Or they might use the arms on the Kurds, another Washington favourite.

It is not really significant that those heavy weapons are being sold to the Saudis. Their military are unable to use the hi-tech they paid for.

Posted by: alexno | Nov 2 2013 13:36 utc | 2

Well, there is talk about the Shi'ite militias reviving, and they of course would be armed aplenty by ... ahem... AP story here.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Nov 2 2013 13:41 utc | 3

Given his authoritarian duplicity, there is no reason to trust him with even more arms unless he adopts a more inclusive approach to governing and ensures that next April’s election will be fair and democratic.

Well color me shocked that the Zionist US would continue on its Zionist program of destabilizing the Mideast by having its Zionist mouthpieces such as the Zionist NYT continue to call for the continuation of the implementation of Zionist balkanization strategies going back decades such as the Yinon Plan and the more current Reimagining of the Middle East put forth by Zionist think tanks.

But I'm sure to be corrected by some posters here who will tell us that NO ONE - and certainly not said Zionists - would have/could have ever DREAMED of Iraq turning into the sorry - sniffle - "state" (nudge wink) that it is today, right? It was all just a big clusterf*ck that - oops - just happened to break the Zionist way once again. And I thought it was the Irish who were supposed to be lucky....

Take it away, boyZ....

Posted by: JSorrentine | Nov 2 2013 17:11 utc | 4

Given the appalling damage done to Irak cynically, viciously, with malice and with forethought, by the Government and people of the USA together with their allies in invading and occupying the country it takes deliberate and wanton dishonesty to write such editorials, and deliberate and wanton ignorance to believe them.

Dubhaltach

Posted by: Dubhaltach | Nov 2 2013 17:12 utc | 5

I'm surprised we haven't heard some US spokesfreak tell us there is no need for American responsibility because "the destruction was mutual".

During a recent visit to Vietnam, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen pointedly refused to apologize for the U.S. military action there, explaining, as he put it, ``Both nations were scarred by this. They [the Vietnamese] have their own scars from the war. We certainly have ours.''

Cohen's words echo those of President Carter, who in 1977 refused to normalize relations with Vietnam because, in his words, ``the destruction was mutual.''

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 2 2013 17:55 utc | 6

The latest investigation into the cost of the Iraq war in human lives puts the number of dead at 460,000.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 2 2013 18:03 utc | 7

A few more, and we can give Dick Cheney a medal. The Order of Hell on Earth, with fig leaves.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Nov 2 2013 20:17 utc | 8

Good to see that MoA posted on today's NYT editorial, which was truly appalling. I've been reading the Gray Lady for decades and my sense is that occasionally she swaps unsigned editorial space to various factions in the think tank/government sphere to curry favor or settle scores. Even though the main foreign affairs editorial writer, David Unger, is no Neocon (he was a student of Walter LaFerber), today's editorial, which discusses Al Qaeda's reanimation in Iraq in terms of al-Maliki not being inclusive enough in doling out patronage, perfectly annunciates Rowan Berkeley's mantra: Al Qaeda is a Western/GCC/Israeli construct designed to maintain the status quo of perpetual war.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Nov 2 2013 22:00 utc | 9

"Al Qaeda is a Western/GCC/Israeli construct designed to maintain the status quo of perpetual war."

Well, better late than never. I guess you wrestled with own thought vs. patriotism to the very end.

Former UK minister of defense Robin Cook 2005 said:

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."

Shortly afterwards he died. Coincidence or Vendetta?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Nov 2 2013 23:58 utc | 10

"It really needs very shallow minds and a lot of chutzpa to write such editorials without collapsing from some major cognitive disorder and dissonance."

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understan it. Therefore the intellectual level of the propaganda must be the lower, the lager the the number of people who are to be influenced by it. (p. 197)

Through clever and consonat application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as pradise. (p. 376)

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

On intellectual and practial level, after more than seven decades of historical distance, there is no difference between NYT (and those behind NYT) and quoted text from Mein Kampf.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/
1. October Was Iraq's Deadliest Month In Over 5 Years

Posted by: neretva'43 | Nov 3 2013 2:50 utc | 11

NYT's revised Pottery Barn rule: "We broke it. Tough luck! You own it."

Posted by: JohnH | Nov 3 2013 3:22 utc | 12

@neretva'43: I might be mistaken, but I believe that Robin Cook held the posts of Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons before he resigned, but I am unaware that he was ever Minister of Defense. If you could provide a source for the quote you provided, it would be appreciated.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 3 2013 4:08 utc | 13

I Googled the quote you provided and it came up on several sites, few of which I would describe as reputable, and it was attributed to a different person on nearly every one of them.

I am not defending the existence or non-existence of al Qaeda, mind you. Whether they exist or not as an organization is immaterial to me since they are obviously used as a bugbear to push forward shaky US foreign policy in any event. I am merely humbly suggesting that the case you make for your argument does not lead inexorably to the Q.E.D. that you might have hoped for.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 3 2013 4:24 utc | 14

@42 + 43

Monolycus, you can find the quote from a very reputable source here. look near the end of the article.

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/the-imperial-anatomy-of-al-qaeda-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drug-running-terrorists-and-the-%E2%80%9Carc-of-crisis%E2%80%9D/

Posted by: too many wtf | Nov 3 2013 5:23 utc | 15

@ Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 3, 2013 12:08:44 AM | 12

You're correct, Cook was never Minister of Defense or even a Minister in the MOD. Neither a google site search nor a direct search of Hansard - House of Commons debates - UK Parliament turns up the phrase attributed to Cook:

" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan etc ....

This doesn't mean he didn't say it but it does mean that he most almost certainly didn't say it in during a parliamentary debate.

Dubhaltach

Posted by: Dubhaltach | Nov 3 2013 7:58 utc | 16

@too many wtf #14 and Dubhaltach #15: Thank you both very much.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 3 2013 9:26 utc | 17

@neretva'43 [10]: I haven't found any reference to this alleged statement on Handard's, nor seems to be there any other reliable source except WMR and the like. Have you got one?

Posted by: g_h | Nov 3 2013 9:44 utc | 18

Here is an article by Robin Cook which at least contains the "database" reference:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Nov 3 2013 11:18 utc | 19

Of course, the late Robin Cook was Minister of Foreign Affairs. What is said is even more devastating for the neo-cons and politics of fear than origin of al-Qaeda.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

The above quote had been said by a French officer Maj. Pierre-Henry Bunel and his detailed recollection of the origin of al-Qaeda, another victim of a far reaching neo-cons.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738

More likely than not al-Qaeda is an invention of Team B, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B, and similarly minded people, which all this take me to Mein Kampf and Große Lüge:

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore the intellectual level of the propaganda must be the lower, the lager the the number of people who are to be influenced by it. (p. 197)

Through clever and consonant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. (p. 376)

Posted by: neretva'43 | Nov 3 2013 11:23 utc | 20

While I am at Team B or Committee on the Present Danger last night I was reading this:

Operation Able Art: How a 1983 American-NATO war game came close to provoking the Soviet Union into launching a nuclear attack

This isn't something new at all, and this text suffer from a semi-truth and lies by omission which is to expected from the Guardian. Putted in to the context with al-Qeada narrative one clearly see a geneses of the U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/
1. October Was Iraq's Deadliest Month In Over 5 Years

Posted by: neretva'43 | Nov 3 2013 11:53 utc | 21

Kerry describes the divergence with KSA as purely "tactical". His goal is still "regime change". Why the hell going to Geneva II, then?

Posted by: Mina | Nov 4 2013 11:33 utc | 22

Forgot the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-plays-down-tactics-differences-syria-144008470.html

Posted by: Mina | Nov 4 2013 16:53 utc | 23