IRAQ'S prime minister is feeling a backlash over a bitter fight he picked with Syria, which he accuses of harboring Saddam Hussein loyalists suspected in deadly bombings in Baghdad. Critics say he just wants to divert attention from his own government's security failures. Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, a Shiite, is trying to shore up his position ahead of January parliamentary elections after the increase in violence in recent months deeply hurt his security credentials and after the Shiite coalition that once backed him split. But the spat with Syria has only isolated him among Iraqi politicians. It also could set back US efforts to improve Iraq's relations with its Arab neighbors and normalize its own ties with Syria after years of tension. Significantly, the United States, which has 130,000 troops in Iraq, has remained largely silent about Al-Maliki's accusations. That, say analysts, could suggest that it too does not fully support the charges or his handling of the dispute. Another explanation for US wariness is that it does not want to appear to be meddling in Iraqi affairs after Al-Maliki was angered when the Obama administration sent officials to Syria last month to discuss security on the Iraq border without inviting the Iraqis. Al-Maliki has blamed two Syria-based senior members of Saddam's now-outlawed Baath Party, along with Al-Qaeda, for planning massive bombings on Aug. 19 in Baghdad that killed more than 100 people. Syria says the Iraqi government has failed to provide proof, rejecting its requests for their extradition. A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Stephen Lanza, said the attacks bore the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda, but declined to be drawn into whether Syrian-based Baathists were also involved. Michael W. Hanna, an expert with the Century Foundation in New York, argued that the Syria-Iraq tiff created a “less than ideal” situation for the United States. He also held out the possibility, however, that Washington's reluctance to speak publicly on the Syria-Iraq dispute may have been out of a desire to avoid the appearance of meddling in Iraqi affairs. Many Baath loyalists fled to Syria after the 2003 fall of Saddam, including several who are widely thought to be financing or planning attacks in Iraq. The US and Iraq have long accused Damascus of not doing enough to prevent them and Al-Qaeda militants from crossing the border to carry out attacks in Iraq. Ties had markedly improved between Baghdad and Damascus over the past year. But with Al-Maliki's accusations, they quickly fell apart again. The two countries, which had until Saddam's ouster been ruled by rival factions of Baath, withdrew their ambassadors and Iraq stepped up security on its porous border with Syria. The bombings took place a day after Al-Maliki returned from a visit to Damascus during which he gave the Syrians a list of Iraqis wanted in connection with violence. An Al-Qaeda in Iraq front group claimed responsibility for the attacks, while a Syria-based faction of the Iraqi Baath party denounced the bombings Al-Maliki may have calculated that turning up the heat on Syria – usually a safe political bet, especially among his Shiite constituents — would boost his weakening chances of retaining his position in the parliamentary election. Last month's attacks discredited his claims that Iraqi forces were capable of handling security after US forces pulled out of Iraqi cities in June. Increasing violence has undermined his carefully manufactured image as the leader who oversaw the insurgency's defeat. Now his rivals may be taking his spat with Syria as a further opportunity to erode his standing. Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi issued a statement this past week pointedly saying that blaming others for failures while taking credit for successes was not the ideal way to deal with Iraq's problems.
