Who's in charge?

This just out/in from Truthout.org:

http://www.truthout.org/article/maliki-concedes-no-us-withdrawal-deadline

Agence France-Presse reports on the latest agreement between US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: "The talks have sputtered over the Baghdad government's demands for a timetable for US troops to withdraw as well as Washington's demands that its soldiers and other staff be immune from Iraqi prosecution."

The fact is--and I hope they know it--the Iraqi government, such as it is, is in control of this Administration, this government, and this nation. Look at the facts: the Bush Administration needs this "government", if that's what it is, to do some things, like form itself, take over it's policing and its military, etc. It needs to be in control. It needs to, figuratively, "step up to the plate". It needs to take control of its borders and its people. So, if it does that, and if it rules and if it controls itself, it also controls what goes on inside its borders, as it should be. That's what governments are for. That's what governments are supposed to do.

But, in the meantime, this pesky US government is trying to tell it what to do inside those same borders. And the fact is, to be a government and to do what it is to do--what it wants to do--to be a Democracy, it doesn't have to be, it shouldn't have to be dictated from the outside, in this case, from the US, about what it's supposed to do.

So here's our problem: we invaded Iraq to "give them" Democracy, with a capital "D". Right. So now they're getting it, and they're exercising their power--or trying to--and what if they don't do what we want them to? What if they want to "zig" when we want them to "zag"?

Dammit, what if they want to be independent of us?

Not a very good return on your investment, is it, W?