Funny kind of a last line, this:
When the American ambassador, Christopher R. Hill [above] went to [Iraqi] Parliament on Sunday to lobby for a resolution over the election law, some deputies demanded he be barred from the building.
Barred from entering the building? That's pretty shoddy status for an "ally." You'd think it would rate a higher level of attention. But no. Last line it is of a NYT rumination on Iraqis' failure to meet benchmarks in Iraq even as the Obama administration prepares to declare benchmarks for Afghanistan.
Still, this colossal rebuff didn't esape notice by our other "allies" in the region.
Emirates News Agency picked up on coverage in a UAE paper:
When US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher R. Hill, went to the Iraqi parliament on Nov.22 to lobby for a compromise in an impasse over a new election law, some members of the assembly demanded that he should not allowed to enter the building, commented a UAE paper.
"So much for the once-dominant American influence in Baghdad. It also reflects the reality that Washington is nowhere near the "strategic" objectives of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. If anything, Iraq would continue to be a thorn on the American side and pose a challenge to American interests in the region even after the promised US military withdrawal from that country in 2011, opined Sharjah-based English language "Gulf Today" in its today's editorial ....
And what were those strategic objectives again?