“There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin,” Maliki told reporters.

Now, that is a touché–to imply that a liberal Democratic senator is acting in imperialistic and condescending fashion.

Maliki has a point, of course. If you believe in constitutional government, it is a case of the genie already out of the bottle. He was chosen through a representative process and has every right as the head of a sovereign government to do as he pleases. The United States does not have a good record in trying to remove supposed allied leaders– as we know from the early days of Vietnam with Kennedy’s 1963 ouster of Diem. Any good that comes from trying to find a more “reasonable” leader is vastly overshadowed by the hypocrisy of undermining an indigenous official, one in this case who is also a product of a new democracy.

The better response is, of course, to let the Iraqis decide who they want to lead them, and then make an adjustment on our part to what degree we wish to support them. Hamas is a good example. We let the Palestinians chose their government; they wanted Hamas. We chose not to subsidize it, and they can live with their anger and lack of cash aid. In the case of Iraq, however, three points need to be considered. One, the government in sectarian torn Iraq does not succeed or fail on the basis on one man, and it is unclear to what degree Maliki really is in control of all events.

Two, reform works both upward and downward; if local tribesmen are helping to take the community back in their own hands, then that in itself forms a powerful catalyst for change, perhaps as significant as reshuffling of personnel at the top. Gen. Petraeus, no doubt would like a broad strong government whose professionalism would restore basic services, and gain allegiance of the people and make his task far easier. But barring that, his own efforts at securing neighborhoods and protecting local councils might have a grassroots effect that is just as important.

Three, Iraqi Shiite leaders have gotten the message already; they know now they if they don’t start governing responsibly, U.S. public support for our blood and treasure spent there evaporates.

All that is unclear is the degree to which some in Iraq want to appear vexing to the Americans, so that we will leave–and Iran then fills the void. So it takes a deft touch to prod Maliki without humiliating a proud democratic leader to the point of joining Iranian theocrats. Our diplomats and officers in Iraq seem to know that and appear able to walk that tight rope.