Iraq & Annapolis
Not having the time or energy this late in the day to apply the appropriate research and rigor to this question, I’ll jot some impressions.
I note that Saudi Arabia and Syria are suddenly sipping tea with our tinpot comandante at the Naval Academy. Of course, the designated Palestinian sellout is along, as is the tainted Israeli PM. What has driven this sudden interest in Palestine?
The way to answer that is to get at the larger context, methinks.
If you listen to the media hype, The Surge has worked, and Baghdad as well as Anbar have been pacified. In fact, what happened is more complex and it has everything to do with what we are seeing in Annapolis right now. The US and Israel are confabbing with the region’s Sunni leaders.
The US local goal has remained unchanged in Iraq, so the verdict on success or failure is not in. Permanent bases. But the larger strategic war is already lost. In the last few days, even moreso.
The Surge did not pacify Anbar; the US ceded Anbar to the resistance, which has been waging war against the Whabbist in their midst for more than two years. This is an alliance of convenience, taking the pressure off the US to try and retain its foothold in the Green Zone, and letting the Sunni nationalists of Anbar shoot al Qaeda in Iraq (not an actual organization, but a decentralized movement).
Nor did The Surge pacify Baghdad. It’s initial goal was to break the Sadrist Mahdi Army, but US ally Maliki depends on Muqutada al Sadr for his tenuous power in the so-called Iraqi government. When the surge tropops arrived, the Mahdi largely went home, and Maliki dragged his feet on the multiple US calls to attack them. So the surge turned against the tiny enclave of Sunni militia in Baghdad, ably assisted by the death squads of the Badr Army, the militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revoltuion in Iraq (SCIRI)… the largest bloc in parliament. Much of the “peace” in Baghdad is the result of a succesful ethnic cleansing campaign conducted against Sunnis with American assistance.
Sadr, who has consistently called for pan-Iraqi unity against the occupation, and who has repeatedly punished Maliki for cooperation with the US, is the Shia counterpoint to the pro-Iranian SCIRI leader Hakkim (who, with Maliki, wants a federated Iraq that squeezes the former-ruling Sunnis out of future power).
The dilemma for the US has been that the whole situation has vastly amplified Iran’s influence in the region, threatening to displace Saudi Arabia as the pivotal regional actor on the global stage. So the US is allied in Iraq with Kurds who want independence, with Sunni guerrillas who were shooting at the US last year (and will commence again once the Wahhabists are dealt with), and with Iranian-trained and backed Badr militamen.
I have said from the start that the smartest guy in Iraq (yes, he is ruthless, too) is Muqutada al Sadr. No, he is not pro-Iranian in any menaingful way, as Hakkim is.
Sadr has whispered in Maliki’s ear that the US is arming and training the Sunnis to the north (which is true). But when we read Sami Moubayed’s article today at Asia Times, we see that Sadr has just thrown a fresh monkeywrench into the political works (How’s that for OODA looping?)
Sadr’s parliamentary partisan Bahaa al-Araji just reversed every intransigent unified-Iraq positon of the Sadrists over the last four years that he would not oppose oil-rich Kirkuk’s inclusion in Iraqi Kurdistan.
This has the potential to consolidate a Shia-Kurd bloc in Iraqi politics that will simultaneously consolidate the entrenchment of pro-Iranians in the goernment and armed forces, as well as quickly enlist thousands of Sadrists in the Iraq Army.
Iran is surely smiling. The irony is that this will turn into a temporary political win for the Bush administration, because their “pick” Mailiki will no longer be faced with weekly destabilizations by Sadr. The losers are the Sunnis; and the Americans can hardly speak publicly against Iraqi’s Kurds who have been US paladins throughout the war.
No one is smiling in Riyadh, in Damascus, in Ankara, or in Tel Aviv.
Kaveh Afrasiabi points out that the unstated objective of the Annapolis meeting is “containment of Iran.”
It remains to be seen whether this is as delusional as most US formulas have been for Palestine.
Michael Hureaux:
Dear Stan;
Many thanks for this little dash of irony here. It’s certainly been hard to tell what’s going on, all of a sudden everything’s coming up roses again. And while that’s hardly possible given the destruction we’ve been visiting over there for close to five years now, the media is merrily dishing out the party line, and all too many sections of the so-called left are gobbling it up. Check out many of the foolasses at Common Dreams, for example.
So here we go again. Yet more time to spend on the merry-go-round with the “democrats”, apparently, and more time spent spinning our wheels, petitioning and wheedling people who are dangerously close to cutting our throats, given their ready propensity to kill with tasers these days. What a decadent ball of cowardly shit this country is becoming, and way too fast.
I’m damn glad I’ve started playing music again, trying to communicate with most people on these issues these days is getting to be a tragedy of terrors. But on we go, na?
Thanks for all your hard work and hard hitting commentary.—MH
28 November 2007, 7:38 pmRhisiart Gwilym:
Yes, thanks for the clarification, Stan. I was having difficulty working our what’s really going on behind the Permanent Bullshit Blizzard.
29 November 2007, 5:53 amJim:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18808.htm
Terror is a tactic
Interview with Nir Rosen
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12059
Arms expert Scott Ritter says the U.S. plans to attack Iran. MT asks why he’s so sure
1 December 2007, 4:04 pmSusan:
Rep. Murtha mentioned in an interview with Wolf Blitzer that Iraq’s leader was not present in Annapolis this past week. Is that a little concerning since Iran and Iraq borders meet? Isn’t Iraq a part of the Middle East? Why haven’t the press asked the same questions to our president or Sec. State?
2 December 2007, 12:45 pmLegume Sam:
It’s not the 51st state?
2 December 2007, 3:02 pmTomThumb:
I am suspicious that part of the bargain the US has struck to calm the Sunni’s down is to strike Iran and set them back not just “nukularly” but totally X number of years. After all, since the US took out Saddam Hussein, Iran will be the major power after the US leaves and everyone in the region knows it will despite what the administration is saying. Just a matter of time.
Also, I think Cheney and his buds still hold a grudge over the Iran hostage crisis (1979-81). These mean, bitter old white guys don’t forget and they are like a dog with a bone.
As for Annapolis, window dressing. Clinton had one of these deals at the end of his term and Bush made fun of him after, now he is doing the same thing.
There was an old Palestinian who owned a store down the road from where I use to live in the late 80’s.
I remember asking him about some peace process they had going on back them. He replied, “Yea, they want another piece.”
Noam Chomsky has done many analysis on the happenings between Israel and the Palestinians over a number of decades. The story is always the same. Israel takes more land. The unwavering commitment on the part of Israel to completely take the West Bank has been made privately by just about every Israeli Prime Minister and other prominent minister, whether Labor or Likud, including Rabin, Moshe Dyan, and Menachem Begin. Moshe Dyan said after the ‘67 war. “Why don’t we just tell them (Palestinians) that those who will leave will leave and the rest will live like dogs.” That was in the late 60’s. One might argue they have sunk beneath that level now.
Menachem Begin stated that the fact was clear that Israel was born a a result of colonialism. In that context he meant that they only originally acquired the land because the British took it and gave it to them and they had taken more. In other words they were only in the business of taking, not giving.
So, there will be some back and forth. Maybe a meaningless agreement that won’t be enforced, or disregarded. Or Bush can come back and say he tried, “but you just can’t get them fellers chewing on the same piece of jerky” or some other nonsense.
Besides Olmert is too weak a PM to sell any real concessions to the hardliners.
However there are some bright spots. At one time the Israeli’s were discussing taking a chunk of Lebanon too. Think they have given up on that. They also seem to have come to the conclusion that Gaza is too bitter a pill to swallow.
3 December 2007, 7:58 pmAlex:
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
6 December 2007, 1:26 pm