Bush/Shiites vs. Baker/Saudis?
In my article today at Salon.com, "Will Bush choose his new friends over his old? points out that "The president's Shiite allies in Iraq really don't like some of James Baker's Sunni-friendly suggestions."
By the time the Iraq Study Group report was released, everyone seemed to have forgotten about the previous week of diplomacy between Bush and the two leading Shiite politicians in Iraq. I argue that Bush's Shiite clients contribute to his policy-making.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/08/2006 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
Prof. Cole,
When you claim that Shi'ites influence Bush's decision-making, if you're being serious, you need to give at least some circumstantial evidence. Do you have any? Couldn't his interests be more in line with whoever can provide "stability"?
Do you really think Bush gives a damn about Shi'ites or any Arabs for that matter? From his administration's actions, we can guess that he cares about a good investment climate and the ability of oil multinationals to repatriate 100% of profits on Iraqi oil, and if a Sunni strongman could give that to him, don't you think he'd back such an individual in a second?
The ISG debate in the USA is too self obsessed.
1) The regional "solution" involving Iran and Syria has been under way for about a year now, and the USA is not even invited, so Bush's conditions are surreal. Iran and Syria rightly feared a pro-US, unti-them, Iraqi regime which is clearly not going to happen now.
2) The troops will leave by 2008 no matter what Bush wants. Neither party is going into the campaign calling for troops presence. He can prolong the agony and add to the waste of lives but reality has already won.
The real tests now are for Maliki. Would he be able to dump the Turbans and crooks in his reshuffle? Will the promised Iraqi plan for Baghdad work? What happens in Washington is increasingly less important, as the ISG report says.
The US embeds in Iraqi units are very important, but not for training. They are there to check on the Iraqi troops and report back any secterian crimes or disobediance.
Dr. Watson Call
Will the Dr. Watsons out there help Sherlock Cole round up the ISG recommendations that didn't make it to consensus, and thus were not included?
Possibly, there might have been some useful ideas in the ones that didn't meet the lowest common denominator test?
BBC reports that US forces killed 18 al Qaeda insurgents (though the reporter pointed out in the past, subsequent investigation revealed at least some of the dead were civilians and the US military had bad intelligence)
Barzani has rejected the Baker plan, disliking both the oil revenues going to a central government and the Iraqi Army being improved to the point of taking out rogue militias (Pesh Merga?)
Supposedly GWB has given the Baker report intense and extensive scrutiny, having spent all of 3.5 hours with its members over several meetings or about 45 minutes per meeting. (ADHD statesmanship?)
At this point, (along with Baker's plaintive cry that the plan wasn't a fruit salad,), it appears GWB will adopt a couple of points and ignore the rest of the plan (damn the diplomacy and full speed ahead)because he is still laboring under the delusion that there is some way for the US to "win". This is more a game of Foosball to GWB than an actual war.
Olmert yesterday assured several members of his government that GWB told him last week not to worry about the Baker Report. GWB has no intention of following any recommendation that endangers or hinders any Israeli plan or goal and the Baker Report was solely for domestic comsumption. (So it really is a fruit salad, albeit a kosher one)
Of course Bush wants to be friends with the Shia as that's the only way he can accomplish the invasion's mission: The control over Iraq's oil. They constitute the majority who have it in their power to sell out their country and deliver Bush his invasion goals. Will this happen?
On the ISG, the report is wholly dishonest as it cannot say why we invaded nor admit the wholesale violation of fundamental human rights laws and our constitution. But there's no way any solution can be found for an innacurately articulated problem. So as many fortold, the ISG paper is a dead letter; just another means to stay the course and win control of the oil we're so addicted to.
Iraq is a massive crime; yet, the ciminals are still being allowed to exploit their criminality. The only solution that saves lives is to arrest the ciminals and remove their goon squads from the scene of the crime ASAP. War is a Racket, and this one sure proves that axiom.
Bush seems to have done himself no favours with reaching out to his so-called "Shi'a counterparts" after the memo leak with reference to the official view of the surprisingly less than 'monotone' White House regarding PM Nouri al-Maliki.
As for Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the biggest representative block of the current government, and his relations with Mr. Bush - they seem to have a common enemy in the Wahhabi Al-Qaeda faction in Iraq which is a part of the Sunni population but not fully representative of it. However as for the current status quo and what the two make of it, there appears to be a clear rift. Sayyed al-Hakim in his most recent visit to the White House clearly stated that depicting the current conflict in Iraq as a "sectarian" one would be a "distortion". On his part, Mr. Bush did not exactly wait for any invitations during his recent meeting with Mr. Blair to sing the sectarian conflict opera to the press.
Abdul Aziz and his links to Iran are not breaking news by any stretch; and his continual emphasis on Iraq's "friends" - other than the US - during his recent visit were surely not missed by the officials in the Pentagon. Further, the finger pointing on the killers of his, i.e. Abdul Aziz's elder brother, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, have yet to absolve the 'occupation' of responsibility. Just a point worth noting!
Finally, the US administration has its stronghold with "Sunni" puppet-leaders across the Middle East, literally everyone apart from Allawi Asad, Shi'ite Ahmadinejad and of course, Zionist Olmert who seems to have more trust in AIPAC than the US government in the successful resolution of the Palestine issue. Hezbollah, a Shi'ite part, and its clear anti-US stance have pretty much reshaped the "axis of the New Middle East." The continual suppression of Shi'as in Bahrain, Kuwait and the US's life time ally, Saudi Arabia, are documented quite extensively by political analysts and even human rights organisations. I don't think Bush's allegiances will be swerved by a Shi'ite anomaly in Iraq which is increasingly becoming unstable as the days pass - that incidentally means having a different view from that of the White House.
See the lame ruptured duck, Deputy Dubya Bush, do the "Funky Chicken" endlessly moonwalking backwards over the same ground on his way to his "vision" of Mars.
Hear his influence-peddling advisor, Henry Kissinger, lament that our friends will lose their "confidence" and our enemies will lose their "fear" if Deputy Dubya, "the leader of the free world," doesn't resolutely continue behaving in this ludicrous fashion, all the while "steadfastly" shitting blood and billions like bird diarrhea from an incontinent idiot ostrich.
Observe both our "friends" and "enemies" protest vehemently that Henry Kissinger insults their good sense and intelligence by supposing them as stupid and blind as him.
Post a Comment
<< Home