Sadrist Crowds Denounce al-Maliki;
at Friday Prayers;
ICG: US is Creating Paramilitary Forces
Friday prayers were tumultuous in Baghdad's Sadr City on Friday, as supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr denounced Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for his brutal invasion of their township.
Turkey's bombing campaign on Friday against the Kurdish Workers' Party guerrillas hiding out in northern Iraq caused the price of oil to rally on Friday. Speculation on oil futures is probably responsible for 10 to 15 percent of the price of petroleum.
John McCain seems to think our young men and women are fighting in Iraq because of America's dependence on foreign petroleum: ""My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East. . ."
Well, d'oh.
Kellog, Brown and Root tripled earnings in the first quarter of this year, in part on the Iraq War. The business of America is business. And the business of some big businesses is war.
The International Crisis Group warns that the Bush administration has milked the surge for about everything they can hope to get out of it. But now what? It warns:
' The US policy, it says, is bolstering a set of local actors operating beyond the state's realm or the rule of law and who impose their authority by force of arms. . . "None of these points to progress toward a fully inclusive political process" . . . '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/03/2008 10:29:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
13 Comments:
Is the New Labour show over?
Now, after the disastrous May local elections, New Labour finds itself exactly in the same position Tories were just a few years ago. The most reasonable conclusion of this is that the show called Blairism is basically over. Not that I have a single tear to drop about it, memories of Blair's pro-war rhetorics are all too live.
Apparently, what happens in the UK is that the ideological house of cards built by Blair collapses. As a result, those repelled by Blair's European flavour of neoconservatism, turn to libdems. From the other side, those on the right who got seduced by Blair's personal charisma, turn to Cameron's Tories 2.0.
In the US, the more Clintons lament about Bush inflicted wounds, the more the left wants just to stay at home. As for the right, deceptive poll numbers aside, there is little doubt that, in the end, they will perfectly find their place in MacCain's nest.
Now the main question is, will dems notice that the ill fate of New Labour tells quite a lot about the future of its ideological twin - Clintonism? As for Clintons themselves, it is hard to have any illusions about them, these people know exactly what they are doing.
"Kellog, Brown and Root tripled earnings in the first quarter of this year, in part on the Iraq War. The business of America is business. And the business of some big businesses is war."
Before the war, KBR was in, or about to be in... receivership... Bankrupt.
Must be that 'windfall' thang.
McCain's website doesn't have an issues page on Energy Policy. His Iraq Policy page says "The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located"
In the October 9, 2007 debate McCain said,"it's also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events, bully their neighbors and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation's national security."
No Blood for Oil!
ref Andrew Cockburn : “Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran - Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops”
=> "Widens War" (?) ...what War? . . .the War of Words?
“Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret ‘finding’ authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents... covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials.”
“This widened scope clears the way, for example, [for example? is this an opinion?] for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group... Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah... the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border... Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice [more opinion?] include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.”
“All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress... An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of ‘the finding’ has been swiftly approved [again, no references provided] with bipartisan support... ”
Mr. Cockburn cites no sources ~ and it is difficult to tell when he is reporting (anything other than hearsay), or expressing his opinion. Were he known as a right wingnut blogger, we would write him off as just another sabre-rattler in the faux news / Talking Points echo chamber. As he appears to present himself more as a left wingnut blogger, Mr. Cockburn here, in my opinion: comes off as either an inadequate 'journalist' (of a damn important story), or as a naive dupe in this Administration's relentless campaign to represent IRAN as a reasonable war-making cause célèbre, without any real casus belli ~ other than the fact that IRAN is a regional rival to the US, the Sunni Arab States, and ISRAEL ~ rather than being our most effective, Shi'ite ally against criminal, Sunni extremists = al-Qaeda.
It seems that you can summarize the surge policy as follows:
a) Increase the number of troops, thus avoid Baker-Hamilton recommendation
b) Let Iraq segregate along ethnic lines, thus minimizing ethnic violence
c) Either avoid or keep the newly arrived soldiers away from conflicts, thus lowering casualties.
At this point you have lower casualties and lessened the ethnic violence. For the first time since the Mission Accomplished you can claim military solution is possible.
Next you go back on offensive, as result all of the "gains" of the surge would reverse. But not you blame Iran for it. You put the New Times's Michael Gordon back on payroll to put out his articles: Like This
If your goal is to bring stability, of course this will all fail. But if your goal is to start wars, "the surge" seem to work.
That's Gratitude For Ya!
Iraq: U.S. has no claim to oil boom
'America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq,' Baghdad official says
.
"None of these points to progress toward a fully inclusive political process", says Peter Harling, Crisis Group's Iraq, Syria and Lebanon Project Director. "The US now seems intent on militarily defeating insurgents who, although they express deep misgivings about the current political system, are eager for genuine negotiations".
The above helps to illustrate that someone can be several orders of magnitude smarter, and more knowledgeable, than me,
and still not understand the only possible way that the US can achieve success in Iraq.
The only enduring order and stability will come
when the US finally relents
and allows the authentic, indigenous local leaders of small, discrete communities take control of -
and be responsible for the security of -
their own local communities.
Any progress toward a fully inclusive political process
has to include these guys.
We have established a new order, from the top down.
We have instituted a new Iraqi Government.
We have conducted elections,
and when we didn't like the results,
we told the quislings in the Green Zone who to select as their new Prime Minister.
In all of history,
what government imposed by the colonial empire endured one day after the colonial yoke was removed ?
..........................
Eventually,
lasting security, stability and order will come to Iraq.
USA and Iran can influence what happens,
but Iraqis will make the final decisions on how that comes about.
The lasting order will come about from the bottom up.
It will start with the foundation of all Iraqi social order,
the Iraqi family,
whatever you choose to call it,
the tribe,
and build up from there.
Those "warlords" and "Shaykhs" and "militia leaders" who get our government's disparagement,
they are Iraq's future.
And the al-Maliki ad-Dawa is just one more of those ethno-sectarian-familial identity groups in the mix.
Iraqis at large do not accept
the US decision that his faction has primacy.
Once small, discrete communities are secure and stable to the point that kids can safely go to school,
and Moms to the market,
and Dads to jobs,
then it will be possible to build stable larger communities,
like cities, and then Governates.
The leaders of these insurgent groups that are eager for negotiations,
they will only play when they believe the playing field is level.
The occupation has a thumb on the scale right now.
How does that facilitate reconciliation ?
.................
oops. I also have to challenge the notion that Petraeus,
with no combat experience and no counterinsurgency experience,
is any kind of expert on counterinsurgency.
There is no place for 200# HE MLRS warheads in counterinsurgency ops.
Read the manual he supposedly wrote.
Today we hit one of only 2 hospitals in Sadr City with MLRS.
Forget the constraints of the Geneva Conventions.
Even in the most Machiavellian interpretation of 4th Gen Warfare and Centers of Gravity,
we don't win any hearts or minds by attacking hospitals.
For the Petraeus spokesman to protest that its the evildoers' fault,
because they operate in proximity to sensitive targets,
and among the civilian population,
that just shows the extent to which Petraeus doesn't understand counterinsurgency,
which Bush says he is the expert at.
the Avid Student
.
Any thoughts on Charlie Rose's interview of Meghan O'Sullivan last night, Juan? She seemed rather convinced of the Maliki 'government' being the agent of progress toward something desirable, though. And took the line that the JAM is the Iranian cat's paw in Iraq, not the Badristas.
Obama believers seem to be clutching at every reed at this point, including bad analogy. It seems that the worse the national condition and prospects, the less average people see reason to vote Obama for 'hope' that means resentments, and 'change' that means elevating a slew of cynical young careerists. Granted, their ideas are attractive, but they are about dealing with the appearances and surfaces of the realities that matter rather than the realities themselves. And worse, they are people who aren't really willing to sacrifice themselves for their purported policy goals. Better to expend all the old but successful sorts on the problems that arise from a past not quite past. And vote the younger set in when the residua of the past are broken down.
Say all the bad things about the Clintons that you will, and in bitter denialism claim all those things that you can't honestly believe about them without being written off as reality-devoid idiot, but they know this Cold War residual fallout stuff. Iraq is a mix of a Somalia-type debacle at creating a sovereign state on American terms (rather than the locals') and a Yugoslav-type obligation toward the civilian population.
Jerome Armstrong writes (over on MyDD) that he thinks better of Gordon Brown than most- but that beyond Brown, Labour simply is "tired" and has no vigorous ideas or leaders. I do hope Brown withdraws Britain from Iraq yet, but that will apparently only be if and when the Democrat wins the US Presidential election this fall. (And if Britain fully leaves, Australia and some others will likely also go home.)
According to the SF Chronicle, Chevron reported record profits of $5.47 billion in Q1 2008. (sorry no link)
However, the article, apologistic towards the oil industry, pointed out how 'cheap' oil was in the U.S. ($3.45-don't know what station that was)and that we could expect much higher prices, e.g., in Norway they pay a U.S. dollar equivalent of $8.13 per gallon.
In the case of Saudi Arabia approx.($.47/gallon) Egypt ($.86/gallon) and Venezuela ($.12) gallon, this was explained away as largesse given to 3rd world huddled masses in an almost Kiplingesque tone. Not sensible policy but, Socialism for the masses struggling to move into 21st century consume-first, pay later society mastered in the U.S.
Next, we'll see how high prices are "good" for us since green policies will thrive. However, the article does point out that in Europe insanely long commutes are not as common as in the U.S. Combine expensive fuel plus reduced real estate and inflationary pressure due to monetary supply and it becomes a noxious brew...and the war is about protecting this valuable ordinary asset (oil) which, like artifacts in the Iraqi museum, may become priceless with increasing scarcity. With the high prices the debt may be serviced...
McCain inadvertently concedes that seizing (er, I mean liberating) Iraq's oil fields is one of the primary reasons for the invasion. His "witty" Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran parody is a disturbing story for about five minutes, then his genuine belief that so-called al-Qaeda is being trained in Iran is innocently labelled a "gaffe" by the Establishment media. The cable networks make a very brief mention of these facts then return to wall-to-wall coverage of what Barack Obama's Sunday preacher said. Not what Obama HIMSELF said, what Obama's Preacher said.
McCain has the Establishment media employees intimidated. He's no fun, in fact he's a boring prick. Obama is an easier target. Obama is a reasonable person who speaks thoughtfully and intelligently whereas McCain argues, barks and drones on in shopworn political platitudes. I've heard he's generous with the drinks and food on his tour bus and aircraft, moreso than Obama. So, the groupies/journalists/leeches hang out at McCain's place for the pizza and Tanqueray, then when they have to find something to file they head over to Obama's tent, work a new angle on the Reverend Wright story and phone it in.
Courtesy of Margaret Kimberley...
Gordon Brown: The world owes George Bush a huge debt of gratitude
'The world owes President George Bush a huge debt of gratitude for leading the world in our determination to root our terrorism... no international partnership has served the world better than the special relationship between our two countries. Following our excellent meeting I am able to report that the bond between our two countries is stronger...'
And the man was surprised when his countrymen and women beat him with a stick at the polls? I think that Inplainviewmonitor has correctly identified just what lies in store for the Clintons if they should succeed in destroying Obama's candidacy. And perhaps for Obama if they don't.
MonsieurGonzo said, and it seems to be a common opinion, "...~ other than the fact that IRAN is a regional rival to the US ...": but a quick look at a map will show that the US is on one side of the world, Iran, Iraq, Israel et al on another. Military bases and Crusader-fortress embassies don't establish residency.
ref : “Military bases and Crusader-fortress embassies don't establish residency...”
...quite true, gary; But at some scale, a ‘foreign presence’, influence apparent ~ does establish something, yes?
in my opinion, fwiw ~ the sovereign state of ‘IRAQ’ exists only on paper, not in reality; Further, i consider 'the region', ie., these (historically colonial defined, or just plain arbitrarily drawn) notions of nations ~ in this particular case, ‘IRAQ’ ~ to be dominated by two de facto Zones d'Occupation : one being that of the Americans', the other being that of the Iranians' presence, apparent ~ and in this regard, many people (including many Iraqis, themselves) do see the USA and IRAN as being "regional rivals", thus.
Post a Comment
<< Home