Using that famous neologism of Warren G. Harding, President Bush has declared that "normalcy" has returned to Iraq. Indeed, he is right. The recent period of low conflict and violence, claimed to be due to the surge by many, has now reverted to the more "normal" pattern of greater conflict and violence that we have seen over the last five years. The question arises: why on earth is the US supporting this attack by the al-Maliki government on the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose long-in-place truce has been credited by most with being a major factor in the lowered level of violence?
Juan Cole claims it is that ragamuffin madman Cheney again, whispering in al-Maliki's ear that since the Iraqis have agreed to have serious provincial eletions this fall so that the Sunnis of violent Diyala Province can get rid of their Shi'i government, al-Maliki should take the Sadrists down in Basra so that they do not take over the government there, Iraq's second largest city, and its main export point for oil. Control of oil revenues are clearly a key in this. Of course the part of this that is a big lie has been the claim that the Sadrists are allies of Iran rather than al-Maliki and his ally, al-Hakim. In fact, it is al-Hakim, leader of Iraq's largest party, whose Badr Corps militia has reputedly been the largest recipient of Iranian military aid, and who spent most of the Saddam years in Tehran, whereas al-Sadr, the nationalist, never was in Tehran ever. But, he opposes US troops being in Iraq. So, the US must have lots of troops in Iraq so that we can help defeat those who do not want us to have troops in Iraq, and so that the truly close allies of Iran can remain in control, especially of all the oil revenues from the exports out of Basra.
5 comments:
When will "Normalcy" return to the White House is of greater importance.
shag,
That's not likely to happen given the average US citizen's inclination to support deceit, deception and avarice. The fact that McCain can still have substantial Republican support, and probably that of a good many other voters, bodes ill for the future of our foreign policy activities. The media supports this Clone of Bush in the very indirect manner that it has always supported the conservative agenda,
corporatism first, l;ast and always.
The Dems don't really give us a significant likelihood of a significant change, but either is better than the worst choice. We will have some idea of the average American's view of the Iraqi debacle in November. If McCain wins there is truly little hope for any knnid of peace in the middle east, or any where for that matter. Even if his aggressive rhetoric is for the purpose of gaining greater public support, that in itself is a very dire indication of where our hearts are really at. A sound defeat of the neo-conservative agenda is required before the scum in DC understand that the American publilc is truly sick and tired of supporting a corporate global agenda.
To paraphrase Bruce Cockburn, "The trouble with normalcy is it always gets worse."
This sure looks like a civil war and we've been drawn into one side of it. It also looks like the side we are actively supporting with our troops isn't doing all that well militarily and is down right losing the hearts and minds of the public.
So, now there seems to be a new ceasefire, sort of. Most reports say that the Sadrists came out of this stronger, while the Iraqi government came out of it weaker. The Iranian government played a major role in negotiating this.
So, the question becomes, who in the US was pushing this? Juan Cole has already said it was Cheney, but the subsidiary question involves McCain. He was in Baghdad very recently also, and is now pleading ignorance. Either he is seriously ignorant (not out of the question given his repeated claims while there that Iran has been funding and training al Qaeda in Iraq, totally false), or he was part of the whispering crew that encouraged Maliki to stupidly go after al-Sadr.
Barkley
Post a Comment