Is the US About to Be Driven Out of Iraq?

A recent article by Asia Times reporter Pepe Escobar, one of the most informed and astute observers of Iraq events, analyzes some potentially momentous developments inside Iraq in the last few weeks, developments that could actually result in making the American occupation militarily and politically untenable.

Basically Escobar says recent meetings among and between Shia and Sunni groups have initiated a set of alliances that could result in a united resistance that will drastically reduce sectarian fighting (by suppressing the Sunni terrorist and the Shia death squads) and move in a coordinated way (using armed attacks and political maneuvering) toward expelling the U.S..

Here are the key elements:

First, there is a new nationalist bloc forming from those who have withdrawn from or always opposed the American backed government. It includes leaders of the Sunni resistance (including the groups that are supposed to have made an alliance with the US), Sunni parliamentary leaders (including the vice president of Iraq), Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army (the most powerful Shia faction which has always opposed the U.S. presence) and the Fadhila (the most powerful Shia group in Basra, which recently withdrew from the government). According to Escobar, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the most powerful Shia cleric, has blessed the new group.

Second, the key goals in the newly developed pact are: united efforts to expel the U.S. from Iraq, including dismantling the bases--with explicit endorsement of armed resistance if the U.S. does not agree to leave; an arms length relationship with Iran; no division of the country into autonomous regions; and no tolerance of jihadist groups that attack Iraqi civilians or death squads, or any armed forces attacking Iraqi civilians.

Third, the various Sunni resistance groups are now negotiating alliances among themselves (with a tentative agreement currently in place among all but one of the most important groups). Included in this new unity is a commitment to demobilize the jihadists who set car bombs in Shia areas (forcefully if necessary) and direct all armed struggle toward expelling the Americans, unless the U.S. agrees to leave.

Fourth, the SIIC, the strongest faction within the Maliki government (though Maliki himself is from another group, the Da'wa), appears to be responding to the pressure created by this new movement. Until now, despite being elected on a platform calling for U.S. withdrawal, SIIC had always said that U.S. troops were absolutely crucial to government survival and had said nothing against the permanent U.S. bases. Then, last week, the temporary leader of SIIC, Ammar al Hakim, called for U.S. withdrawal and for dismantling the bases, a position that is so alarming to the U.S. occupation that there has been a virtual news blackout about this dramatic switch of position. Whether this is an actual change of policy by the SIIC, or simply a rhetorical response to these latest political developments, remains to be seen.

Finally, it appears that recent statements by U.S. occupation authorities calling for "soft partition" of Iraq into three mostly autonomous regions may be a response to this new unity between Shia and Sunni. Realizing that the U.S. probably cannot sustain its presence if this new alliance is consolidated and strengthened, they are looking for a "divide and conquer" strategy that would allow the U.S. to control the three regions separately.

Escobar's article pieces together a bunch of separate developments into a coherent analysis, but it remains speculative. His analysis does, however, make sense of a lot of otherwise confusing developments. We need to see if the trends he identifies are consolidated, or if they are reversed by the strong centripetal forces within Iraq. If the trends do continue, this will mean more resistance to the U.S. presence, particularly in the Shia areas of Baghdad and the Iraqi south; and more focused attacks by Sunni insurgents on American forces and bases in and around Baghdad. With the U.S. already military in a weakened state, such an escalation could be overwhelming. It would mean that another strategy would have to be developed, and perhaps this might finally force the Bush Administration to consider withdrawal.

I think this is a very good framework to use in making sense of the news in the next few weeks.

Comments

[laocoon]

With Putin's latest stance does it not appear that Bush may have single handedly revived the essence of the cold war. I know it is politically incorrect to compare Bush to Hitler in any manner whatsoever But isnt the sort of security through aggressive preemptive war the same sort of security offered to the German people. What did it eventually lead to? The security of being conquered by a coalition of nations.

[mgloraine]

President Vladimir Putin has demanded a US exit date, accusing the US of being in Iraq to steal the oil. He has declared than an eternal US military presence is unacceptable.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/454F10BB-AC13-439A-BD0F-EC7B58842FDB.htm

He has also vowed to complete delivery of the nuclear power plant(s) currently under construction (by Russia in Iran), sworn to prevent any US incursion into Iran through Azerbaijan, and so on.

The days when the US military and Associated Corporations are allowed to blunder about the Middle-East undeterred by a major military power have come to an end. It is likely that our military commanders are aware of this, although the Executive Branch appears to be oblivious.

[rabun666]

The Bush maladministration spin on decreased Iraqi on Iraqi violence they attribute to their surge, which is no surprise. The Bush gang relies on illusions to spin itself but even worse they believe their own spin and think their illusions are reality. However, and it seems more likely, that the various Iraqi fractions have decided to cooperate with each other ultimately with the goal of taking back their country. The USA being as gullible as it is is arming and funding what will eventually be their opposition and this is nothing new. A recent spin ay a U.S. Lt. General who doles out money to various Sunni groups, "for reconstruction" claims that these group promise not to use the money to oppose the occupation and of course he's gullible enough to believe them. I mean what does this General expect them to say, that they are going to use this money to eventually oppose the American occupation?

[villastrangiato]

Perhaps the Iraqis are beginning to realize that Iraqi -on- Iraqi violence is not in their best interest. Maybe they even suspect that the CIA and Mossad have been baiting both sides to keep the conflict going - YA THINK????? My guess is that the intelligent ones realize who the real enemy is and are taking the intiative to move in the right direction, instead of taking the bait. Our wonderful congressmen here in the states may be unknowingly tipping them off with their "divide and conquer" rhetoric. Senators like Carl Levin (who received over a half million from Israeli lobbyists) and Joeseph Biden have been critical of the "democratically" elected Iraqi government and have displayed the audacity to suggest that the this governmet should be sidelined if it can't "get the job done". It's no secret that Biden has been advocating splitting the country up for some time now.I'm sure when prominent Iraqis hear this - they must be thinking - "who the hell are they?" Clearly, as US corporations and lobbyists get more desperate in their attempts to control the Iraqi population and government, their true colors will continue to emerge - exposing their fascist, bigotted, racist, and imperialistic tendencies. As this unfolds, more and more Iraqis will seek alliances to drive our mercenaries and military lackies out of their homeland - and people like Ray L. Hunt of Hunt Oil fame will have to wait a little longer for the dust to settle before contract negotiations are able to move forward.

[darker]

NOT ANY TIME SOON!

The longer Bush-Cheney STALL on Iraq, the more USTaxpayer money they can shovel into pockets of their war-profiteer corporate welfare queen pals!

THAT'S MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

It's all about THE BOTTOM LINE.

[factanonverba]

If you aren't reading The Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com) you should. It is an amazing source of news and commentary. Pepe Escobar has been dead-on since before the war started.

[ApolloSpeaks]

THE KURDS

This new Iraqi alliance doesn't include the Kurds who would welcome US forces into their country with open arms. If such a thing were to occur it would give Bush more leverage in dealing with Iran.

[kirotahoe]

true, and i am more inclined to believe that these developments would only encourage bush to accelerate his plans to gin up the conflict with iran and begin a new war. after all, the dems just voted a resolution that bush would interpret as permission to go to war with iran. nothing is more dangerous than an inferior intellect backed into a corner. no matter what it takes, bush and cheney will not leave iraq, they would rather go "nukular"

[ApolloSpeaks]

SISTANI

Not surprised to hear about Sistani blessing this new anti-occupation block. Sistani is a strick Sharia constructionist and believes that US forces in Iraq is a violation of Islamic Law, and a desecration of the country. He believes that Allah is angry with Iraq for letting the infidels stay. In vain Sistani has been lobbying the Maliki government to impose a timetable for US withdrawal. Now it looks as if he has more clout and is about to get his way.

[larry278]

The feuding Iraqis have a chance of uniting to drive Uncle Sugar out of Iraq for there are cases of bickering couples stopping a heated brawl to beat an outsider criticizes either 1/2 of the couple. But don't bet on it.

[BobC46]

Sunni and Shia are cooperating. Violence is diminished. The number of US troops can be greatly reduced in Iraq. This is a great succes for Bush, and a nightmare for the idiot wing of the leftist movements. It ruins the the prospect for leftist victory in the 2008 election.

[actionnotwords]

You have to say it three times for it to work. Might want to try swinging a dead chicken too - this wish of yours is gonna take a lot of magic.

[BC33]

LOL. You are Funny! Thanks for the chuckle this morning.

[rmreddicks]

Might not be cooperating in the way you imagine.

[rbenjamin]

All indications are no Iraqi leader has much control over the local branches of the various sectarian militias. It's one thing to make deals, quite another to make them work. Beyond that, the current insurgent approach of low cost, decentralized mayhem against mostly soft targets is already working well from the Iraqi points of view centered outside the Green Zone. Why mess things up with more concentrated and orchestrated military operations that merely play into American strengths? The locals have a long memory and know the value of patience and time.

[Bobleblah1]

This bares watching
It will be interesting to see how much of it plays out.

[ClevelandTom]

A political and military alliance between the major Sunni and Shi'i players seems pretty far-fetched. But I suppose one can't rule out the motivation of a common foe, the US.

But if such an alliance develops and they first ask the US to completely leave Iraq, I would expect Bush to, at best, slow-walk a withdrawal or outright refuse. Bush sees our forces in Iraq as a key pressure point on Iran and he will not give that up. In the face of that refusal, this unlikely Iraqi alliance would presumably start attacking US forces with even greater ferocity. This would probably drive US forces back into their operating bases and perhaps out of the country.

If and when the Iraqi alliance got rid of the US, I expect they would soon turn on one another again to decide the unresolved power issues. But that is happening now and will happen in the future no matter what the US does.

[Doofus]

Since Shia & Sunni have been feuding for about
1400 years, it would be quite something if they
could 'bury the hatchet' over US & become allies
with one another at last.

As unlikely as this truce may be, it should be
used as an opportunity to 'get out while the
getting's good', as they say.

It's probably not an arrangement that will last
very long, but we ought to take advantage, no?

'Mission Re-accomplished!' - Time for the Good Guys to Come Home!

[Doofus]

If the P & the VP know what's good for US
& them, they will take whatever opportunity
comes up as a rationale for proclaiming
victory in Iraq & getting out immediately,
more or less, and then take all the credit
they can for a satisfactory arrangement.

If they play their cards right, they could
get a Repo election victory in Nov 2008,
but only if they act in the next few months.

[bumpersticker]

The last thing P and VP will do is leave Iraq. This is a conquest for economic reasons. A constant level of death and mayhem is considered acceptable based on the size of the prize and the proximity to Iran.

[Plowboy]

The movie "Decision Before Dawn" has a wonderful line: "Sometimes treason is the highest form of patriotism." Since Bush and company have been making war on our Constitution, our traditional American vaalues and our freedoms, our admonistration is the enemy of the nation.
They are also the enemies of the Iraqi people.
It is in the interests of us Americans to see that we are in the same boat. Our "leaders" -- of either party! -- refuse to act properly and defend the Constitution, our traditions and our freedoms. It will not force an end to the illegal war and occupation ordered by Bush, against not only international law but the will of the people both here in America and there in Iraq. Thus our "leaders" are our enemies. It is not unheard of that a government is nothing more than a conspiracy against its own people, and it is not unheard of that one powerful enough becomes a conspiracy against other peoples as well. We fought WW II because of such governments elsewhere. Now we have such a criminal government.
Bush can count me as a traitor to his government if he wants to. I am his enemy, and the enemy of this government. I am because they are enemies of my country. I owe no allegiance to any government that makes war on my country, its Cconstitution and its values.
Those who oppose our old values --- the values of FDR and the values of our "Greatest Generation," the values of the civil rights movement, and the values that made us once the most respected nation on earth --- those who oppose these are enemies not only of America but of mankind. If Iraqis unite to throw our occupying forces out because our representatives won't do their job, then I am on their side.
To Hell with those who gave us their phony Patriot Act. I am a real patriot and I spit in their faces.

[CommanderWhitehead]

If these insights (predictions) are correct, my fear is that the Bush gang will be forced not to withdraw from Iraq, but rather to invade Iran, thereby pumping up the levels of mayhem in the region.

There is for Bush some "secondary gain" in such a move. (Not so much for us, of course.)

1. Americans will predictably rally behind the "war machine" with the dutiful help of the corporate media, and perhaps a fresh batch of "ribbon magnets" to help us all feel like we've done our part. (American's love a good sporting event and to most, the war is an abstraction that hasn't touched them personally.

It will be "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" once again.

2. The devastating effect that such an invasion could have on our oil supply, for instance, and our economy in general would bring our fearless leader ever closer to declaring a "national emergency" wherein he can impose Martial Law and suspend what little is left of our Constitution.

Incidentally some of our political representatives actually believe that is why "Impeachment" has been taken off the table. These chaps are in it for keeps, and they are not about to lay down in Iraq. Bush is fully prepared to start WWIII. Anyone who doubts that is either delusional...of ill informed.

Here is an interesting piece that may be sobering to many:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

[imadf]

Wait a minute. If top republicans are willing (not that they're not desperate to think & threaten), if they're willing to blast Iran & declare national emergency at home to blackmail democrats into *not* daring to impeach, then all democrats would have to do is *share* the threat with the american people before starting impeachment. After this sinks in with the public, then when impeachment proceedings start - assuming democrats understand the importance of impeaching right now - there's no way the american street will acquiesce over such a thing. no way.

Basically if indeed such a bad scenario is the blackmail tool, I say: such ballony it would be for democrats to bend over and take it up the $%^&.

Not impossible for repubs to reach that far, but I cannot see Kucinich, Obama, Al Gore, Carter, Bill Clinton, and a host of others not calling it out.

Matt

[JimR]

1. Not sure you can assume this. Everybody seems very, very fatigued with the Iraq war, and I can't see Bush getting the same level of support for a war with Iran. Of course, that doesn't mean Bush isn't going to attack anyway.

2. It would probably affect the price of oil, for sure, but probably not the supply. The U.S. gets most of its oil imports from Canada, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp#foreign_oil

[rabun666]

All the war posturing by Bush is for the purpose of increasing the price of oil to the oil companies. It's over $90 per barrel with $100 in sight. Actual attacks on Iran will also increase the price of oil which is what this is all about.