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First, there is a new nationalist bloc forming from those who have withdrawn from or always opposed the American backed government.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It will be interesting to see how much of it plays out.
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.
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!
& 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.
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.
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
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
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