Maliki Asks Iran to Get al-Sadr to Ceasefire -- And John McCain Declares "Victory!"

The entire rationale for McCain's run for president is that he was for the surge before there was a surge, and, now, that surge is "a success." This is supposed to show that McCain is experienced in defense and foreign policy.

In the last two weeks we have witnessed this depth of knowledge and experience in action. First, while in Iraq, McCain mistook al-Qaeda, a Sunni organization, with fighters being trained in Shia Iran. Not once, but three times. Joe Lieberman kissed George Bush, but with McCain, he has limited himself, at least in public, to whispering sweet-nothings into his ear, such as the correct identities of the different groups.

Several theories were advanced to explain away the McCain gaffes. Brit Hume offered it as a "senior moment." Now, that's comforting.

McCain aspires to be our president on the basis of his claimed strong foreign policy and defense credentials. He has visited Iraq officially many times, and spoken to the leaders of various factions. Yet, he still does not know the major factions and their relationships, but wants to be our next "decider" on matters of war and peace. A third Bush term, in more ways than one.

Oh yes, McCain did not read the NIE prior to the vote on the War Resolution either.

Yesterday, McCain outdid even himself. First, he expressed surprise that the al-Maliki government launched its offensive against the Shia militia in Basra, despite having been with al-Maliki the prior day. [n.b. the British had reduced their forces from 40,000 in the city to 4000 at the airport (a "de-surge"), leaving Basra under the control of competing Shia militias but relatively non-violent]. Now, there's a potential president we can depend upon to get good information -- can't wait, can you?

But, even more foreboding, McCain then asserted that al-Maliki had "won" the battle with al-Sadr. Why? Well, said McCain, the side that sues for a ceasefire is usually not winning. Yet, it was al-Maliki who asked the Iranian government to intercede with al-Sadr to ask al-Sadr for a ceasefire. As Keith Olbermann said, by McCain's own metric, al-Sadr was the winner. Or, as a President McCain is likely to tell us, "Mission Accomplished."

And, of course, that is the sad, tragic truth of this entire debacle. People who have no idea what they are talking about making policy. People with such a vested interest in proving their idiotic theories correct holding the reins of power. A media so pathetic that they carry the stories fed them by the White House and now an eager White House aspirant.

Here are some bitter truths: to date, the major winner in the war has been Iran. The Iraqi Army, and, to an even greater extent, police, are split along ethnic and factional lines. Muqtada al-Sadr is just waiting his turn to take over the country. Although al-Maliki is clearly pro-Iran (and that's OUR GUY!), al-Sadr is generally considered not to be. Nonetheless, in the infinite stupidity of Bush/McCainaanite policy, the longer we persist, the more we may push al-Sadr further into the protective arms of Iran. Our other "war of the big lie", Vietnam, was similar: we drove the Vietnamese into an alliance with China, their historical foe.

Some more bitter truths: 80% of Iraq's oil is in the South, i.e., Shia. The closer the southern Shia are to Iran politically, the more control over the oil market they will have. Iran + 80% of Iraq is as large as the Saudi oil reserves, perhaps more. Despite this, the British are not going to re-up their troop levels in Basra -- should this be telling us something?

A final bitter truth: despite all this potential and turmoil on its border, and despite $100+ oil, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the other Gulf States have contributed no money to the U.S. war effort. Recall that they underwrote virtually the entire First Gulf War, but nary a dollar for this one -- should this be telling us something?

The bitterest truth of all: John McCain as president will deepen the debacle Bush started.

Comments

[Gibbons]

It time time that we realize that the real power in Iraq is al Sadr. We should get out and when the Sunni start a move to take over the government get behind them. A strong dictator is the only thing that can govern that country and the Sunnis would keep Iran in check.

[grendl]

I disagree. I think if we're going to swagger around the world slinging democracy to every country that will listen, we need to put our money where our mouths are.

Iraq is over 60% Shiite, so they should be the ruling party, and if Al Sadr's the most popular individual, he should be their leader. Not puppets like Maliki. Not Sunni Bathists who had a stranglehold on that country's throat this last three decades.

How can we propose to be delivering democracy to these countries, when demand to have final approval over who they elect? We don't need another tyrant in Iraq. The masses will only believe, as they did with Saddam we're in bed with them.

The Shia need to be left alone to rule their own country.

[altohone]

The corporate media is reporting that Maliki is taking on the "Shiite militias" when he's only going after one of them.

All this talk of Iran is pure distraction.
This is about the US government encouraging Maliki to use military force pre-emptively to solve an internal political problem... and botching the job.
Find me one military analyst that thinks the Iraqi military could organize an offensive (even one that failed) without the knowledge and support of the US military and I'll eat my hat.

If McCain didn't know about it in advance, I'd guess that Bushies were trying to distance themselves from policies that are anathema to democracy... probably shielding McCain while simultaneously avoiding Congressional oversight.

All the talk of Iran is meant to justify using force in a game of power politics.
One only need look at Lieberman circling the crime scene spewing invented facts to see the Axis of Evil remains the go-to scapegoat.

[BitJam]

I agree with you that Bush was behind the recent attacks against al-Sadr, but I don't think Iran is a distraction. It is the main course. Bush got the green-light from Congress to attack Iran last fall with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Admiral Fallon was standing in the way so he got retired. I believe Cheney's recent trip to the Mideast was to warn our allies of the upcoming attack.

Two weeks ago, Petraeus claimed (without proof) that rocket attacks on the green zone were backed by Iran. Next they will try to blame this latest increase in violence (which Bush created) as yet another reason we need to attack Iran. He will claim he is protecting our troops in Iraq. Bush believes that by making the Mideast and the world an even worse mess, he will help McCain in the election due to all of his "national security credentials".

[avahome]

Discussion: America's Iran gamble and how Iran is benefiting from it......we've got to get our act together or America won't survive. Iran has plans..China, Asia, Venezuela..

Clammyc has done some critical writing on this: http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/discuss-iran-gamble
here

Eliminate the middle man, the dollar, and Iran can sell oil damn cheap. And now they
have begun their own oil exchange...quietly. The times they are a changing.

[RadioResearch]

Paul,

McCain touts his military experience and judgement but look at his real record. As a "maverick" pilot he got shot down over North Viet Nam through his own bad judgement and only after 23 missions. He missed the power plant on his first run and then contrary to Navy regs, SOP, common sense, etc, he went in for another run. Any good pilot would have known that he had already been tracked by radar and would follow the regulation procedures (that is why they are there) which was to return to the carrier. So through his own stupidity he qot himself shot down - hardly the stuff of good judgement let alone heroism. He is much over rated, especially in his own mind.

He never wants to be reminded of the fact that he also defied the military code of conduct and provided information to the enemy, a major security compromise. He makes an issue about sticking around in Hanoi to be with his fellow POWs (who for some reason do not seem to hang with him much) which was also in defiance of the code of conduct.

MSM seem to give him a free ride and only concentrate on the present rather than his past. You are among those who do that as well, though I suspect, unwittingly. Research him on Vietnam vets against McCain or other such sites - you might be surprised.

I agree, however, that his remarks on Iraq do seem spontaneous and "senior moment"

[ljsfolly]

John McCain should truly scare the republicans with his potential for dementia and yet they were the ones who chose him? And those who suport him, why? He seems to have been asleep or something since Vietnam when the war there was also wrong but he was a POW. A Hero. We Americans love our heros but we also recognize in mcCain the uncles and grandfathers and yes, fathers wo live as if in another time with no idea of what happened and how they got to where they are now. Is that the image we want for the US? A bumbling old man who wonted know who or what is in front of himself and always asking for the way to the "head"? I shake my head and have no doubt that we have endured some awful nasty bloody times with Bush/Cheney and our soldiers suffer greatly for being asked to have one man do the work of ten and many phoney soldiers from Blackwater better armed and protected than our own guys. Does four more years of a sorry old man suit us? Not me I say!

[desmirl]

McCain graduated 5th from bottom in his class at Annapolis--and would probably have washed out had it not been for his father's influence. He has at best a third-rate mind, and he's beginning to show the kinds of lapses (Senior moments) that come with advancing age. What else can you expect from McCain, other than bumble-headedness?

[grendl]

You hit upon the root cause of this war, and the stubborn headed, stick-to-itiveness of both George W. and John McCain.

Trying to please their fathers.

Much of this country's problems can be traced back to men trying to extricate themselves from the shadows of their fathers. Trying to do them proud.

When McCain was offered release due to his father's high ranking in Viet Nam he refused. He didn't want a free pass due to his father, but did somethine entirely heroic and stuck it out in that POW camp. So he's always tied sticking it out, to earning his father's respect and love.

Which is why we can't leave Iraq. Which is partially the reason George Jr. went in in the first place, to get the man who tried to off his father. Amongst other reasons.

[AsaNisMasa]

Paul...

I think progressive pundits are missing the point...McCain likely knows exactly what is going on but he needs to pretend he doesnt because what is really going on is a complete disaster and he's partially responsible for it.

It's far easier to throw red meat to the red states and say that Iran is training "Al Qaeda" then it is explain the nuances of what is happening on the ground in Iraq. Of course he didn't know Maliki asked for a ceasefire...that'd show a sign of weakness to these neocon war mongers.

I don't think McCain is as confused about what's going on in the Middle East as we'd like to believe, he's just hoping that the average American voter is.

[PaulAbrams]

That's another interpretation.
His gaffes in Iraq seemed spontaneous.

[itmaybetoolate]

If you are correct, it has to be one of the dumbest strategies I have ever seen used by a presidential candidate running during a war!