Critics of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq have charged that the Bush administration's "surge" policy has failed, since its stated intention was to improve security to create the political space for "national reconciliation" in Iraq. Since national reconciliation has not taken place in Iraq, the surge has failed.
Indeed, it was only on Monday that I wrote: "[The conventional wisdom that the 'surge' has succeeded] misses the fact that the 'surge' has failed to produce national political reconciliation in Iraq, its stated goal."
But after this week's US-assisted Iraqi government assault on neighborhoods in Basra controlled by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, I regret writing that sentence. I fear that it praises with faint damnation. I fear that it could be construed to accept the premise that the Bush administration is trying to produce national political reconciliation in Iraq, while arguing that it has failed to achieve its goal.
After this week, I regard this premise to be a clear fraud.
While President Bush says the Iraqi government offensive showed that the prime minister believed "in evenhanded justice" -- presumably because the government was showing that it would attack Shiite as Sunni militias -- supporters of the Mahdi Army claimed that it was a political attack on their movement to weaken it prior to regional elections scheduled for October. But this interpretation of events is by no means limited to Iraqis.
The Washington Post reports:
Some [U.S] officials have concluded that [Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki himself is firing "the first salvo in upcoming elections," the administration official said. "His dog in that fight is that he is basically allied with the Badr Corps" [a rival Shiite militia, associated with a rival Shiite political party that is part of the U.S.-backed government] against forces loyal to Sadr, the official said. "It's not a pretty picture."
U.S. officials claim that Prime Minister Maliki "decided to launch the offensive" without consulting U.S. officials. This is an incredible claim, when you consider that the U.S. is participating in -- and now in some places leading, the Post reports - the offensive:
U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in the vast Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, and military officials said Friday that U.S. aircraft bombed militant positions in the southern city of Basra, as the American role in a campaign against party-backed militias appeared to expand. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the Sadr City fighting, as U.S. troops took the lead.
Whatever one thinks of Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, they are hardly a marginal political force in Iraq. In 2006, the New York Times noted, supporters of Sadr constituted the largest bloc in the Shiite parliamentary alliance.
Not surprisingly, the majority of casualties in Basra have been civilian, according to hospital officials.
How, exactly, will this assault contribute to "national reconciliation"? Why are U.S. soldiers killing and dying in this operation that was decided, supposedly, without consultation with U.S. officials? Members of Congress should be asking. It's one thing if the train from New York to Washington is late. It's quite another story if we discover that the train is headed to Chicago.
It has been a while since I last dropped in on ya, I see no one is gonna pull the wool over your eyes. Six month ago when they were getting ready to pull out the Brits I warned that they were up to no good, imagine that, the madi army took it hook line and sinker. Agape.
Exactly! Didn't this bunch of warons get elected by decrying the Clinton years, when we supposedly sold out our military to foreign powers? Where is Michael Fay now, with his blue beret?
I saw General Hayden on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Of course, he called this "progress." Progress seems to be a given in Iraq: violence is up = progress, violence is down = progress. We are constantly making progress in Iraq, no matter what happens.
The surge was also designed by the Bush administration to keep us in Iraq. The administration states we are there to fight terrorism. However, any self-respecting cynic and realist knows Bush has us in Iraq to protect Israel and to protect our oil interests.
Most importantly the surge was designed to give political cover to the Bush administration and the Republican Party during the 2008 election. What Iraq issue, the surge is working!
the only way the war can continue is to wrap McCain in the surge and sell it as progress.
I think Bush believes that creating an even bigger mess in the Middle East is his best shot at helping McCain win the upcoming presidential election. I expect Bush will attack Iran before the Pennsylvania primary.
Al Sadr has the Basra oil and the oil money, and Maliki is going to try to take it back. To think that their is any possible favorable outcome for this scenario is absurd. In fact, gievn the ties between Al Sadr and Iran, the chances of massive escalation skyrocket.
If Maliki is not the popular choice amongst the people of his nation, how did he come into power. Sadr didn't run for office did he.
It seems this administration is changing the rules of this war as they go. First its weapons of mass destruction, oops forget that...then its bring down a tyrant. Been there done that. War over, mission accomplished.
Not so fast. Can't just leave these two pit bull factions to tear each others throats out. We need to provide security for the Iraqi people. And just to bolster our reasons for staying, we need to drive Al Qaeda out before they overrun Iraq, right? Right?
Then Iraq might fall into Iran's hands, even though Iran has no use for Al Qaeda, other than enjoying their antics on 911 and in Barcelona.
Of course wars cost money, and people get rich building infrastructure, and there's plenty of oil in the ground, but that has nothing to do with it. We're there to deliver democracy, to warring parties who never in a million years will be convinced their rivals are equals. Reconciliation, bah. A bunch of propagandist bullshit.
But its a good line, to feed the public. If only the Iraqi people will buy it, and accept a puppet as their leader...
We effectively live in an autocracy, where what Cheney says goes. Members of Congress get two well-known words for questioning his policies. The question is, if Congressional power is taken away, what is left to the American people? What is left?