Bagwan Petraeus Returns

...and members of Congress can again be expected to grovel shamelessly before this military apparatchik. Consequently, Petraeus will succeed in his principle mission: to support the next phase of Bush administration lies about what is going on in Iraq.

First of all, since there is no game official to declare wins and losses, this war can go on indefinitely, even though the US has already lost. The defeat of the Badrist by the Sadrists in the latest debacle is just the most recent manifestation of that defeat. And make no mistake about it, Maliki didn't think this up on his own (the line being propagated by the government and the press). This was made in the USA; because they wanted to clean out any independent influences (Like the immensely popular Muqtada) exercising governance in Basra, last stop for Iraqi oil on the way to the sea. Maliki does not make decisions like that without guidance from his American masters in the now-targeted Green Zone.

The Badr militias (now transformed into the Iraqi armed forces) are an invention of Iran, and their leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (his political organization is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, formerly the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) has suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Sadrists.

That is one of the reasons the ceasefire was brokered by Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Brigades of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (declared idiotically by an acquiescent Congress last year to be a "terrorist organization"). That Suleimani brokered the ceasefire is also a diplomatic humiliation for Maliki, and for his US masters, who just watched Iran give a material demonstration of their newfound regional influence.

What Bagwan Petraeus (so named by me because Congress tends to grovel before uniforms as if they are in the presence of pop-prophets) is tasked with during this canned interview with America is to spin the tale that Iran is who "we" are fighting in Iraq.

I know, I know. It sounds hallucinatory; but this is the public that swallowed the WMD story, the story that The Surge "worked" (it didn't, another post), and every lie in between.

The story Bagwan Petraeus will spin goes like this: Muqtada is pro-Iranian (He is not). Muqtada has two kind of troops, the ones that follow his lead, and the renegades who act on their own.... except when they are influenced by Iranians (complete bullshit). These mythical Iranian proxies Petraues will call "special groups," because if Petraeus admit that they sicced the Badr Army aka Iraqi armed forces aka SIIC onto the Sadrists, he will be announcing to all of Shia Iraq that the US wants to erase the influence of the most popular leader in Shia Iraq. Except, of course, Petraues will not admit that the US designed this operation because it was an abject failure... kind of like the entire Iraq Occupation Adventure.

Bagwan will not tell Congress that Iran rescued his Iraqi allies... even though that is exactly what happened. In fact, that is the only Iranian "interference" that will be demonstrable in what is likely to be a prevarication-fest, duly lapped up by obsequious Congress-critters and the Boeing-ADM-Searle "press."

So be advised, dear readers. We are still in Wonderland. And the only viable "exit strategy" for Iraq is to lead every last American troop and mercenary and war profiteer onto ships and airplanes and bring them home now.

Comments

[Stan Goff - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler04082008.html"

I rest my case.

[Gibbons]

The fact that the surge "appears" to be working is due to al Sadr keeping his troops reined in. Petraeus will no doubt make a play for giving it just a little more time and if it goes over with congress he will go down to the Washington monument and walk across the reflecting pool to the Lncoln memorial.

[rwe2late]

The key reason for the invasion and permanent occupation, namely control of Iraqi oil reserves, remains a forbidden topic.
Nonetheless, a few pertinent "military" questions still could, but probably won't be, asked:

1) How many Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured (collateral damage) by direct US military actions?

2) What is state of Iraqi food, water, jobs, electricity, school system?

3) Do Iraqis join resistance organizations BECAUSE of the US occupation?

4) Won't continued occupation mean continued resistance to occupation?

5) Maliki is considered by some to be a US puppet, dependent on the US military. If the US withdrew now, how long could we expect Maliki to remain in power?

[Poboy]

Answers:

1. Over one million and over 2 million displaced.

2. Abysmal.

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Not long.

[ghost7]

Poboy at least try to be intellectually honest if you attempt to answer the question.

1. Numbers vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000.

2. In some mainly Shia areas it has improved substantially. The Baathist regime systematically starved non-Sunni areas of infrastructure resources. In Sunni areas, no longer given priority, it isn't as good. Sunni areas have been the locus of insurgent activities.

3. Some do but during my two tours we found many who did the work for pay. A by product of Bremer's idiotic decision to decommission the Iraqi Army and stop subsidies of government industries throwing hundreds of thousands out of work.

4. Perhaps although the recent co-opting of Sunni tribes has seen a substantial improvement.

5. Maliki has his own power base near Al Hillah much different then Sadr's East Baghdad base.

[SamThornton]

The fact that Gen. Petraeus has found it necessary to deal directly with tribal and militia groups to get a handle on violence, rather than the central government, is stark proof that Iraq still lacks an effective government. The method that the General found it necessary to use -- bribery -- offers further proof that our military is incapable of imposing its will on the ground through military means, except in isolated, tactical battles.

Yesterday, Sen. McCain offered the ludicrous proposition that he would keep US forces in Iraq "until they like us," an objective it might well take more than his 100-year occupation to achieve.

What the Iraq occupation represents to the US is a breakdown in our political as well as our military systems. Our politicians can't come to terms with facts on the ground and our military is incapable of fulfilling the fanciful aspirations of a handful civilian hawks at the helm.

About the only prediction one can reasonably make is that things will probably get worse in Iraq for all involved.

[RickO]

So, it's the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, backed by Iran but also us, against the Sadrists, who are represented in the new Iraqi governement we created...fighting between themselves, with us in the middle, with a cease-fire brokered by Iran, who we deemed as terrorists, but are now sharing at least a common cause with, but not a common interest...why are we there again?

Sadr agreed to a cease-fire, not the other way around. Why would he have done that if he were losing the fight? In a situation where you are capable of continuing the fight, you only negotiate that away from a position of advantage. Sadr has never been afraid of us or Maliki so him agreeing to a cease-fire should be considered troubling, not a victory.