Questions about Iraq 

Questions about Iraq

Iraq the Model (link via Instapundit) seems cautiously optimistic. The major groups have still not all met together, but they are planning to. One preliminary issue is whether to investigate allegations of fraud in the recent election, and on what scale. The leaders who are identified here all seem to want a "national unity" government, from which no major group is unfairly excluded, and peaceful solutions.

Barham Salih the planning minister and senior Kurdish politician who’s now in Sulaimaniya told al-Sabah that “threatening with violence are not acceptable but law should be allowed to take its course regarding the fraud accusation” and added “what we are hearing from the leaders of the Accords Front and Iraqi list is different from what you hear in the media...there’s a basic agreement among us to let law and peaceful talks bring a solution...we haven’t reached a solution yet and the problem is still out there”.

In related news, al-Hurra said they’ve been told by Aadil al-Lami in a phone call that the election commission will be having a press conference tomorrow to announce the progress of their investigations. And it’s been reported that the UN is sending in 5 investigation teams to the southern provinces to investigate the accusations of fraud in the region.

The name of Ahmed Chalabi, the "George Washington of Iraq," is not mentioned here. Voting returns seem to indicate that he is the most contemptible loser of them all. On the other hand, there is some rather weird speculation that a majority Shiite government, even with a strongly Islamic and mullocratic complexion, was Plan B for the Bushies all along. After all, the Shiites of Iraq in general, and even many Shiites in Iran, oppose the Iranian mullahs. In the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, very few Iraqi Shiites became pro-Iran. When Saddam slaughtered Shiites in the early 90s, Iran (like the U.S.) did nothing.

The brains behind Bush's Middle East policy believe Iraq's Shia are just the instrument to bring down the terror-sponsoring, nuke-chasing regime in Iran. This remains the overarching foreign policy goal for the remainer of the Bush presidency. Iraq is merely a means to that end.

For that reason the odd extremist Shi'ite impulse in Iraq—a death-squad here or Islamic courts there—will be tolerated by the U.S. All-out civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites will not, as that does not fit into the Arab vs. Persian playbook.

Ahmed Chalabi might still have a role to play in this nasty little endgame. He can serve as a familiar face for the American public and Congress to affix a white hat to while the intrigue and deadly politics swirl around the region. Maybe he can visit Cheney and Condi Rice again. All Chalabi has to do is wait—and he has proven surpassingly good at that.

Still, the idea that events today are what the Bushies had in mind all along seems laughable--obvious spin. Even recently they were putting serious money on the "George Washington" of Iraq. To say now that Iran was the real target all along (after all, it was actually sending terrorists into other countries, it actually had WMDS and, of course, oil), and the Iraqis may have to settle for something far short of liberation as Bush has promised it, is a bit too post facto for me. Next we'll be told that the Bushies shrewdly knew that Syria would be more of a cakewalk than Iraq (and of course it has oil), but they cleverly decided to change two or three regimes at once.

I can't help thinking there is a great divide between those who mention Sistani, and emphasize his role in shaping Shiite opinion in Iraq, and those who don't. For those who do, it seems pretty clear that Bush didn't have a clue what was going on when he invaded. For those who don't, there's always a brilliant Bushie plan lying around somewhere.

Return to Main Page


Add Comment

Search This Site

Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy

Free Blog Hosting