The dynamics in Iraq have changed
One of the more fundamental shifts I haven't seen discussed much is the idea that, despite the Bush administration's dogged insistence, there is a growing understanding in Iraq that the US adventure is now on borrowed time. This mostly unstated understanding appears to be informing decision making on all sides.
From the US side, I think this explains the political over military nature of "the surge;" it's designed to assure the various actors that the US will stay for the long term. This plan is more about stopping a shift in the thinking and behavior of Iraqi politicians and power brokers than it is about substantially altering the situation on the ground. On the ground, it's a huge gamble.
The Shia and Kurds do appear to be preparing themselves by aligning themselves more closely with Iran. (There is no indication of an end of Iranian influence.)
Watch very closely how the various Iraq actors play this surge. Early reports are, that Sadr will try to play this "surge" smart waiting out this final US ploy.
(In the Iraqi press, the guidance being issued by Sadr is "follow the orders of the Americans until the storm passes."
"Storm." Maybe violent, but very temporary.)
The Iraqi government is in a trickier position as it cannot be perceived as directly contradicting the US's will, but at the same time, must attempt to construct a future situation where Shia interests are intact. Its plan appears to be to complicate and structurally undermine the US effort in such a way as to both preserve their power and protect their factional allies for the day when the US withdraws.
The unknown at this point is how long the Sunni Gulf states will withold themselves from similarly, openly supporting the Sunnis.
From the US side, I think this explains the political over military nature of "the surge;" it's designed to assure the various actors that the US will stay for the long term. This plan is more about stopping a shift in the thinking and behavior of Iraqi politicians and power brokers than it is about substantially altering the situation on the ground. On the ground, it's a huge gamble.
The Shia and Kurds do appear to be preparing themselves by aligning themselves more closely with Iran. (There is no indication of an end of Iranian influence.)
Watch very closely how the various Iraq actors play this surge. Early reports are, that Sadr will try to play this "surge" smart waiting out this final US ploy.
(In the Iraqi press, the guidance being issued by Sadr is "follow the orders of the Americans until the storm passes."
"Storm." Maybe violent, but very temporary.)
The Iraqi government is in a trickier position as it cannot be perceived as directly contradicting the US's will, but at the same time, must attempt to construct a future situation where Shia interests are intact. Its plan appears to be to complicate and structurally undermine the US effort in such a way as to both preserve their power and protect their factional allies for the day when the US withdraws.
The unknown at this point is how long the Sunni Gulf states will withold themselves from similarly, openly supporting the Sunnis.
posted by mikevotes at
8:45 AM
3 Comments:
From the NY Times:
“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”
The fact is, there is no plan. There's a sketchy outline of a set of wished-for event, but the closer one gets to the ground, the "plan" quickly reveals it's ridiculousness.
Bush calls for things that have no military definition like "surge" and "partnering." How does the military function within a framework that is not military, but vapidly political?
By
-epm, at 1:16 PM
Yeah, Maliki has made no mystery of his goal of turning the US solely against the Sunnis saying that once the Sunnis are pacified the (and only then) will the Shia militias disarm.
As to your second point, I think that's largely been the mistake of the entire postwar effort.
The Bush administration names "goals" like create a functioning and peaceful democracy in Iraq and the passes all the responsibility to the military.
When, if anything, the goals should be spearheaded by the State Department.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:05 PM
When, if anything, the goals should be spearheaded by the State Department.
But when one listens to Rice it's often difficult to tell if she's Sec of State or Defense. She talks more like a general than a diplomat much of the time. My point is, the US doesn't have a State Department in the traditional and historic sense and therefore we continue to list further and further toward a military state.
By
-epm, at 8:55 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home