Quickhits - Now I'm in a rush
In this Asia Times piece, we learn this about the recent US/Maliki agreement which implies a long term US troop presence after 2008,
(Guardian) "The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge (Frederick Kagan) has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos." (That's not the only scenario he's pushing for sending troops into Pakistan.)
(Reuters) Turkey's prime minister said on Friday his cabinet had authorized the armed forces to conduct a cross-border operation against Kurdish PKK rebels in northern Iraq, but analysts said major action did not appear imminent.
Gotta run.
The Sadrists, who had been flirting with Maliki for 10 days, immediately cut off contacts, claiming that the agreement "sets the ground for long-term occupation". Muqtada was furious that Maliki never presented the agreement to Parliament before signing it off with the US President.
(Guardian) "The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge (Frederick Kagan) has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos." (That's not the only scenario he's pushing for sending troops into Pakistan.)
(Reuters) Turkey's prime minister said on Friday his cabinet had authorized the armed forces to conduct a cross-border operation against Kurdish PKK rebels in northern Iraq, but analysts said major action did not appear imminent.
Gotta run.
posted by mikevotes at
8:53 AM
12 Comments:
I wonder how this plan for long-term occupation squares with Bush's statements that we will leave Iraq if the government asks us to.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 1:15 PM
That's the whole point of thisbizarre exercise/statement, that Maliki is asking us to stay in the name of his government.
By
mikevotes, at 1:28 PM
Bottom line....US leaves and Maliki is dead.
By
Anonymous, at 2:25 PM
That's a short version. Being a Shia, he's somewhat limited as to the governments he can appeal to for safety.
By
mikevotes, at 4:05 PM
It's hard to imagine any government lasting long without US protection.
By
Anonymous, at 6:02 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant Maliki will have trouble finding sanctuary when he is eventually chased out of Iraq.
By
mikevotes, at 6:11 PM
It's hard to imagine any government lasting long without US protection. You have to look at the way Saddam held the place together. He had a loyal group of Baath party members, many from his own family, and a well equipped Republican Guard. There was no opposition and the slightest sign of trouble got crushed. The only reason the Iraqi parliament is able to meet is because of US protection.
By
Anonymous, at 6:14 PM
p.s and it gives the US another useful reason to stay.
By
Anonymous, at 6:16 PM
"That's the whole point of this bizarre exercise/statement, that Maliki is asking us to stay in the name of his government."
In the short term, yes.
However, al-Maliki is playing a game of political Jenga. His support is slipping out from under him. He can't hang on for another year or two. His replacement might very well be someone we don't like. Another Saddam also may emerge.
Bush is planning for a decades-long occupation, ten years at the least. Al-Maliki won't be around that long, so what happens when the new guy asks us to leave?
The U.S. is not the only country with a military in the world, either. Russia or especially China would eagerly back the proper stooge if the U.S. was booted.
And frankly, I don't see our primary role in Iraq as "protecting" the government. If anything, we are undermining it by creating parallel armies within the country that are not loyal to the government. The militias are far more interested in ethnic cleansing and opposing the occupation than they are in attacking Parliament.
Our role up to now has been to divide the militias up into those who will oppose Al-Qaeda and those who simply won't play ball. Nothing in that equation translates into support for the government beyond the tangential benefit of decreased civil strife.
If someone were to emerge in Iraq, such as Allawi, who would back Bush's plan and would have the support (or muscle), then al-Maliki would be taken out back and shot "accidentally" by his "protectors".
The point is, that if two or three years from now whoever runs the Iraqi government ask us to leave, then we will have an ugly situation. Either we stay against the will of the country, something the U.N. and our allies would be opposed to, or we leave and resign ourselves to the fact that we just spent a trillion on nothing more than a glorified coup to swap a guy who doesn't like us with a government that doesn't like us. Oh, yeah, and we built military bases for China or Russia to use.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 7:47 AM
Anon, unless they can rebuild a Shia coalition. You would think a Badr/Mahdi force backed by the apparatus of the state would be able to maintain itself.
But the prospects of Badr/Mahdi cooperation are remarkably small.
....
Todd, Working on the assumption that the new leader is anti-US (a pretty logical assumption) I would figure the US would declare the government illegitimate in some way trying to muddy any claims against the presence.
In such a situation, the Iraqis would hold no real recourse except violence or oil and either of those would have costs.
Also, I do think the US is propping up MAliki (protecting may not be the right word) simply becauise they fear the outcomes you write about.
At the same time, however, they are also trying to manage a "balance of powers" by organizing the Sunni militia. The US doesn't want the Sunnis strong enough to take over, but they want a force that could stalemate the Mahdi if they do go.
It's my belief that the broad Iraq policy is designed mostly to prevent an Iranian Shia takeover, and Maliki is a key part of stopping that.
I understand Allawi has been touted as a replacement, but that trial balloon pretty much fell flat among the Iraqis. I would see a Shia populist/strongman (with some sort of concession to the Kurds) as more likely.
By
mikevotes, at 11:38 AM
Sorry, I know that response is kinda all over the place. Just got back from playing tennis.
By
mikevotes, at 11:42 AM
So many variables. We all seem to assume somebody somewhere knows what they're doing in Iraq. Basically I think it's all down to who gets the oil...
By
Anonymous, at 12:33 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home