A new head of Iraq?

[Tab]

On NPR today there was a report that Moqtadr Al-Sadr (not sure about the spelling, as these names are really phonetic), who is leader of many of the opposition forces, has suddenly announced a six-month "stay" of violence, if I understood it correctly.

That's as far as they took the report, other than speculating if he 'really means it', but I've been seeing all kinds of stuff floating in the news about the impending political doom of Prime Minister Al-Maliki. Most of it is stuff that he's failed, his days are numbered, etc., etc.

So, crudely trying to put 2+2 together, I'm wondering if Al-Sadr is counting on the political demise of Al-Maliki, and by bringing "peace" and giving the Americans a safe exit because Iraq is safe, is trying to position himself for the office - he can bring peace, he can drive out the infidels, etc.

If that is the case then, as we probably knew was coming anyway, we have traded one strong-armed dictatorship for another. Oh, and trashed the country in the process.

We always knew that Iraq needed someone like Hussein to keep the "country" together, between the Sunnis and the Shi'a. We got rid of the original Hussein, looted our own treasury, and now we're going to have another Hussein.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :eyes:

[elfin]

1. When I read it - I thought the possible "peace'

was to help make the surge look good.

I think innumerable Iraquis are profiting mightliy from our involvement. Greed trumps incipient nationalism.

Instead of giving us a window to leave, it gives an argument for us to stay, no matter who the puppet is who resides at the top of Iraq.

[Tab]

3. You think?

Just curious. The "forces that be" (as in 'be looting our country' through no-bid contracts) would like us to stay. But it's clear that the American people have about had it with this war. Four years too late, but regardless, they've finally had it.

I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to suggest we have an arrangement with Al-Sadr. And I'm not an expert on this guy, but I think he's looking at this as a way to install himself into real national power.

Currently our argument for staying in Iraq is that if we didn't, it would devolve into genocide (we're past the 'civil war' phase). But if he could quiet it down, we'd be done with that excuse, although that wouldn't prevent us from inventing another.

No, I don't think there's any collusion here. I suspect Al-Sadr is shrewd enough to know the state of the country, and the state of OUR country, and opportunistic enough to take advantage.

And you need someone like that, apparently, to keep Iraq under control. Unfortunately, it's not going to be a heck of a lot different than being under Saddam. Again, you've got a strong-arm dictatorship. So, ultimately, what have we accomplished? Apparently jack-sh*t. But we knew that anyway.

[elfin]

5. But a "new" government such as it is

gives the Betrayus report room to urge more time for our involvement based on phony evidence that the political side of this mess is improving-- no matter if it is Al-Sadr or someone else.

Bush does not care WHO might give him more time to lay this off on the next administration --- he just cares whether the resultant bloodbath happens on his watch.

May not be any collusion going on -- but I think Bush and his minions are desparate for any reason to continue that they might be able to sell to Congress and the Public.

At this point, they don't care if it is Al-Sadr or Allawi or whomever -- whoever SEEMS to show a change in Iraqi political environment, promising some sort of (sham) stability is good enough for them to make it through the 2008 elections.

[Tab]

6. I'm sure the Bush administration is not unhappy with the news

In fact, they'd probably like nothing better "hey, proof our strateregies is working!". I'm not sure they're behind it though. If they were, I think they would have done something before the midterm elections.

But I don't know what to believe anymore.

[ludwigb]

2. If we had just overthrown Saddam and left...

Like we said we would, something like a constitutional democracy might exist there (with a lot of help from the UN). And it would probably compare favorably with Iran, which has just about the most modern and democratic culture in the region (except for maybe Turkey). But ultimately our actions (arming everyone, looting their natural resources, failing to maintain order) ruin the credibility of any leader courageous enough to work with us. I wonder if the real reason Maliki doesn't want us to leave is that he fears for his life.

Fortunately, the Shia religious leaders have not lost their base off support completely, so there is still some chance that order and legitimacy could be restored (although the resulting government is unlikely to have a very liberal constitution). The problem now is the rise of militant Islam in the Sunni areas.

[Tab]

4. Actually the bigger problem is that the Shi'a are driving the Sunnis' out of Baghdad.

By slowly, but surely, moving into Sunni areas, setting up checkpoints, cutting off services (water, electricity, garbage disposal) and making life very difficult for the Sunnis. As a result, the Sunni are finding it hard to exist - and I don't blame them - and leaving Baghdad.

What's going to happen, however, is that since Baghdad is the center of government, any Sunni representative is going to have to enter what will effectively become hostile territory to represent their constituency. They will have to go through Shi'a checkpoints, into Shi'a territory, to do their elected job. Not surprisingly, I suspect eventually they won't, and the Shi'a will have effectively taken over the government and, ultimately, Iraq.

But right now, the Shi'a have enough say in the government to cut off services, delay them, relocate food distribution centers (forcing Sunni to travel to Shi'a neighborhood to get food); they may well have enough of a foothold that this can't be reversed. There's a tipping point - we may be past that already.