Maliki's Pushback
The U.S. wants a relatively loose agreement that allows us to keep troops in Iraq.
But the prime minister is under intense political pressure to take a hard line against the Americans, even as his government engages in the back-and-forth of negotiations. Graffiti can be seen on the walls in Shiite districts of Baghdad saying, "Iraq for sale: See Maliki."
To further prove his independance, Maliki is getting ready to sign a big oil deal with China. Russia is probably next. We spend $2 Trillion on what Greenspan called "a war for oil", and our global rivals get half the oil. We continue to live in Dick Cheney's old colonial illusion that our military power gives us some mercantile advantage.
Uncle Sucker.
Advertisement
Uncle Shame; Iraqi oil to China, Venezuela oil to China, Cuba give China right to explore for oil. Bushco foreign policy at work for US.
August 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
McSame knows stuff is broken......McSame wants to start more wars as the way to reduce risks to our country.
August 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading Ron Susklind's "Way of the World" I am even more convinced that Cheney and ilk are obssessed idiots, not in touch with reality. Unfortunately, their fantasies are our wars and police-state trends.
August 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uncle Sucker is right!
On top of all the other incompetence, stupidity and criminality involved in the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, this has to take the cake!
August 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the victor belong the spoils
Cole
http://www.juancole.com/2008/08/al-maliki-insists-us-troops-be-out-by.html
August 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, and using the Badr Brigade (trained in Iran) as a private army against Sunni chiefs. The gift that keeps on giving!
August 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So with the world's largest army, George Bush screwed up the relatively simple task of stealing Iraq's oil.
And it would have been a simple task. If we had left Saddam in power and then offered to unilaterally take the sanctions away in exchange for a trade agreement we could have stolen the oil legally and with a minimum of fuss. Heck, we could have removed the sanctions in exchange for Iraq leaving OPEC and a bunch of development contracts. That's how the Chinese are getting cheap resources and revenues out of sub-Saharan Africa.
Not defending the morality of this, by the way, just saying that if we're immoral enough to kill thousands of civilians in this war, a more subtle villainy would have been both in character and more effective.
August 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
not to quibble but i think tens of thousands is the appropriate estimation.
August 26, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, try "hundreds of thousands" or even "over a million".
The data is from a sample of 2400 face-to-face surveys throughout Iraq in which one in five people reported that at least one person from their household has been killed “as a result of the conflict”. When compared with the results of the 1997 census — the last complete census in Iraq — the survey indicates that 1.03 million people have been killed.
I hate it when even the supposedly anti-war left wingers in Teh USA cannot bring themselves to confront this horrific reality.
But of course the only casualty figure that matters is the number of dead US soldiers, right?
August 26, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq's GNP in 2002 was $52 billion (in 2002 dollars) or about the GNP of Indianapolis.
No doubt, a few well placed bribes and a few tidy retirement estates on the Riveria could have bagged us all of Iraq, infrastructure in tact, without shooting a single bullet for a fraction of that $52 billion.
August 26, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Jonathan, except it's IRAN's pushback.
The myth is that the US controls events in Iraq, when really it's Iran that calls the shots through its acolyte Maliki and his Iran-trained Badr Brigades, now integrated into the US-armed "New Iraqi Army."
The US five year US "divide-and-conquer" strategy has been replaced by Iran's "consolidate the Iraq Shi'ite victory" strategy, which includes:
(1) isolation of the nationalistic Sadrists, who have been disarmed and Sadr exiled to Iran,
(2) neutralization of the Sunni minority, now evidenced by a crackdown on the 100,000-strong US-financed Awakening (Sahwa),
(3) an eventual showdown with the Kurds,
(4) the sale of oil to Iran's ally China, and
(5) the eviction of US troops.
All hail the new fundamentalist Islamic state of Iraq. Heck of a job, shrub.
August 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good rundown of the situation. Depressing.
August 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The US five year US "divide-and-conquer" strategy"
actually, i think the administration's strategy was more like "conquer-and-divide"
August 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point -- I agree.
August 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no force in the area that can quell the Kurds. They have been building a Georgia-style mercantile "democracy" for almost twenty years, and their armies have been trained and equipped by Israel.
Israel, you say????
Seymour Hersh in the NY-er, quoted here:
http://middleeastinfo.org/article4606.html
Kurdistan is Israel's back-up proxy in Iraq for when the US leaves. And of course there's that old pipeline (to Haifa, I believe).
August 26, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hosepucky.
First, the Israeli army got whipped two years ago by a bunch of rag-tag partisans, and recently the Israeli-trained Georgia army took a dive.
Second, the New Iraqi Army has thirteen divisions, assisted if need be by the powerful armies of Iran and Turkey. How many divisions do the Kurds have?
August 26, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why Biden's partion idea had validity. I'll take it one step forward: (1) The Sunni Iraqi's create their own state and Sunni Arabs form their own "NATO" type organization as the new Check on Iran in the region; and (2) The Kurdish partition finds an accomodation with Turkey and enters into Turkey with floating point autonomy similar to Spain's relationship with it's autonomous regions (Catalonia, Andalusia, Galicia) on the other side of the Mediterranean.
Historically, he who controls both eastern Anotolia and northern Iraq, controls the entire Middle East west of the Tabriz mountains (i.e. west of Iran) which is why all the great battles of history were fought in this region (Gaugemala, Manzikurt, Chaldiran).
This would require some nifty diplomacy as there's not much in it for the Turks or the Kurds, so sweetners might need to be added. For the Turks: Oil, UE promise made good, and stability on it's south eastern flank. For the Kurds: Amalgamation with it's Turkish cousins, NATO security and UE prosperity and true autonomy.
Another added benefit of these arrangements is that the Arab "NATO" would suddenly have common cause with the Isreali's and so new accomodations between the various parties might be worked out. At this point Iran is checked by Turkey/NATO on its Northwest Fronteer, and Arab "NATO" with presumably Israeli help on its Western Fronteer.
The only unresolved issue would then be Iranian Kurdistan: one third of Kurdistan lies in Turkey, one third in Iraq and one third in Iran. The Iranians will have to behave because this arrangement leaves some instability in that region of their country.
All-in-All this might create a better, more peaceful Middle East.
August 26, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The collosal stupidity of Bush/Cheneyism becomes apparent once again.
It's a lesson that's only cost us a trillion dollars to learn. Maybe a couple more before we can extricate ourselves.
Worst President in post-war America. Even worse than the guy who had to resign before impeachment if you can believe that.
August 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when do we see anything about the recent major humiliations of the Cheney agenda in the traditional media? On the front page, I mean? Or being discussed at length?
Seems like the mainstream pundits are being pretty darned quiet, considering what a huge deal Iraq has been for years, in terms of American blood and treasure.
August 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there were three main reasons we invaded Iraq:
1) to protect Israel and do their bidding. Remember the neo-cons were very tied into the Israeli lobby. Even today, we might see Israel attack Iran and drag us into another war. This reason is still "operative".
2) oil. Cheney and the power-brokers know that oil is power. Japan basically started WWII (for them) because they needed oil, the "co-prosperity sphere".
3) Junior wanted to show his Daddy that he was the bigger man.
From this standpoint, 1 & 3 are a success, and 2 is being worked on. Bush/Cheney feels like they succeeded. And Rove is still using the Iraq war for political reasons.
BP
August 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as Iraq clearly and obviously goes into the crapper, I'd say that number 3 is a big failure for Bush. He's now desperately trying to hold on to keep it going long enough to pass the buck.
As for number 1, Iraq was never a real threat to Israel, except in the most fevered imagination. The real scary item was Iran, and Iran comes out more powerful than ever.
So really, its failure all around.
August 26, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me what is more clear is that Israel was a threat to Iraq, and now Israel is a threat to Iran. Let's be honest, who has been openly advocating a military first-strike on the other: Israel or Iran ?
August 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's crazy talk. After all, what country starting with a letter I has a fleet of hundreds of nuclear weapons waiting to wreak devastation on their neighbors!
August 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ungrateful F'n bastards. So now that we've dumped over 1/2 a trillion dollars into that toilet we're not even going to get SOME of that money back. we need to get out, let them go back to killing each other in a civil war. Once the ethnic cleansing is done, we can go back in and install a government and get our money back. I'm sick and f'n tired of the Iraqi's.
August 26, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you can rest assured that the Iraqis have more than ample reason to feal sick (if not dead, maimed, or homeless) and tired of the Lunatic Leviathan -- namely, us.
Iran, China, and Russia will, of course, pick up the Iraqi pieces (with China also buying up a good chunk of American distressed real estate at bargain prices) to boot. No country does too-stupid-to-stipulate like the Disunited Confederate States of the New Middle Ages.
August 27, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I want to thank Mr. Taplin for making these posts about Iraq. The war lives in a peculiar shadow. It is spoken of as a bad dream that we are about to awake from but it is the center of what the U.S. is doing now.
How successful Maliki is in making oil deals outside of the umbrella of U.S. contracts depends largely upon whether he can negotiate a settlement that with the Sunnis and Kurds. Mr Taplin's last post pointed out that the Iraqi government has been arresting and marginalizing many of those Sunnis who stabilized al Anbar.
The Shia can't have it both ways; They cannot execute a judo throw on the U.S. policy of profiting from the occupation and also renew the sectarian war with the Sunnis. The reason is simple. If there is a civil war, the U.S. will intervene (yet again), and all those deals are graffiti written on the walls of Falluja before it was taken (yet again).
The best hope for the end of the U.S. adventure is the unexpected appearance of an independent Iraqi state.
August 27, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink