Thursday, October 19, 2006

Iraq - the `Trick Bag'

'This is the worse sitch-i-ation I ever had
You done got me in a Trick Bag"

Earl King, from `Trick Bag' 1962

Now, Earl King was singing about an erring spouse who had him in a no-win situation he couldn't find his way out of - a 'trick bag'-down in N'awlins. But the same sentiment could just as easily refer to our involvement in Iraq.

Today, military spokesman Major General. William Caldwell came out and admitted it - the US effort to end the sectarian bloodletting and secure Baghdad has failed to `meet expectations' and that it's time for `rethinking'.

And, today, President Bush was asked in an ABC News interview whether he agreed with an opinion by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that the current violence in Iraq was "the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive."

Bush responded: "He could be right. There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

"Look, here's how I view it," Bush said. "First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence.

"They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw," he said.

Well, it's true and it ain't, Dubbya.

He's right about the Tet comparison. Even with all the casualties the jihadis have had, most of the Main Stream Media is eating this up and absolutely drooling over the prospect of retreat and failure.

If it were up to me, I'd station every one of these vultures in a press pool `for their safety' like we did during the Gulf War. It would help.

But the President leaves out the role of the chief practitioners of the sectarian violence these days - the Iranian backed and controlled Shiite militias like Moqata al Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Force.

Where things stand now. Iraqi prime Minister al-Maliki has expressly forbidden US troops to take on the Mahdi Army or to go after them in their den in Sadr City in Baghdad...even though they're shooting at us.

It was Maliki who personally intervened to free Mazin al-Sa'edi, one of Moqata al Sadr's top Lieutenants in western Baghdad. al-Sa'edi was cut loose on Maliki's orders after being arrested yesterday with five aides by our marines for involvement in Shiite violence.

Y'see, al Sadr doesn't just run the Mahdi Army...he runs Maliki too, as the muscle and major component behind Maliki's Dawa party. In truth when Moqata al-Sadr say sing, al -Maliki says `Name that Tune'...and Iran has the same relationship with Al Sadr as al Sadr does with Maliki.
Most Americans also aren't aware that Maliki, like his predecessor Jafaari, spent the Saddam years cuddled up with the mullahs in Iran.

Eliminating the Shiite militias entirely involves confronting Iran, something the Bush administration appears reluctant to do.

This sorry situation might have been avoided had we kept the country under strict martial law and a US military government, secured the borders, not pushed these people into an election before they were ready just to try and put some flesh on the fantasy of `Arab democracy' and most of all, if we were going to put together a government, made damn sure that whomever ended up in charge was 100% American and hadn't been hiding out in Iran during the Saddam years.

Even better, we could have allowed the country to split into its natural divisions and supported a strong, pro-US independent Kurdistan as a major strategic ally. Or done both.

As it is now, our troops are in a no-win situation, because they can't secure Iraq and end the sectarian violence when they're not allowed to go after the major players or even end the flow of weapons from Iran into the country. It's like trying to fix a roof and ignoring half of it.

As you know, my personal choice would be to either to forcefully confront Iran and cut off the Shiite militias' source of arms and financial support or at the very least, team up with our only real allies there - the Kurds- and create a strategic base in an independent and strong Kurdistan. The basics are already in place there anyway, and the Pesh Merga, the Kurdish army is already is securing that part of the country virtually on its own.

The only real reason for us to have a presence in Iraq at this point is a strategic one, for any upcoming hijinks with Iran. And the Shiite Iraqi government we allowed to take power has already made it plain that they will not support any US action against their jihad buddies in Iran from their territory. The Kurds would have an entirely different view of the matter, especially given the oppression of Kurds in Iran.

In any event, what we're doing now is obviously not working. If our being in Iraq was designed to be a victory, it's time we started fighting this war that way.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

i'm a little confused by your criticisms of bush.
he has done everything the saudis have told him to do.
he is financing fatah.
he has brought over 15,000 whabbists in to the US under the guise of "a college education".
he has eliminated the southern border of the US.
he has stood by while d.ortega has reconquisted the presidency of his banana republic in our hemisphere.
and, he has allowed chavez and mad jad to become equals to the US on the international stage.
puken and xintao play him like a fiddle.
honestly, ff, i don't understand what appears to be, your dissatisfaction with bush.