The Plans Of Rice And Men Gang Aft Agley

by pessimist As Bu$hCo stole Iraqi oil

We saw a country all aboil

We saw the Shi'a gaining power,

Whatched the Sunni turing dour;

Heard the Kurds call for their land,

While the Turk'men took their stand.

Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds and Turks

How many Yank lives make this work?

The (s)election of the new Baghdad government has to be causing great concern in Washington, because it didn't go as it was supposed to:

Shiite ticket outpolls U.S.-backed PM

U.S.-backed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi was trailing a Shiite ticket with ties to Iran according to partial returns released yesterday after Iraq's historic election. The United Iraqi Alliance, endorsed by Iraq's top Shiite clerics, captured more than two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted, the election commission said. The ticket headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite who favours close ties with the United States, trailed with about 18 per cent, or more than 579,700 votes. The huge lead which the Shiites rolled up last Sunday in their core constituency in the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq pointed to the likelihood of a tremendous victory, enabling the majority community to claim power long denied it by the Sunni Arab minority.

NOTE: This is the post I promised a few days ago in the comment section of The Resurrection Of John Kerry?. This is the post that is going to reveal how I see King George Warmonger being on the verge of a massive failure in Iraq.

The fact that the Shi'ites have scored a huge victory puts the White (Power) House in a major quandary. The Shi'ites have strong religious and cultural ties to the Iranians, and this alone should concern Con-di Rice and 'The' Donald Rum$feld. The fact that the intended victors, the Sunnis, didn't participate in the election (for whatever reasons) makes it impossible for Ayad Allawi to legitimately be the CIA-trained and installed Leedur of Phree Irack, Inc.

Instead, legitimate control of Iraq has landed in the lap of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose followers remember the events of last year's attacks by the US forces against Fallujah, Mosul, and Najaf. I suspect that if the US were to allow al-Sistani to take power, it will be a matter of days before the government elected in the US-approved national elections will call for the departure of Bu$hCo forces from Iraq. In addition:

U.S. 'in for a shock'

"Americans are in for a shock," said Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

This isn't the only problem facing US forces, whose civilian PNAC leaders are widely reported to be planning to atack Iran as soon as possible. The seeds for a civil war in Iraq have been sown and are beginning to sprout.

The Green Shoots Of The Coming Shooting

Because the Sunnis chose not to vote in a rigged (s)election, they declare that the vote is illegitimate and does not accurately reflect the will of the entire Iraqi population:

Iraq Sunni clerics brand the new government “illegitimate”

While a lot of Iraqis in Shiite areas and the Kurdish north participated in Sunday elections, there was a low turnout in the Sunni stronghold areas, which raises concerns of dangerous sectarian rifts in Iraq. Analysts say that the Sunnis participation is a key issue in the Iraqi elections, as they fear further political alienation could spark Sunni rebellion in the country.

Iraq's Sunni Muslim leaders have branded the next Iraqi government “illegitimate”, as a large number of Sunni Iraqis did not vote in the country's elections on Sunday.

The elections "lacks legitimacy because a large portion of these people who represent many spectra have boycotted it," the Association of Muslim Scholars said in its statement, adding that the new government lacked a mandate to draft a new constitution and should be considered a temporary administration.

"We make it clear to the United Nations and the international community that they should not get involved in granting this election legitimacy because such a move will open the gates of evil," the statement said.

An Iraqi Sunni tribal leader went to the Arab League in Egypt, complaining that the election was illegitimate as it was carried out under military occupation. Sunni leaders have previously called on the Iraqi people to boycott the elections because of the U.S. occupation.

One reporter has some views on this situation:

Peter Khalil: Don't ignore Sunni triangle

The US is courting danger in leaning too heavily on these Iraqi national elections as a solution to the insurgency. The Sunni population must have participated and be represented on an equal footing with all of the other ethnicities in the country.

The lack of Sunni Arab participation in adequate numbers is akin to leaving Florida out of the US elections. A small Sunni representation in the new national assembly relative to the fact they make up to 20 per cent of the Iraqi population will only serve to fuel the insurgency and give it a potent new weapon in the propaganda war. The slogan of "disenfranchisement through occupation and sham elections" could solidify some of the more disparate insurgent groups into an insurgency of broader and more credible nationalist appeal, at least among the Sunni population. This is the exact opposite result of the administration's desire to bring disaffected Sunnis into the political process.

If the majority of Sunni Arabs find themselves excluded from this political process, last night's elections may only speed the way to an eventual dismemberment of Iraq.

To make matters even worse, there are reports that even the Sunnis are deeply divided:

A political process of rebellious Iraq

Two top groups from the minority Sunni Muslim population said Friday that they would join in drafting the nation's constitution. The new willingness Friday of the two Sunni groups, the Muslim Scholars Association and the Iraqi Islamic Party, to take part in the U.S.-backed political process came as partial polling results continued to show a big victory by a ticket of candidates guided by a Shiite cleric.

If the groups participate - there have been many past reversals - it would be a significant step toward bringing Sunni into the political process and stemming sectarian divides that could cause civil unrest.

So if the Sunnis do participate in the new government, this solves the problem, right?

Not So Fast!

There is another potent portion of the population pending - the Kurds are going to have a say in what now transpires in Iraq:

Iraqi Kurds may Gain Autonomy

Iraqi Interim Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zabari said Kurds had become the "arbitrators of the politics" after the Iraqi elections and they might gain autonomy as the "grand award". According to Zabari, Kurds could provide a balance between the Shiite lists of the religious leader Abdulaziz Al-Hakim and current interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Zabari, of Kurdish origin, was speaking to The Financial Times.

Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Masoud Barzani, meanwhile, made a statement in Erbil yesterday (Febuary 2) and repeated that although Kurdish autonomy may not achieved in the short run, it is inevitable. "When the right time comes, this will be realized," stressed Barzani adding that national self-determination a natural right of the Kurds.

An unofficial referendum on Kurdish independence was conducted in the Kurdish region last Sunday (January 30) and it is claimed that 95 percent of the 1.9 million Kurds participating in the referendum demanded independence.

Such an independent state isn't just a concern of the US or its puppet regime in Iraq. Turkey claims a Monroe Doctrine-like interest in such a state:

Turkish Concern about Kerkuk Deepens

Ankara stepped up criticisms over “anti-democratic ambitions” in the neighboring country and “disturbing elements” in the Iraqi election process, an apparent reference to Kurdish migration to the city ahead of polls in large numbers. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent veiled criticisms to the United States for not heeding Turkish concerns in the run-up to the Iraqi elections and warned that Turkey won't [allow] chaos in the neighboring country, without elaborating [what this portends].

The Prime Minister stressed that Turkey will not permit any more years of chaos in a region bound to Turkey through history and kinship. Erdogan said he wanted the negative developments in Iraq to stop. Turkey is following developments in the region very closely, Erdogan said, and any discontent in Iraq is discontent in Turkey as well.

Here's the real issue for the Turkish government:

Erdogan: The US Ignores the PKK Camps in Iraq

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an interview to the Wall Street Journal that the Washington administration ignored the terrorist organization the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

The Journal wrote that although Erdogan reproached the US President George W. Bush - to whom he had individually made initiatives many times, he complained about the US not acting in the face of the Kurdish terrorism threat against Turkey and the ethnical discrimination.

Ankara has repeatedly called on the US, which has troops in the region, to move to stop the PKK from conducting activities from bases in Northern Iraq. In June 2004, the PKK announced that it was ending a five-year, self-imposed ceasefire and resumed attacks against targets in Turkey.

Nilgun Gulcan: Kurdish Parties Seek Separation

Dr. Nilgun Gulcan from International Strategic Research Organization (USAK-ISRO) told the JTW that the Iraqi Kurdish parties ultimately aim to establish a separate state in Northern Iraq. According to Dr. Nilgun Gulcan, this is a dangerous game for the Kurds and for the region.

More on this:

Kurds overwhelmingly 'vote' for independence

Kurdish self-rule is inevitable if not imminent, a Kurdish leader said on Wednesday after Kurds in northern Iraq voted almost unanimously for independence in an informal referendum held last weekend. "When the right time comes it will become a reality,” said Masoud Barzani, head of one of the two main Kurdish factions which control Iraq’s northern Kurdish zone. "Self-determination is the natural right of our people, and they have the right to express their desires.”

Iraqi Kurds, who were persecuted under Saddam Hussein, have long pushed for independence, but Turkey, Iran and Syria -— all with substantial Kurdish minorities -— oppose the establishment of Kurdish state on their borders.

These nations have threatened war against the Kurds in the past to prevent the creation of such a Kurdish state. These nations aren't the only opposition to the creation of a Kurdish state:

Most Iraqis oppose Kurdish secession. The international community says it is committed to establishing a unified but federal Iraq in which Kurds have a degree of autonomy.

Others said the creation of such a state was only a matter of time. “When you have a democracy it’s almost impossible to hold people in a country that they hate,” said Peter Galbraith, a visiting former U.S. diplomat familiar with the region. “If you asked me whether in 10 years there will be an independent Kurdistan, I’d say yes.”

And thus the Kurdish David spits in the eye of the local Turkish Goliath:

Barzani: Turkey should Get Used to Kurdish State

Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Mesud Barzani has said it is unacceptable for Turkey to declaring Kerkuk (Kirkuk) as a "red line". Turkey should not interfere with Iraq's internal affairs, Barzani said: "It is our very natural right to have a state. This fact should be seen from now on and accepted."

Barzani said their first priority at this moment is a federal Kurdish state: "We cannot agree with Turkey on two issues. One is the Kirkuk issue and the other is the situation of a federative Kurdistan within Iraq." The Kurdish leader expressed that they do not want Ankara to intervene in the region and added that Turkish military intervention in the region might be tragic for both parties.

When asked whether or not they will meet with Turkmen after the elections and how they will direct their relations with Turkey, Barzani answered: "The Turkmen are our brothers. We will protect their rights as much as they [protect] their own rights. We protected their rights in the past and will do so today as well.

"I hope relations with Turkey will be better from now on."

I wouldn't hold out much hope for this prospect, though.

We Are The Turkmen! Goo, Goo, Gajoob!

The next faction to be considered, the Turkomen, aren't too pleased with what's been going on in the Iraqi (s)election either:

Turkomans are Angry

Turkomans are angry about the claims made that Kurds got 68% of votes in Kirkuk. Turkoman Front official Ahmet Muratli said “Because of the Kurds stance, Kirkuk has ceased to be an internal affair for Iraq and has now become an international issue. Turkey also has the right to comment on this issue and should continue to comment on it."

He added “The election results in Iraq will be announced by the Independent Election Commission. Where did Kurds learn [about] these results? They are waging a psychological war.

Their intention is clear the region of anyone that doesn't fit their hopes in the future of a Kurdish Kirkuk. They want to first expel Arabs, then Turkomans and seize the oil in Kirkuk. This will cause unrest in Kirkuk and it will inevitably expand across the whole region.“

There is only one force that can prevent this from happening, and guess whose force that is? The Kurds know:

Barzani emphasized that relations between Kurdistan and the US are very strong and deeply rooted and said the US should not withdraw from the region until terrorism is eliminated.

And Bu$hCo thinks that it can spare 15,000 troops from the force in Iraq????

All of these troops - and more - will be needed to quell the war that is attempting to erupt while Bu$hCo eyes are smiling on Iran. Worse yet, proven incompetent Con-Di Rice is in Turkey as I write this. Is she there to sell out the Kurds? The answer is obvious when one compares the number of NATO (read: US) bases that are in Turkey compared to those in Kurdistan.

But an added complication to US relations with Turkey is the fact that US forces aren't safe even in Turkey. An unpublished (in America) report (July 21, 2003) of a raid by a U.S. military force against a Turkish office in northern Iraq which captured 24 Turkish nationals, 11 of them members of the Turkish Special Forces Command. Things haven't gotten much better since then. This means heightened security at three air bases (at least), and nine logistics bases, among others (I'm sure).

So here we are. The Shi'a facing a divided Sunni population, as the Turkomen and the Kurds make rumbling noises and upsetting neighboring Turkey while Bu$hCo picks another fight with Iran, which has ties to both Russia and China.

Russia is currently busy establishing military ties to many of the nations threatened by Bu$hCo initiatives in the Middle East, including Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Ol' Pooty-poot isn't quite in Bu$h'$ pocket anymore:

Putin, a karate expert, has come of age. He no longer appears to trust Bush. Russia is still a world nuclear power and can defend itself and its interests.

They are the only nation left on Earth who can annihilate the US (and much of the world) with a nuclear attack. It wouldn't be a wise idea to revive the Cold War over oil, now would it?

Some US alarmist think Putin is already waging war against the US.

Meanwhile China is developing closer ties to Israel, which would weaken the threat of Israeli attack against both Iraq and Iran on behalf of PNAC interests.

These interests require that the US be the dominant nation in this world, something which isn't understood by the majority of the world:

How the U.S. Became the World's Dispensable Nation

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George Bush declared:

"Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world."

The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in place and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited. Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.

That the rest of the world is building institutions and alliances that shut out the US should come as no surprise. The view that American leaders can be trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power for the good of humanity has never been widely shared outside of the US. The trend toward multipolarity has probably been accelerated by the truculent unilateralism of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to be that of the Hollywood mogul: "Include me out."

A decade ago, American triumphalists mocked those who argued that the world was becoming multipolar, rather than unipolar. Where was the evidence of balancing against the US, they asked. Today the evidence of foreign co-operation to reduce American primacy is everywhere -- from the increasing importance of regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence.

The US is being sidelined even in the area that Mr Bush identified in last week's address as America's mission: the promotion of democracy and human rights. The EU has devoted far more resources to consolidating democracy in post-communist Europe than has the US. By contrast, under Mr Bush, the US hypocritically uses the promotion of democracy as the rationale for campaigns against states it opposes for strategic reasons. Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan.

Nor is American democracy a shining example to mankind. The present one-party rule in the US has been produced in part by the artificial redrawing of political districts to favour Republicans, reinforcing the domination of money in American politics. America's judges -- many of whom will be appointed by Mr Bush -- increasingly behave as partisan political activists in black robes. America's antiquated winner-take-all electoral system has been abandoned by most other democracies for more inclusive versions of proportional representation.

In other areas of global moral and institutional reform, the US today is a follower rather than a leader. Human rights? Europe has banned the death penalty and torture, while the US is a leading practitioner of execution. Under Mr Bush, the US has constructed an international military gulag in which the torture of suspects has frequently occurred. The international rule of law? For generations, promoting international law in collaboration with other nations was a US goal. But the neoconservatives who dominate Washington today mock the very idea of international law. The next US attorney general will be the White House counsel who scorned the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.

Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.

But that was a different America, led by wise and constructive statesmen like Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who wrote of being "present at the creation." The bullying approach of the Bush administration has ensured that the US will not be invited to take part in designing the international architecture of Europe and Asia in the 21st century. This time, the US is absent at the creation.

So here we are, hurtling toward a cliff while the rest of the world watches from the sidelines, thinking that we are finally getting our just desserts.

This is the disaster that Bu$h is leading us toward - a vastly larger regional Middle Eastern War that couldn't have begun without his rash and impromptu invasion of Iraq and proven specious WMD charges. It wasn't such weapons - it was that Saddam was about to price Iraqi oil in euros. According to this article, Iran is attempting to do the same, hence the rush to topple the mullahs there and install a Halliburton puppet government.

Why is pricing oil in euros bad?

For a very long time the U.S. dollar has been the world's key money, its so-called "reserve" currency. All oil trading has taken place in dollars. Countries who sell oil want dollars for it. If you want to buy oil, you convert your money to dollars and then make the purchase.

This has been great for the dollar. It has forced other nations to keep a continual "reserve" of dollars in their banks. Since banks never have unused money sitting around, that money has been invested in the U.S., mostly in bonds. Japan alone probably owns 15% of the U.S. Treasury market.

And oil trading is ubiquitous. The whole world runs on oil. So the whole world has dollars in "storage."

About two/thirds of all official exchange money held in reserve is dollars. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are in dollars. In addition, all International Monetary Fund loans are made in dollars. That gives the U.S. a finger in everybody's pie.

Now to digress a moment, the U.S. owes the world a lot of money. Why? Americans like to buy the world's goods. We pay for them with dollars. Thus, a lot of U.S. money goes out of the door all the time and since foreigners don't buy nearly as much of our goods, not as much foreign money comes into the U.S. to keep things even. It's called the balance of payments, and it's very lopsided in favor of the foreigners at the moment.

It wasn't always so. For many years the U.S. produced the most desirable goods and services and the whole world beat a path to the door to buy. Now the U.S. does the buying. That's no problem for us-if we need more money, we just print it. And because of the oil buying business, people ALWAYS need our money.

The more dollars at work outside the U.S., or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world gives the U.S. its goods and services in exchange. The dollars cost the U.S. next to nothing to print, so this means that the U.S. is importing all those foreign goods and services practically for free.

How bad could it be?

But what if they don't need our money anymore? What would happen if the dollar weren't the world's reserve currency any more? What if oil producers decide to accept payment in euros?

That would be a very large problem for the U.S.

Other countries would scramble to trade their dollars for euros. Their money, currently invested in dollars (as in our Treasury market) would be pulled out of those dollars and re-invested in European banks in euros.

* That 15 % Japanese investment in the U.S. treasury market? Gone.

* All that wonderful foreign investment in U.S. companies? Gone.

* All those cheap goods and services? Gone.

* All that U.S. debt? Bigger and bigger.

And what if the U.S. had to swap its dollars for euros at a time when the dollar is falling in value and the economy is already in trouble with U.S. companies coming unglued right and left?

Printing more money wouldn't help us then. Not only would the stock market fall, so would the whole U.S. primacy in the world's financial affairs. From being top dog we would drop to the bottom, owing everybody a ton of money and they wouldn't want our dollars for it. They'd want euros.

And oil? Forget oil. It would be bicycles and walking in the U.S. again as oil's price in dollars goes through the roof. We'd simply be too broke to buy very much of it. The big oil embargo of the '70s? Mickey Mouse stuff by comparison.

At this point, oil is the only game in town. Despite options such as hydrogen and methane, the world still runs on oil and the U.S. is the biggest consumer. The amount of oil found on U.S. soil is pitifully small by comparison to the demand of U.S. industry and consumer.

Big bankers and big oil men understand how this works. The U.S. government currently has a number of people with backgrounds in oil, starting with President George W. Bush, and they know loss of dollar power would be a terrible blow to the American economy.

This is the cliff that King George Warmonger is determined to take us over - going to war against every country that has threatened the hegemony of American multinational corporatists by converting their petroleum pricing to euros.

But wait! That's not all! Russia is considering pricing their oil in euros. This article is posted 2/5/5, so this news is as fresh as it gets as of post time.

Will Bu$h go to war against Pooty-poot and his vast arsenal of nukes just to protect the hegemony of the Tex-Ass oil boys and their war toy Reservist and National Guard GI Joes?

Are you prepared to allow him to try?

He's failed at everything he's ever done - and his 'War on Terra' (read: against euro pricing) is not going to end differently. We will be handed the bill for his incompetent failures one more time - and we already can't pay any of the others he's dumped on us.

Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.