Wednesday :: Dec 20, 2006

Iraq-Surging Towards a Blood Bath

by soccerdad

I think that Bush's "new" plan has been laid out in various media sources. Whether it comes to fruition remains to be seen. Before trying to piece a somewhat coherent picture together its important to consider some context. First and most importantly, this war was never about the Iraqi people, WMDs, or even bringing Democracy to Iraq. I’m sure Bush and his murderous group of neocons would have been happy if Democracy somehow sprung up in the Middle East as long as it was our kind of Democracy. But it’s not a central point. This is a geopolitical and resource war. Energy supplies are not only important in themselves but also as a means to exerting power throughout Eurasia countering, at least in part, Russia’s use of energy as a political tool and the rise of China as a economic force. Do not underestimate the importance of these points.

Secondly, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the violence in Iraq is completely out of touch with the Bush reality. Iraqi deaths mean nothing and never had. Just look at the way the war has been run. Look at Fallujah, the use of cluster weapons etc etc etc. And don’t give me any crap about this is not what America is about. It is exactly what America is and has been about. Americans had no difficulty slaughtering Indians to open up the lands of the West for economic expansion. So killing a few hundred thousand dark skinned Muslims so we can be the great empire and preserve our economic way of life is just a natural manifestation of American superiority and morality.

The big target is Iran. As Alissa Rubin pointed out in the LA Times , so far, Iran has been the big winner in the Iraq war. This is clearly important on many levels. Iran has large energy reserves and has been signing energy contracts with many countries including China and Pakistan. They also pose a threat to Sunni dominated governments in the ME such as Saudi Arabia. Not only have we been fed a constant, daily diet of attack Iran now gruel from the Israelis and their right wing supporters such as Michael Leeden, but it has been reported by Steve Clemmons that the Saudis many not interfere with an attack on Iran. There has also been a rising fear of an Iran-Saudi proxy war in Iraq, with the Saudis backing their Sunni kin. link. And as we have seen, the Iraqi government has been reaching out to the Sunnis. So the trial balloon recently floated about the US taking the side of the Shias against the Sunnis is just not realistic. The other issue that has received media attention recently is the problem posed by al Sadr. There was a report of a coalition that may be willing to bloc Sadr and do so with Sistani’s approval. But as Swopa reminds us this is likely Hakim of the SCIRI pitching the same screw Sadr deal that he put forth in the spring and Sistani vetoed. Let’s not forget that Malki owes his job to Sadr so his willingness to clamp down on Sadr’s activities is pretty thin. So there’s really no evidence that a coalition can be put together that will some how turn things around in Iraq.

A coalition may be formed by those who want to stay out of the impending shit-storm that’s on its way. My guess based on my eternal pessimism concerning our government, its media enablers, and what they feel is at stake is the following. Malki will be out, to be replaced by a Sunni maybe Allwai. All decisions will be based on who is willing to stand with the US (and out of the way of the cruise missiles and/or F18s) and not what makes sense for the people of Iraq. They will go after Sadr or wait for him to come after them, depending on whether they feel they need the added justification to reduce Sadr city to rubble. The surge of US troops is meaningless in terms of fighting Sadr who supposedly has 60,000 militiamen. The extra US troops will be used to protect the Green Zone and other areas deemed important. The heavy lifting for getting rid of Sadr will be left to the Air Force. Iran will be attacked probably with tactical nukes. Whether the US or the Israelis do it makes little difference.

I firmly believe that the US will not get out of Iraq unless literally forced. This administration and their Democratic enablers believe that there is too much at stake for us to leave. The administrartion has outright rejected every common sense idea such as opening a dialogue with Syria and Iran. Its not just stupidity but it also interferes with their plan.

From Billmon quoting an earlier post of his says:

Defeat, in other words, isn't the only alternative to failure. It could also lead to the kind of warfare that CIA counterinsurgency specialist Michael Scheuer warned about in his book Imperial Hubris:
"Progress will be measured by the pace of killing and, yes, by body counts. Not the fatuous body counts of Vietnam, but precise counts that will run to extremely large numbers. The piles of dead will include as many or more civilians as combatants because our enemies wear no uniforms . . ."
There was a time when I would have argued that the American people couldn't stomach that kind of butchery -- not for long anyway -- even if their political leaders were willing to inflict it. But now I'm not so sure. As a nation, we may be so desensitized to violence, and so inured to mechanized carnage on a grand scale, that we're psychologically capable of tolerating genocidal warfare against any one who can successfully be labeled a "terrorist." Or at least, a sizable enough fraction of the American public may be willing to tolerate it, or applaud it, to make the costs politically bearable.

Billmon then concludes

All along, I've had the sneaking suspicion that the choices in Iraq would ultimately boil down to mass butchery or defeat.

There is little doubt in my mind which choice will be made. Further deaths of Iraqis are of little consequence to our leaders and their cheerleaders. Further deaths of Americans will be used to justify the atrocities to be unleashed.

soccerdad :: 6:49 PM :: Comments (21) :: Digg It!