Who Is Maliki Trying To Fool?
Iraq’s Premier Abruptly Skips a Bush Session
In light of the Stephen Hadley memo, the cancellation of the meeting raises a few eyebrows. What raised my eyebrows was the interview with PM Maliki on GMA where Gibson asked Maliki some direct questions regarding his political allegiance to Sadr and the Shi'ite militias loyal to Sadr. While denying any debts or preferences to Sadr, Maliki stated that it was his goal to disarm the militias without prejudice or preference. Then he reiterated the idea that the Iraqi people do not want a split of territories into three separate states: one Sunni, one Shi'ite and one Kurdish.
However, it is clear to me that President Bush is once again playing to his strong suit: ignorance of the culture and failure to see the obvious. Maliki not only owes his allegiance to Sadr, but he also owes his current position to Sadr. Maliki states he will use Iraqi police and military troops to disarm the militias, but even with an accelerated training program the Iraqi forces will not reach 100,000 field ready troops. Given that the 60,000 Iraqi troops already working have demonstrated their own sectarian allegiances, have had great difficulty maintaining internal security, have little to no reliable intelligence absent of US resources, and have sat by and watched abductions and firefights occur without lifting a finger to intervene... well, let's just say that no one can argue that empowering Iraqi forces by June of 2007 is not only unrealistic and impractical, but outright unachievable.
Then there is the reality of Maliki's statements about the Iraqi people not wanting a divided nation. I can state with almost absolute certainty that the Kurds would love their own independent homeland, especially if they can retain ownership, control and benefits from the oil fields in their part of Iraq. The Sunni's would also love to have their own independent area if it included Baghdad and a nice piece of the oil pie.
The Shi'ites, however, do not want a separate independent state because they would lose. While there are oil reserves in the Shi'ite regions, most of these oil rich areas do not have the wells and infrastructure to harvest the wealth that the oil represents. While there are pipelines running through the Shi'ite controlled regions in the southern areas of Iraq, and the Shi'ites would obviously control the rights to the pipeline, that is not the same. In order to tap into the oil wealth if the country were divided, the Shi'ites would need to raise lots of money and draft the assistance of experienced oil drillers. This would require surrendering a lot of money to oil corporations, most of whom are owned by Europeans or Americans. Those that are not owned by Europeans or Americans probably would not be allowed into Iraq by virtue of the debt that Iraq is going to owe the US and coalition forces for the invasion and occupation. After all, that is part of the game plan: oil wealth will eventually be used to offset the costs of this invasion and occupation, even if it means only securing cheaper oil for the next fifty years or so.
So when Bush states we will stay in Iraq until the mission is accomplished (strange that I seem to recall that it was accomplished), and Maliki states that he will take action, inside my head I hear "Liar, liar, your pants are on fire." I can't believe Bush because of his track record of lying, lack of proper planning and secretive approach to everything. I can't believe Maliki because he has no substantial track record, has no workable resources and is either lying about his allegiance to Sadr or is so naive that he doesn't understand the game of politics.
The fact that trusted National Security Advisors and generals (active duty and retired) disagree with Bush and his top advisors inside the White House also sheds a lot of light on these matters as well. The only thing that has changed recently is that Donald Rumsfeld is not there to run interference and to take the heat off the president directly.
It seems to me that it's not only Maliki that is seeking to fool us, but Bush is still set on the path of trying to fool everyone, including himself. But the problem is that Bush is not looking at the big picture. Iran, which has a history of conflict with the Hussein regime and has thrown its full military and religious weight at Iraq, is now pushing buttons in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing the propaganda card to the hilt. Bush has enabled Iran, and Ahmadinejad, to behave in as inappropriate manner as they want... without having to suffer consequences because the US and its allies have no resources left to slap them down.
But if Bush and previous presidents had better approaches to our foreign policies, none of this would be happening in the first place. It is obvious that we need to rethink our total approach to foreign policy, especially in terms of financial aid, military support, peace keeping interventions and accountability for human rights.
In light of the Stephen Hadley memo, the cancellation of the meeting raises a few eyebrows. What raised my eyebrows was the interview with PM Maliki on GMA where Gibson asked Maliki some direct questions regarding his political allegiance to Sadr and the Shi'ite militias loyal to Sadr. While denying any debts or preferences to Sadr, Maliki stated that it was his goal to disarm the militias without prejudice or preference. Then he reiterated the idea that the Iraqi people do not want a split of territories into three separate states: one Sunni, one Shi'ite and one Kurdish.
However, it is clear to me that President Bush is once again playing to his strong suit: ignorance of the culture and failure to see the obvious. Maliki not only owes his allegiance to Sadr, but he also owes his current position to Sadr. Maliki states he will use Iraqi police and military troops to disarm the militias, but even with an accelerated training program the Iraqi forces will not reach 100,000 field ready troops. Given that the 60,000 Iraqi troops already working have demonstrated their own sectarian allegiances, have had great difficulty maintaining internal security, have little to no reliable intelligence absent of US resources, and have sat by and watched abductions and firefights occur without lifting a finger to intervene... well, let's just say that no one can argue that empowering Iraqi forces by June of 2007 is not only unrealistic and impractical, but outright unachievable.
Then there is the reality of Maliki's statements about the Iraqi people not wanting a divided nation. I can state with almost absolute certainty that the Kurds would love their own independent homeland, especially if they can retain ownership, control and benefits from the oil fields in their part of Iraq. The Sunni's would also love to have their own independent area if it included Baghdad and a nice piece of the oil pie.
The Shi'ites, however, do not want a separate independent state because they would lose. While there are oil reserves in the Shi'ite regions, most of these oil rich areas do not have the wells and infrastructure to harvest the wealth that the oil represents. While there are pipelines running through the Shi'ite controlled regions in the southern areas of Iraq, and the Shi'ites would obviously control the rights to the pipeline, that is not the same. In order to tap into the oil wealth if the country were divided, the Shi'ites would need to raise lots of money and draft the assistance of experienced oil drillers. This would require surrendering a lot of money to oil corporations, most of whom are owned by Europeans or Americans. Those that are not owned by Europeans or Americans probably would not be allowed into Iraq by virtue of the debt that Iraq is going to owe the US and coalition forces for the invasion and occupation. After all, that is part of the game plan: oil wealth will eventually be used to offset the costs of this invasion and occupation, even if it means only securing cheaper oil for the next fifty years or so.
So when Bush states we will stay in Iraq until the mission is accomplished (strange that I seem to recall that it was accomplished), and Maliki states that he will take action, inside my head I hear "Liar, liar, your pants are on fire." I can't believe Bush because of his track record of lying, lack of proper planning and secretive approach to everything. I can't believe Maliki because he has no substantial track record, has no workable resources and is either lying about his allegiance to Sadr or is so naive that he doesn't understand the game of politics.
The fact that trusted National Security Advisors and generals (active duty and retired) disagree with Bush and his top advisors inside the White House also sheds a lot of light on these matters as well. The only thing that has changed recently is that Donald Rumsfeld is not there to run interference and to take the heat off the president directly.
It seems to me that it's not only Maliki that is seeking to fool us, but Bush is still set on the path of trying to fool everyone, including himself. But the problem is that Bush is not looking at the big picture. Iran, which has a history of conflict with the Hussein regime and has thrown its full military and religious weight at Iraq, is now pushing buttons in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing the propaganda card to the hilt. Bush has enabled Iran, and Ahmadinejad, to behave in as inappropriate manner as they want... without having to suffer consequences because the US and its allies have no resources left to slap them down.
But if Bush and previous presidents had better approaches to our foreign policies, none of this would be happening in the first place. It is obvious that we need to rethink our total approach to foreign policy, especially in terms of financial aid, military support, peace keeping interventions and accountability for human rights.
posted by Jim Downey at 7:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home