and
Back to Main
February 14, 2005
Billmon: 02/14
Comments
found this statement from informed comment off the beaten path:
The chorus from people like Senator Frisk that the failure of the United Iraqi Alliance (the Shiite religious parties) to gain 51 percent would require them to compromise and may benefit Iyad Allawi was nonsensical even on Sunday, and is now shown to be entirely untrue.
Posted by: x174 | Feb 14 2005 7:59 utc | 1
So its not quite 50% of the votes, counted by Negroponte, but 140 of 275 parliament seats which should be comfortable. At least someone will have to buy parliamentary votes do negate them a majority.
What has been all the horesetraiding over the last days been about while they votes were “recounted”?
Allawi’s overtures to the Kurd? My feeling says there is more behind all this than we currently see. Negroponte is quite experienced – he will not let this slip out of his reach.
I can’t imagine anyone in the world with a grain of brain even consider this charade as an election. It’s just made for Americans. Another “happy end” story for the nation well detached from reality.
Posted by: vbo | Feb 14 2005 11:28 utc | 3
Juan Cole wrote today:
Lebanese Broadcasting Co.’s satellite television news is reporting that the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), comprising Shiite religious parties, has won an absolute majority (141 seats) after adjustments were made in accordance with electoral procedure. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the list leader, expressed his pleasure at this 51 percent outcome for his coalition. The UIA still needs a 2/3s majority, and therefore a coalition partner or partners, to form a government (which involves electing a president and two vice-presidents, who will appoint a prime minister). But it can now win votes on procedure and legislation without needing any other partner.
Posted by: Greco | Feb 14 2005 12:41 utc | 4
What would I do if I were Sistani?
Allawi is politically dead and everyone knows this. I would try to buy off some allawistas parliamentarians. One million dollars cash for each vote is sufficient I think. Then I could have my own government without the annoying Kurds.
If this can’t happen, because allawistas are…idealists (ha ha ha)or because I still need the Americans, I could create a coalition government with them, take the premiership and start creating facts on the ground. Constitution, you said? Yeah, maybe in a year or maybe not. Who knows?
Posted by: Greco | Feb 14 2005 12:49 utc | 5
The Primrose Path Is Paved with What Passes for Neocon Brains
Posted by: Groucho | Feb 14 2005 13:49 utc | 7
From Groucho’s link
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran’s theocracy — potentially even a foil to Tehran’s regional ambitions.
But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base — and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy — $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.
So what are they going to do about this?
what surprised me about the “very different situation” post of billmon was the date on halberstam’s book “the making of a quagmire” – first published in 1965 – since billmon sometimes has date typos
[e.g. John DiIulio
Interview with Esquire magazine
Fall, 2005]
i had to check it for myself – this time he was right
may the creative forces of the universe have mercy on our souls, if any
Posted by: mistah charley | Feb 14 2005 14:08 utc | 9
During a mid-winter interim semester at my high school in the 1969-70 school year called “Think Week” I got to play a week-long UN simulation game called “Dangerous Parallels”. I’ve never forgotten it. We also talked a lot about Vietnam and the draft and “the movement” in other seminars that week. Billmon’s similar dangerous parallels posts reminds me a lot of that experience. It both cools and warms the cockles of my heart.
Posted by: Kate_Storm | Feb 14 2005 14:22 utc | 10
“So what are they going to do about this?”
Resign?
OK, I was kidding there.
So, Sistani, Dawa abd Hakim needs a few dozens voices? They could buy them, but I think that merely assuring their security in Iraq would be enough to buy many – that is, making sure the Shia militias and insurgents won’t go after them, and keeping them safely in the Shia areas, far from Baathists or Zarqawi and like-minded goons.
Beside, if I were Allawi, I’d be worried: former Lebanese PM and billionaire killed by car-bomb. No idea who did it, or how Israel and Syria will react.
(if we dive into conspiracy theories, pretty every power in the region could be guilty)
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 14 2005 14:25 utc | 11
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld lobbied European allies yesterday for more help in training Iraqi security forces . . . Rice said she was increasingly confident that all 26 countries in the military alliance would commit to some form of training for Iraqis before President Bush visits Brussels, Belgium, on Feb. 22.
New York Times
Rumsfeld, Rice lobby Europe for help in Iraq
February 10, 2005
It’s that “commitment to some form of training” that piques my curiosity. Is this a “reconciliation,” or an “amicable separation,” or a “separation,” or a “trial separation,” or a “trial divorce,” or an “amicable divorce,” or just a “divorce” (without, of course, a fully articulated “pre-nup”). I vote for the “amicable divorce,” posing as an “a reconciliation” (because the China weapons deal will move ahead, and no European soldiers will committed to the front lines of the shooting war). I must admit that this particular analogy doesn’t exactly chime with the experience of “Viet Nam,” but then analogies are not identities, and so they shouldn’t chime.
Posted by: alabama | Feb 14 2005 15:55 utc | 12
The parallels are there, but unfortunately the situation in the Middle East is worse, so so much worse in terms of the global fall-out.
Nixon was already drawing down troops while starting a bombing campaign in the North against Ha Noi, Hai Phong. A wounded bully is a deadly one. Not to mention attacks on Laos, Cambodia. Similiar extensions of the domaines de lutte are on the cards now, Iran, Syria (WFT with that car bomb in Lebanon today – word says it was a business hit, is that the case?)
The thing the US military didn’t understand in Viet Nam, and still doesn’t, is that overwhelming force is not an end in itself. You can still lose, no matter how much napalm and air power you have to cover yourself in glory with. Cecil Currey argues in his biog of Gen Giap that Westmoreland was short-charged in that he should have had 1m troops, not 500,000, to get the job done. I contend, along with Steve Gilliard, that the US still wouldn’t have made it, even if it had slaughtered Uncle Ho in the 1940s when it was still doing business with him. Can’t be won anymore, this kind of war.
And how soon will the insurgency move from guerrilla war to counteroffensive? Is it already there in certain places like Mosul? The hit against the UK Hercules jet on the day of the elections was a masterstroke in the psyops war, booted Blair’s crowing right off the front pages.
And will the US and the UK, among others, now offer political asylum to all the Iraqi women now comdemned to live under Sharia law?
(see Riverbend – http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110815850766514443) Christ, having to put up with foreign occupation, to live without electricty, medicine in hospitals or water and sanitation, but where a large part of the political debate is now going to be about whether women wear make-up or not. Priceless.
Monumental fuck-up does not even begin to describe it. Braindead fucktards of the US administration, you’re over. You lost. Unfortunately, Iraq lost too.
Posted by: Dismal Science | Feb 14 2005 16:43 utc | 13
Dismal: Now, apparently, some unknown islamist group claimed the attack. Why they’d terminate a guy who isn’t in charge anymore, I don’t know.
One of Steve Gilliard’s point was that short of blatant genocide, colonial wars fail, and the costs (in the budget and the people’s morale and morals) are usually too big nowadays for Western nations to slaughter 1/3 of the locals. Russians killed something like 15-20% of the Chechens and Bassaiev is still provoking them on videos. I’m still thinking of the Spanish crackdown in Cuba, where they ended up with having 1 soldier for 6 civilian locals, and still weren’t able to completely root out the rebellion – granted, counter-insurgency has been perfected since then.
What the Iraqi elections assure, now, is that an attack on Iran will fail with a 100% certainty. Sistani himself *is* Iranian. 70% of the seats will be Shia, and even if some mistrust Iran, they won’t think for long when they’ll have to choose between DC and Tehran. All of this doesn’t mean BushCo won’t attack, of course; it just means that the outcome is a done deal, the only unknown being which kind of power the US will be able to keep in Iraq and in the whole Middle East outside of Israel.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 14 2005 17:24 utc | 14
It´s getting expensive:
Bush to Request $82B for Military Operations
President Bush was poised to officially ask Congress Monday for an estimated $82 billion in additional funds to cover the costs of continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House was to send the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill late Monday,..
…
Administration officials, who discussed this special request late last month on grounds of anonymity, had said that $75 billion of it would be for U.S. military costs, with the rest including funds to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan forces, aid the new Palestinian leadership, build an embassy in Baghdad and help victims of warfare in Sudan’s Darfur province.
Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion. That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.
@CluelessJ
It is just possible that the fact that these wars are unwinnable is not much of a factor in the decision to wage them. A big piece of the economy wants and needs wars to sustain it. It is after all a convenient and unreproachable method for transferring $billions from the workers to bankers and weapons traders, along with whatever spoils accrue from conquering a poorer nation.
So the rationale must usually be crafted from whole cloth, and then conveniently again, once we’re in we can’t leave lest we spoil the honor of our war dead.
The point is, the only reason needed is support of a topheavy war machine. There are probably hidden longer term rationales but they need not be divulged, partly because the many parties signed on in support of invasion don’t agree on what those long term rationales should be. So keep em secret. You can still have your war(s) but you don’t have to explain them in detail. (Notice how Rummy’s press responses are tailored to this end.)
In my opinion the USA has been constantly at war since 1942 because it is under the control of a power that likes, wants and needs war for its own sake, and not because we are in danger of being invaded or any of the other claptrap commonly used as justification.
Posted by: rapt | Feb 14 2005 19:58 utc | 16
Conspiracy or not, the US propaganda system is still working in high gear.
The article discusses the media’s historical role as domestic propaganda organ for advancing govt policy objectives. But late in the piece comes this on US strategy in Iraq:
Given the administration’s initial objectives it seems reasonable to expect that it will do two things: First it will intensify the pacification-by-violence program to marginalize the insurgency and clear the ground for rule by groups chosen by or deeply indebted to the invader-occupier. As Seymour Hersh has pointed out, the administration has already steadily escalated its bombing raids month by month, making all of Iraq into a “free fire zone”—“It’s simply a turkey shoot…Hit everything, kill everything”–virtually unreported in the media; and we may surely anticipate more of the same (“We’ve Been Taken Over By a Cult,” CounterPunch, Jan. 27, 2005).
Second, the administration will try to bolster the political position of its chosen and preferred agents and neutralize any Shia threat (a possible Islamic state; insistence on a U.S. withdrawal) by deals, bribes, and threats. The Shia are already indebted to the administration for removing Saddam, currently trying to crush a Sunni-based resistance, and agreeing to an election in which Shia voting power will give them nominal power. They may be willing to strike a deal—and a deal may already have been struck– in which a dollop of substantive power is granted in exchange for concessions that make for limited client state status.
One difference I see between Viet Nam and Iraq is that there was no natural social fault line for the US to exploit in Viet Nam as exists in Iraq. The Shia leadership has already dropped demands that the US occupation should end (for now) and has agreed to support US development of Iraqi oil fields. In return, the US will support the Shia leadership as “legitimated” by the, um, election. Has the Shia leadership made a Faustian bargain with the occupation in hopes of securing long term power? It would appear so. Will the Shia leaders motivate their rank and file feel to take over the role of policing Iraq as ARVN never did in Viet Nam? If so, this is a tactical victory for the neocons and buys time for the spooks, er, advisers and consultants, in the US embassy to forge alliances with the new Iraqi regime that ensure the request to evacuate US forces never comes. The Kurds are a wild card in this equation and the US military is under considerable strain, which cuts down the time they have to pull this off.
Standard stuff from the CIA playbook.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 15 2005 1:31 utc | 17
Am I the only one here who is wondering if the U.S. had something to do with the bombing in Beiruit today? A couple of hours ago on a newscast I heard Richard Boucher (State Dept. spokesman) saying something like “the U.S. is committed to a free, democratic Lebanon free of foreign invaders” – ….and Syria has had several thousand troops in Lebanon for quite some time…so my paranoid leanings leaped into gear. Are we now going to rush to “defend democracy” in Lebanon by invading Syria, using this pretext?
Posted by: maxcrat | Feb 15 2005 1:57 utc | 18
@Clueless Joe – US ground invasion of Iran is not on the table. One guy – from Jane’s – has spent last several yrs. researching their nuclear capability. He’s the only human being who really knows what he’s talking about. His bk. just came out: “Iran’s Nuclear Option”, so he’s doing interviews now. (You can listen to interview w/him – sorry I didn’t catch his name: kgo.com ->radio -> John rothmann -Sat. nite/Sun am 1-2am – archived for a week. Highly recommended.) Said no one knows what the state of Iran’s nuclear capability is now. I repeat it is unknown. He also said “Trust me – a US ground invasion of Iran is not on the table.” He also said that Iran is getting much more aggressive now, so he thinks developments are coming along, even if process not yet completed. That’s obviously of great concern to Israel. This wasn’t discussed, but I’d bet that quietly every other corrupt dictatorial regime in ME doesn’t want to see a nuclear Shia theocracy in Iran.
That said – if Israel bombs them, the gates of hell could fly fully open in ME & god knows – surely the NeoCons don’t – what’d happen then.
Posted by: jj | Feb 15 2005 5:10 utc | 19
Pale white horses to the ready, here we go:
Blast cited by US in anti-Syria move, IHT, Feb 15.
Posted by: Dismal Science | Feb 15 2005 14:49 utc | 20
Maxcrat:
Sam Hamod says: “This is the work of an intelligence service, not a small group”. Dismal’s link above lends credence to Hamod’s thesis. You either believe in conspiracy theories or coincidence theories.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 15 2005 15:22 utc | 21
When the Iraqi army was disbanded (Bush did not wish this, afaik, but Rummy ordered it -??-), and once Bremer fired Baathists – teachers, policemen, functionaries, doctors, scientists, officials, etc. – the whole process was set in motion, a schism was created, oppo. was reinforced; ethnic, religious and clan identities were glorified – others would come to have some power, or would be the new yes-men.
Bremer seemed to act on the idea that the Baddies (Saddamites, like Nazis, etc.) had to be disempowered; the roots of evil must be eradicated. Movie scripts! Then what? Even your struggling scribbler would have found it hard …
Once the folly was recognized, some attempts were made to backtrack, but it was too late.
vbo, I don’t quite agree. The US will have to ‘treat’ with someone – that they don’t care much who, and prefer a power struggle (along religious lines or any such division) and chaos is clear, but the *who* still does count. Their posturing concerning democratic ‘values’ – the hope of a sort of McDo Iraq, with people making money, dressing right and smiling to the cameras, eating pancakes made with Australian wheat (big deal that!), spanking new schools and women’s rights will not be forgotten by many in the US.
rapt, 2.58, right.
Posted by: Blackie | Feb 15 2005 18:15 utc | 22