Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 10, 2006
Nothing Left

by anna missed
(lifted from a comment)

This report by Con Coughlin, "the Judy Miller of the UK", might be a harbinger of what is in store for the entire OIF:

A natural conclusion to be drawn from this latest flare-up in the
delicate balance of relations between the British military and the
local population it is seeking to protect is that Britain’s continued
presence in Iraq is no longer tenable, and that its forces should be
withdrawn forthwith.

Certainly that is how the voluble anti-war brigade is seeking to
portray the predicament of the British garrison in Basra, which now
finds itself virtually confined to barracks, fearful that its presence
on the streets will provoke further violent assaults.

And whats going on in the north has got to be more volitile. The
jist of which I think is that during the 3 years of "Gravity’s
Rainbow
", no apparent government period, is that the political reality
has become so decentralized that it has become opaque to the occupation
authority.

Throughout the various incarnations and attempts to stand up
a central government — beholden to U.S. interests — have failed to
inspire any confidence beyond the green zone. And so have subsequently
been replaced by a governance of street culture, tribe, clan, gang, and
militia. The communication, structure, and alliances between these
factions have evolved at a pace that is beyond all attempts by the
occupation to generate intellegence on it, so they are left with an
ever diminishing circumstance of control or no control.

This has resulted in a situation where the so called puppet government has been
given increasing latitude (power) in the hopes that it can formulate a
counter-force or re-centralization of power back into a population that
has grown increasingly sceptical of its alliances to the occupation
force or its ability to counter the slide into sectarian stife.

The Iraqi government then is put into the position of serving two masters,
its occupation hosts, and an increasingly hostile population well on
its way to defacto self governance.

And because the occupation forces
have restricted the use of the army and security forces it has trained
to be loyal to them, this has forced the Iraqi government to rely
exclusively upon its connection to the main religious militias for the
enforcement of their will — and this is what the occupation is now
demanding to be dissolved, or at least incorporated into the army.

This of course leaves the government toothless, or as a tooth fairy,
restricted to dolling out economic favors as a form of governance.

Which has had another effect as evidenced by the rise of Muqtada Sadr
— the only politician on the ground in Iraq. The only politician both
working the street and the ministries to any effect — who incidently,
also pays more and offers better benifits than the Iraqi army to its
militia members. And who also happens to be the most openly
anti-occupation force, outside the insurgency. I hear today he openly
and publically credited his militia with shooting down the British
helicopter — and is aimig to increase his ministry portfolio from 2 to
5.

It’s just a matter of time, and not alot of it, before there’s
nothing left for the occupation.

Comments

Bush and Blair have one thing in common that keeps them holding on in Iraq: the lack of a functional opposition party. As long as Tony can keep his own people in check, he has nothing to fear from the Tories.
Bush, unfortunately, has nothing to fear at all…

Posted by: ralphieboy | May 10 2006 12:08 utc | 1

This of course leaves the government toothless, or as a tooth fairy, restricted to dolling out economic favors as a form of governance.
My hope has been that, having cut the deals he needs to cut behind the scenes, Nuri al-Maliki will simply “ask” the Anglo-American Axis to leave, kick Bremer’s doorstop out from behind the open door to the Anglo-American Oil Companies, and proceed to put Iraq back together again.
I’m dreaming, no doubt. I have no idea what will happen in Iraq.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | May 10 2006 14:42 utc | 2

That writer Coughlin is quite a jerk:

The fact that this highly promising relationship has unravelled to the extent that the two sides now observe each other through their rifle sights cannot be blamed on the British soldiers who have risked their lives to serve their country with distinction, nor the politicians in Whitehall who sent them there in the first place.
The real blame for the chaos that is continuing to impede attempts to rebuild Iraq after Saddam’s 35-year reign of terror must lie with Iraq’s politicians/B> who, despite all the progress that has been made towards establishing a functioning democracy in that benighted country, remain incapable of establishing an effective government.

Posted by: b | May 10 2006 15:07 utc | 3

what are you expecting, it’s the effin’ Torygraph. They blame Blair but would’ve been just as bad in this war…
What people should realise is the obvious fact that the ones who’ll be able to rule most of Iraq, the ones who can muster the approval of most of Iraqis, will simply be the ones who will kick the US out of Iraq. If some govt managed to do this, it would gain a lot of credibility – in fact, just asking for it would already improve their current abysmal credibility. But right now, it seems that it won’t be the puppets who’ll ask the US to go home, but some coalition on the ground, most probably Sadr and his allies, who will make enough mess that the US won’t have any other choice.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | May 10 2006 15:31 utc | 4

Bush on March 29, 2006

Last week in Cleveland, I told the American people about the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, which was once a key base of operations for al Qaeda and is now a free city that gives us reason to hope for a free Iraq. I explained how the story of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our strategy, because in that city we see the outlines of the Iraq we’ve been fighting for, a free and secure people who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in government and civic life, and are becoming allies in the fight against the terrorists.

Today

The death toll from Tuesday’s suicide bombing in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar has risen to 24 from 17, police said on Wednesday.

An Iraqi police official said 35 people were also wounded in the blast. A hospital source said the casualties included civilians as well as Iraqi police and troops.
The U.S. military earlier said the bombing killed at least 16 civilians and wounded 134 others, adding that U.S. troops treated more than 60 of the victims and that 24 of them were in a critical condition.

Posted by: b | May 10 2006 15:33 utc | 5

but some coalition on the ground, most probably Sadr and his allies, who will make enough mess that the US won’t have any other choice
Just wondering how long it will take them to go after Sadr again.

Posted by: b | May 10 2006 15:35 utc | 6

I disagree w/ this assessment. there is no struggle for iraqi national unity. none. just wildwest barbarism. this benefits the occupation in obvious ways–ways discussed here in expiry by me.
I believe sadr’s days are numbered. and I also think, as I’ve said before, it’s not crazy to expect the u.s. to begin throwing its weight behind sunni power in order to diminish shia factions.
anna missed, I’d retain the “zone” metaphor from GR to support my view. because, outside the zone, lording over history, is “they”–a role ably played by “bush.”

Posted by: slothrop | May 10 2006 16:10 utc | 7

I should also add some more support for the thesis u.s. supporting sunni–this is obvious in the american manipulation of jaafari, among other things.

Posted by: slothrop | May 10 2006 16:15 utc | 8

HAVE 200,000 AK47S FALLEN INTO THE HANDS OF IRAQ TERRORISTS?

FEARS OVER SECRET U.S. ARMS SHIPMENT
SOME 200,000 guns the US sent to Iraqi security forces may have been smuggled to terrorists, it was feared yesterday.
The 99-tonne cache of AK47s was to have been secretly flown out from a US base in Bosnia. But the four planeloads of arms have vanished.

Hahahaha…*maniacal laughter*
*Slumps and chokes with nausea and dry heaves*
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
~Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 10 2006 17:41 utc | 9

Speaking of Gravity’s Rainbow…
Live From Chapel Perilous:
“Judging from anecdotal evidence, more people have started Gravity’s Rainbow than Illuminatus! But far more people have finished Illuminatus! than
Gravity’s Rainbow.”
I highly recommend Gravity’s Rainbow, but it may take some work to get through. Crying of Lot 49 is probably the best introduction to Pynchon, simply because it’s smaller and less intimidating.
I’ll toss another one in. “Foucault’s Pendulum” by Umberto Eco.
ERROR IN REALITY.SYS REBOOT UNIVERSE? Y/N

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 10 2006 18:17 utc | 10

Uncle – “Foucault’s Pendulum”. No problem. Trying to read “Gravity’s Rainbow” reminds me of The Information” (Martin Amis)

Posted by: beq | May 10 2006 19:09 utc | 11

So long as any government in Iraq seems to be at our beck and call, nothing will change for the better. Since they love to vote so much, why not a vote on our continued presence there?

Posted by: ben | May 10 2006 19:13 utc | 12

slothrop,
Just because there is no “struggle for national unity” in the classic revolutionary sense, does’nt mean that conditions on the ground do’nt still constitute the necessary resistance — as say like Lebanon, with Sadr assuming the role of Hezbollah. Its this development that probably has the U.S. so freaked out, that the careful coaching of the Shiite rise to power still has also, this wild (anti-american) card, which always looks like an ace in the hole up its sleeve, to the occupation. The “right zionists” fantasy of a secular Shiite government (Allawi, Chalabi) is perpetually frustrated by Sadr, but the current political structure has become dependent upon him. I think for him to be martyred at this point, would be percieved as a Saddam like action on his father and unleash a full blown civil war. And contrary to some thinking, (big time) civil war is not in U.S. interests. If it was otherwise, they would have wacked him long ago. No, I’m seeing this as part of a long slow erosion of viable options — until the occupation is indeed, “on a lilly-pad”.

Posted by: anna missed | May 10 2006 19:47 utc | 13

Wait until a full WW1 type warfare breaking out on the Syrian/Turkish/Iranian/Iraqi – Kurdish wished borders.
That’s what the neocons want…. the nuke in Iran upsets that balance.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 10 2006 21:02 utc | 14

as say like Lebanon, with Sadr assuming the role of Hezbollah. Its this development that probably has the U.S. so freaked out
huh? please explain.
u.s. casualties have been astonishingly low. a civil war is ongoing, with presently no “set-piece” battles to be sure, but the complete disunity of a relatively crudely equiped resistance benefits the occupation. they’re killing each other, and not making a dent in u.s. military capability. I do not deny for one second that, a fisk often suggests, the u.s. is deliberately fomenting internecine conflict. whatever. in any case, the occupation is hardly endangered by the state of affairs.
No, I’m seeing this as part of a long slow erosion of viable options — until the occupation is indeed, “on a lilly-pad”.
well, it’s been three years. what will you say in six years? ten years? and left on a “lilly pad” is fine for this occupation. we don’t need to mingle w/ the natives. we just need to make sure we get our oil out of their sand, “protect” israel, keep the chinese and russians out, and threaten iran and syria in perpetuity. all done by keeping the arabs at each others’ throats. it’s worked for 80 years, you know.

Posted by: slothrop | May 10 2006 22:05 utc | 15

Moqtada al Sadr — Robespierre of the Iranian resistance!

Posted by: sm | May 11 2006 0:25 utc | 16

slothrop,
HEZBOLLAH ON THE TIGRIS

Posted by: anna missed | May 11 2006 0:27 utc | 17

thanks anna missed.
still, the shia are divided too much to constitute any present or future national liberation front. and if lebanon is your model, which is in a qualified way appropriate even while the example doesn’t serve to justify your claims, then iraq’s future will be as a fragile client state(s) of the u.s. or iran, or some other occupation. the u’s’ will not and cannot back away as israel did from southern lebanon. that’s for sure.

Posted by: slothrop | May 11 2006 2:21 utc | 18