|
Preparing the Coup
The London Sunday Times has prominently placed an Iraq piece on its homepage: Iraqis call for five-man junta.
Reading that headline one might envision a report about large demonstrations in Baghdad’s streets, editorials in Iraqi papers and discussions on Al Jazeerah. But next to claiming that a coup is widely discussed in political and intelligence circles in Baghdad (Iraqi or U.S. circles?), there is only one person cited in favor of it:
Dr Saleh al-Mutlak, a prominent Sunni politician, travelled to Arab capitals last week seeking support for the replacement of the present government with a group of five strongmen who would impose martial law and either dissolve parliament or halt its participation in day-to-day government.
Put aside that Iraq is already under martial law. Saleh al-Mutlak is a Sunni parliament member and a former Baathist. Of course he does not have any interest in democracy in a country where his constituenty is a minority. But he also does not have the power to do a coup himself.
The article also cites Ahmed "Crook" Chalabi, who says:
“The only person who can undertake a coup in Iraq now is General George Casey (the US commander) and I don’t think the Americans are inclined to go in that direction,”
I believe that Chalabi is right on the first part. At this point, only the U.S. can initiate a coup in the green zone. But the second part seems wrong.
Commentator annie points to an interview with David Brooks, a journalist with a direct line to the White House. Brooks says about the U.S. administration:
I think they’re looking at policy options. One of those options is trying to replace the current government which seems to be doing nothing.
The Sunday Times headline "Iraqis call for …" is just an attempt to prepare the public for a coup that has already been decided on in Washington.
The spin from now on is no longer democracy but what the Iraqi’s call for. At least as long as such calls fit the administrations plans.
Even for Bush followers, it will not be easy to spin themselfs from the much hyped democracy support into a junta support, but because this is an emergency and certainly temporarily and only to further security and because the Iraqis call for it, this just needs to be done and will be done.
And, by the way, setting this example in Iraq is also a good test of such political tactics and it is a mass conditioning training for a later time, when the Sunday Times might write: "Americans call for …".
Op-Ed (Asharq Alaswssat Newspaper)entitled “Our Problem With America” today by Saleh al-Mutlaq who is quoted in b’s link to the Sun Times, in a more prosaic way of saying “Maliki must go”.
And, also of interest, Mutlaq blames the partition talk — squarely in U.S. abassador Khalilzads lap:
………………………..
The US Administration, through its ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, is directing a new play represented by the formation of the new government, whose features are clear from the beginning; namely, a government of sectarian and ethnic quotas that would pave the way for dividing Iraq and wasting its human and economic resources.
First of all, I am saying that we, the people of Iraq, never understood the homeland to be merely a farm that can be divided when rivals differ or when they want to differ. For us, Iraq is a sacred historical and religious concept, which represents our existence, which is a genuine symbol of the existence of our ancestors, and which is dedicated to our coming generations. It has been so since it was liberated by the rightly guided caliph, Omar Bin-al-Khattab, and by commander Sa’d Bin-AbiWaqqas from the Persians. We do not understand the homeland to be a land that can be divided among tribes. We did not and will not reduce the concept of the great Iraqi people in a naive manner by dividing them into Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, Turkmen, Sabians, and Yazidis. This is because the Iraqi people, as God created them on this land, are a combination of all these components. I am not coming up with anything new when saying this; I am just affirming (a fact).
[….]
Today, Ambassador Khalilzad is following the same approach in forming a government of sectarian quotas. It is known that the US ambassador in Iraq interferes in the details of the government formation, and no one denies that.
The US Administration found itself drowning in the Iraqi problem, because it entered Iraq based on tourist information about the country, with which it was supplied by some Iraqi opposition figures close to it. That is why it committed grave mistakes, which it finds itself today unable to solve. This is especially true since the Congress elections are approaching and will be held within six months. That is why the US Administration had to press for the formation of an Iraqi Government to convince the US voter that it is a government of national unity elected by the Iraqi people.
The US and British administrations want to convince the voters in their countries that the Iraqis are composed of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and want to reduce the cultural structure of the Iraqi people to this insignificant image. That is why Bush is today telling his people that he is pleased because the Iraqis formed a government representing all the components of the Iraqi people, which is completely untrue. The truth is that the US Administration managed to form a government on sectarian and ethnic bases, which would pave the way for igniting a civil war and for dividing and weakening Iraq, especially since the dangers of the interference of regional countries in the Iraqi affairs are visible.
All we are asking for is to reconsider this (government) configuration, which will not stand for long and which will even lead the country to more massacres and strengthen the presence of terrorists, thus posing a threat to the region and the world.
We are calling for the formation of a government of a true national unity that serves the interests of the Iraqi people and opens up to the countries of the region, to the Arab and Islamic nations, and to the entire world with a spirit of amity and joint cooperation to revive the Iraqi identity and Iraq’s influential cultural role and to create a balance of powers in the region.
……………………….
Complicated, yes. Mutlaq, clearly is speaking here as the front for Sunni interests as Iraq is reaching a state of critical mass. A major disruption seems to be in the making. Mutlaq, was the senior Sunni negotiator in both drafting the constitution and bringing the Sunni resistance into talks with the U.S. He also has been a strong advocate of a U.S. timeline(d) withdrawl, and an equally vociferous critic of partition — which interestingly enough, he blames Khalilizad here, for pushing, I suppose as a way to defuse the crisis without trashing the “democracy” veneer. Concurrently, in a reputedly underhanded (and illegal) manner, the Iraqi parliment under the arm of Abdel Aziz-Hakim & SCIRI passed an amendment for the de-facto partition of extreme federalization. Whether Khalilzad had (as Mutlaq would have it) any backdoor influence in jamming this through is an interesting proposition, givin that the administration has publically been lukewarm to the idea — as has Bakers Iraqi Study Group. From the SCIRI Shiite (Iranian) position, partition is insurance against another great american sellout. In such case the Warner/Baker initiave is indeed a Laura Rozen straw man front, and a continuance of the neo-con agenda of marginalizing Sunni interests and elevating Shia interests (which then are expected to become comlicit to U.S. interests). Partition in this ruberic, is a neo-con coup d’etat through constitutional manipulation. What Mutlak is agitating for in this case would be the opposite, a right arabist (realist), and a genuine coup d’etat that would re-nationalize Iraq under a neo-Saddamist/Sunni led junta. This is also the “between the lines” recomendation of both Warner and Baker. Curious this, that the anti american/occupation Mutlaq would find harmonic resonance with the right arabists foreign policy establishment — unless the current crisis has precipitated an authentic desire (in the white house) to actually roll-up and leave Iraq, in which case a Sunni led arabist junta would be in better service to U.S. long term interests — if it is indeed an exit strategy — and potentially circumvent the expanding Shiite crescent. Partition, on the other hand, demands a longer U.S. presence, least the country falls totally into Irans orbit. Either way — expanded civil is the likely result.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 15 2006 23:31 utc | 17
|
