The Re-orientation of the anti-Iran Campaign

April 12, 2008

After the recent Iran NIE said that Iran currently doesn’t persue nuclear weapons, a new reasoning was needed for a possible bombing campaign.

On April 5 and 6 planted exaggerated previews of the Crocker/Petraeus testimony were published in the British press pointing out that they would see Iranian ‘interference’ in Iraq.

In a little noticed interview with Al-Maliki last Sunday, CNN ‘s Nic Robertson tried several times to get Maliki on the record about "special groups who are getting weapons from Iran". Maliki didn’t take the bait and only spoke of "criminal gangs who receive funding from beyond the borders."

Maliki, by the way, came out against the pause in U.S. troop reduction:

ROBERTSON: They are considering a pause, maybe weeks or months to examine when they should pull all American troops out. What do you want the U.S. to do? Should there be a pause in the drawdown? Do you want it to be weeks? Do you want it to be months?

AL-MALIKI: […] I believe the American forces can draw down. I don’t believe the decision for a drawdown should be paused as long as Iraqi security forces — based on the first agreement the more Iraqi forces move forward, the more U.S. forces move back until all security responsibilities are handed over and coalition forces remain in a support role. And in a support role, you don’t need such a big number.

Did someone in Congress notice this?

The hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday were a bit less offensive against Iran than what was previewed but included the new boogyman of "Iran backed special groups." On talkradio Bennet, Kristol and Lieberman mused about "Bush going to take action" against Iran.

On Thurday Dick Cheney was on two rightwing radioshows, Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt, and babbled about the 12th Iman and apocalyptic Iranian leadership.

Also on Thursday Bush lumped Iran with Al-Qaeda as "two of the greatest threats to America in this new century".

Page A1 pieces in the Washington Post and the New York Times today focus on Iran as a "top threat to Iraq".

Both report of yesterday’s press conference with Sec.Def. Gates and Adm. Mullen and additional interviews with Crocker. All accuse Iran of fighting a proxy war in Iraq against the U.S., giving weapons to Iraqi groups and eating little children.

Also on Friday Rice called for more sanctions on Iran and Bush in an ABC interview again threatened Iran:

"The message to the Iranians is: we will bring you to justice if you continue to try to infiltrate, send your agents or send surrogates to bring harm to our troops and/or the Iraqi citizens," he said.

So this week was a full blown campaign of official hate speech against Iran.

Was this drumbeating simply to justify the U.S. troop level in Iraq?

To me this looks like more.

This week’s campaign was that re-orientation of the "bomb Iran" argument away from the "nuclear threat" and towards the "threat" of Iran’s role in Iraq.

I still doubt that the public will fall for it, but the force of this week’s campaign was quite impressive.

Posted by b on April 12, 2008 at 08:52 UTC | Permalink

Comments

SS Typhoon Fires Warning Shots At Iranian Boats
The U.S. patrol craft USS Typhoon fired warning shots at an Iranian high-speed boat as it approached the Typhoon in a “taunting manner” in the central Persian Gulf, a U.S. military official said.
The USS Typhoon tried unsuccessfully to establish radio contact with the Iranian boat after it came within an estimated 200 yards of the Typhoon Thursday night, the AP quoted an official in the U.S. navy as saying.
The Typhoon then warned it away by firing a flare. Two other small Iranian boats were also there in the vicinity, but turned away, the official said.
However, Iran denied any kind of “confrontation” with a U.S. navy ship in the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 12 2008 10:05 utc | 1

b:
Maliki, by the way, came out against the pause in U.S. troop reduction
With the majority of Iraqis wanting the troops out you can hardly expect him to say otherwise. However he clearly doesn’t want them to leave as you quoted him:
And in a support role, you don’t need such a big number.
He ain’t stupid if the US leaves so does he, or he ends up dead.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 12 2008 10:10 utc | 2

They aren’t going to invade Iran. They are just blaming Iran for their failure in Iraq.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 12 2008 10:13 utc | 3

As far as I can gather, the U.S. is suffering from a pickle of their own creation and need a scapegoat to further justify their irrelevant occupation. The surge, in retrospect was simply an escalation in troop numbers to lock down Baghdad on the results of the ethnic cleansing of operation Forward Together – that removed large masses of Sunni population from mixed neighborhoods, and eventually either immigrated to refugee camps or out of country, and drove a significant number of resistance into the awakening alliance (of convenience) with the occupation. All the surge did was administer these programs, negotiate a ceasefire with JAM, and “fix” the new demographic in Baghdad through either cantonization, and or the administration policing (mini basing) the cantons. Thereby turning Baghdad into a Shiite (majority) city. While the falloff of general violence is the direct result of operation Forward Together, the surge, was mostly an effort to fix in place what had been secured by the operation – a Shiite Baghdad, the real beneficiary of the combination of events was not the Maliki government nor the occupation (except for its domestic propaganda value), but the Sadr trend – which managed to extend its influence far beyond the limits of Sadr City, which already contained at least 1/3 the total population of the Baghdad area before the operation, and has no doubt swelled the ranks of his followers as a result. This has created a conundrum for the occupation, which, judging from the hearings are beginning to realize what they have done, but for the Maliki government, it has created a huge crises of influence in advance of fall elections. So he is flailing about and lashing out against Sadr, and at the same time (like Thieu in VN) telegraphing his internal weakness – giving Sadr, in the process even more credibility. Ironically, this is projected and born out by the Saddamist/insurgent blogs, who are furious at Sadr for stealing the mantel of resistance from them.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 12 2008 10:52 utc | 4

“Reconstruction and stability can not be established without putting an end to those criminal gangs who receive funding from beyond the borders.”
Yes, funding, funding, funding. If only we could figure out who has capabilities and history of such funding.
Oh, and Iraq is not a failure, nor was Katrina response or orders-from-above sale of ports contracts to the suckers of Dubai. Nothing recent is a failure, just an investment and a teasing of herded us.

Posted by: plushtown | Apr 12 2008 10:55 utc | 5

Well the amerikan gullibles won’t get behind a plan to invade Iran but they will be so pleased that it hasn’t happened they won’t question the renewed build-up in Iraq, which was the point of the whole exercise. Time and time again we’ve seen the BushCo regime intimate that they are going to do something really over the top about Iran, they never follow through on it but they do ramp up the slaughter of Iraqis which would have attracted protest or at least negative comment before but since what was done wasn’t as bad as what had been expected, there is little comment at all. There has been fuck all opposition to the decision to cease the draw down, which there should have been, but most amerikans have been persuaded to believe that this is the least worst option because they have been presented with a really bad option which no one intended actioning in the first place.
Jeez louise you see it all the time. People even post in MoA that the Iraqis need to stop the violence when the whole cycle of violence is a product of warped amerikan minds plotting the deaths of innocents as a profession. Negroponte took his lessons on dividing the population and setting it at each others throats from Latin America and brought his evil crew to the ME to rinse and repeat it all there yet somehow all this is the fault of the Iraqis! The mob in amerika swallowing exceptionalist swill rarely get the opportunity to see the nature of the evil their society is perpetrating because the misinformation is delivered in staccato snippets. One minute Iran is the evil motherfucker that wants to wipe every jew off the planet with nuclear weapons, the next minute the troops have to stay in Iraq even theough the surge is a great success. The lack of any rational linkage between the two memes is what gives them power. Any amerikan attempting to find a logic in this thinking will be driven into a state approaching neurotic psychosis of the kind Pavlov and co engendered in animals with intermittent unlinked reinforcenments. (an act that sometimes provokes a reward can also without warning provoke a painful punishment).
Of course incrementally amerikans are being guided to a belief that anyone who isn’t amerikan is unamerikan and therefore must die. The messages subtly guide the dumbed down population off track one way before another message steers them off track in the opposite direction. It’s like a snake’s trail which appears to move from side to side yet always goes forward.
So what have we heard this month?
Cheney goes to Iraq and persuades Maliki he needs to have a local election. Seemingly no reason really, most peeps have forgotten about the Iraqi democracy thing but TricKie Dickie II knows that Maliki’s mob can’t afford to have an election before Moqtada is taken care of. So Maliki will have to try and ‘get’ Mockie’s mob. Getting Moqtada isn’t the point of the play although it may be an extra benefit. The point of this plan is to increase the level of violence in Iraq without amerika being seen as the cause of it all. Why? Most of the events of the last month in Iraq haven’t been related to Iraqi politics. Well not primarily. For BushCo, the primary target of all these deaths of innocents has been the amerikan domestic political scene. Iraq had gone too quiet, peeps were starting to suggest maybe that the troop draw-down could happen faster. That would be bad. The dems may still win the election for prez. If they do whatever the troop level is when the dem prez takes office, the level one year on will have to be less. Therefore if this sequestration of Iraq is gonna be successful long term, the troop levels better be pretty damn high in december 08.
That prolly means Moqtada is safe until then, because the beat up ‘Al Quaeda in Iraq’ mob, have been deemed to be decimated. Moqtada is needed to be the bogey man. This is the one Iraqi leader with the credibility to unite all Iraqis against the illegal invasion, so eventually if they can’t ‘come to an arrangement’ with him the amerikan murderers will have to kill him. Just not yet, they need him alive to justify the presence of so many murderers.
The hollering about Iran is just a piece in the puzzle. The actual attack on Iran is at least five years away. Look how long Iraq was worked over before anyone went in there fair dinkum. One GH Bush and two cigar Bill Clinton terms. The plan right from the start. Right from when the Kuwaitis were pressured into stealing Iraqi oil, and Iraq given the green light on invading Kuwait, was to eventually invade Iraq and steal their resources, but it took years of darts and feints, sidesteps and insults before that happened. Even then the amerikans nearly got their clocks cleaned. Iran will take even longer but by the time it happens most amerikans will have accepted the inevitability of it, in fact many will be angry with impatience that it is taking so long. Remember the invasion of Iraq? By 03 all the gung ho assholes were complaining that BushCo was too slow invading.
If everybody ignored the bi-monthly crank up of an Iranian invasion it would make these mudering assholes’ job that much harder.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 12 2008 10:58 utc | 6

Sam @3 – They aren’t going to invade Iran. They are just blaming Iran for their failure in Iraq.
I would agree if this would come cost free. But it doesn’t. China and Russia are already making noise about lowering the sanctions. The U.S. position in various negotiations and economically is deminished because of such bellingerence.
The could blame anybody and everything in Iraq to keep the troops in. Why blame Iran and pay the price?

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2008 11:12 utc | 7

b:
I would agree if this would come cost free. But it doesn’t. China and Russia are already making noise about lowering the sanctions. The U.S. position in various negotiations and economically is deminished because of such bellingerence.
This whole Iraq fiasco and the ME policy in general has diminished the US position and that is the reason this pisses me off. Their share of the World economy has now shrunk to 21% and still counting. There is a worldwide rebellion going on and a great transfer of wealth as a result. Worse than that even though this spectacular incompetance on the World stage has been witnessed by the American public and they express their displeasure with polls putting Bush at only 28% approval ratings and Congress even less they still keep voting the same or similiar people into office.
The could blame anybody and everything in Iraq to keep the troops in. Why blame Iran and pay the price?
A country sitting on 10,000 nukes isn’t really worried about Iran or anybody else for that matter. They wont pay the price they got the tax cuts remember? The public is going to pay for this mess. They are already using their tax dollars to bail out the banks and the builders. There is only one thing the elites fear and that is the American public. If the public actually catch on to what’s really going on they would get voted out in a heart beat.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 12 2008 12:54 utc | 8

Voted out? How? They weren’t voted in.
All of these events are just very good business.

Posted by: plushtown | Apr 12 2008 13:31 utc | 9

plushtown:
Voted out? How? They weren’t voted in.
All of these events are just very good business.
That’s besides the point. This has pointed out tens of thousands of times on bars, blogs and message boards throughout the country and I have yet to see it change anybody’s mind. When you have almost half of the population of voters think that they benefitted from that business becuase their party won then it doesn’t really matter.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 12 2008 14:16 utc | 10

Certainly a press campaign has been mounted to portray Iran as the great boogey, fouling all the US best intentions in Iraq. Just like the London Times exaggeration before the hearings, it looks like some selective reporting and spinning is a significant part of this.
Earlier at MoA, I noted comments by Petraus at hearings, which seemed to go out of the way to hold a door open to Sadr. He described Sadr, for example, as a “nationalist”, never said anti-American, described Sadr’s father and uncle as “martyrs’. Seemed to me this would be newsworthy, because it seemed to depart from standard official rhetoric about Sadr. But these remarks have not been reported anywhere that I can find.
Yesterday NPR did report that “the Pentagon” made conciliatory remarks about Sadr in a news conference. The paper of record, NYT, today gave extensive coverage to the news conference and many other Iraq-related events, but only mentioned Sadr to repeat that he and his forces are at the heart of present violence in Iraq. Yesterday a NYT headline included the words “anti-American cleric” to refer to Sadr.
The most reliable source re what Pentagon leaders are saying in a press conference might be the Pentagon itself. From the defenselink report on the news conference yesterday, one finds quite a different tone and emphasis from what the major media are reporting.

Asked if Iran is playing a greater role in training and directing “special group” militias in Iraq, Gates replied that he doesn’t know if there has been an increase or whether “stirring the situation up has exposed more of what had been there, but was not evident.”
“I think that there is some sense of an increased level of a supply of weapons in support to these groups,” he said. “But whether it’s a dramatic increase, … I just don’t know.”
Gates and Mullen both were asked if Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose forces clashed with Iraqi forces recently, was considered an enemy of the United States. Both leaders said that as long as Sadr cooperates with the elected government of Iraq, he is not considered an enemy. Given Sadr’s powerful influence in Iraq, both said they would prefer to work with him.
“Certainly the ceasefire he asked for many months ago … has had a positive effect, and he seems certainly to have a following that has followed that and significantly impacted on the reduction of violence,” Mullen said. “But he clearly can have the opposite impact, as well.
“Sadr clearly is a very important and key player in all this. Exactly where he’s headed and what impact he’ll have long term … is out there still to be determined,” the admiral said.
Gates said anyone who is prepared to work within the political process in Iraq peacefully is not an enemy of the United States.
“We want him to work within the political process in Iraq. He has a large following, and I think that it’s important that he become a part of the process,” Gates said.

Who knows who sets up the questions? But, as in Congress, the questions seem to lead in an antagonistic direction, whereas military answers are coming back nuanced and guardedly conciliatory.
Who then decides what will be reported? The military is clearly getting no traction on changing the public dialogue of demonization for either Iran or Sadr.
Looks like a sharp division at the top, and the press has chosen a side. Or could the press choose an agenda alone? Are the military the only ones who actually would like to see peace break out?
defenselink: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49550

Posted by: small coke | Apr 12 2008 16:52 utc | 11

Sam,
I am not so certain that Iran will not be attacked, it might not happen this year or even in the next couple of years but eventually the game will have to played against Russia and China. it appears to me that Iraq is but a mere beachhead for launching further campaigns into the oil producing areas. many others have pointed this out here and elsewhere. the stakes are too high for the principal players to allow the other side control of these resources. great wars were fought for spices so to imagine that something as precious as oil and gas will not be bitterly disputed is to ignore reality.
I think that most people in the US understand this and agree with it. I do not think it is a uniquely american thought either as all citizens of all countries would be happy to have something that is important to them even if it means taking it from some foreigner.
You are a welcome addition to this crowd and I really do appreciate your insight.

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 12 2008 17:04 utc | 12

debs nailed it again

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 17:28 utc | 13

anna missed 4
The surge, in retrospect was simply an escalation in troop numbers to lock down Baghdad on the results of the ethnic cleansing of operation Forward Together – that removed large masses of Sunni population from mixed neighborhoods, and eventually either immigrated to refugee camps or out of country,…..All the surge did was administer these programs, negotiate a ceasefire with JAM, and “fix” the new demographic in Baghdad through either cantonization, and or the administration policing (mini basing) the cantons.
the surge was ‘operation soft partition’ clothed in the guise of ‘clearing of criminals’, same as basra.
besides controlling the masses and operating as neighborhood prisons these walls allow for the inhabitants to be sitting ducks for the purpose of mass retribution EXACTLY what is happening now in sadr city.
imho, the drumbeat about iran at this time drowns out the genocide taking place in sadr city. it obscures the attacks on the green zone.
that is just my hunch.
back to debs.
Any amerikan attempting to find a logic in this thinking will be driven into a state approaching neurotic psychosis of the kind Pavlov and co engendered in animals with intermittent unlinked reinforcenments.

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 17:41 utc | 14

sam, i am not sure how diebold is, as you claim ‘beside the point’.
they express their displeasure with polls putting Bush at only 28% approval ratings and Congress even less they still keep voting the same or similiar people into office.
why so much faith in our election process. do you doubt those in power would just plain ol never do anything like that, or wouldn’t be able to get away w/it? we only do it in foreign countries on a massive scale?
This has pointed out tens of thousands of times on bars, blogs and message boards throughout the country and I have yet to see it change anybody’s mind.
huh? it has changed my mind. people don’t have faith in the election process. just because they show up at the polls doesn’t mean they have faith the process is working.
When you have almost half of the population of voters think that they benefitted from that business becuase their party won then it doesn’t really matter.
i’m not sure i am following you here. are you talking about the 28%? or are you saying 1/2 the american public thinks they have benefited from the war? plushtown’s comment isn’t beside the point. they couldn’t carry on as they do w/out the election process. they think it legitimizes them, here, in iraq, africa.. south america. fraudulent elections go hand in hand w/fascism.

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 17:53 utc | 15

right on, debs (though i don’t recall seeing calls @ MoA for iraqis to stop the violence, outside of maybe sloth in his strange phase)
& it rekindled a thought i expressed here in a comment back in ’06

re pavlov
were we, as a citizenry, better able to apply stimulus discrimination, gradually reducing the detrimental aspects of our responses to the point of extinction, we would realize just how manipulated we allow ourselves to be, how much time & energy we have wasted being afraid & trying to see the world through their eyes, and that, rather than remain the willing subject in their experiments, we can bite back

and not only bite back, but grow up & take control

Posted by: b real | Apr 12 2008 18:40 utc | 16

regarding my comment the drumbeat about iran at this time drowns out the genocide taking place in sadr city. , or possibly of US ability/ failure of containing the situation.
fyi RTI..

The good news is that the Americans are still around the suburbs of Sadr-City and did not really entered the center of the city yet, al-badeel reported that about 50 American tanks tried to attack from 3 sides but the fighters managed to destroy 5 tanks, three tanks near Jamila Market [which means that the fights are still at same place for 4-5 days], two tanks at the Sadr-City borders with Ur neighborhood.
The fighters managed to force the Americans to withdraw behind the Army Canal [see maps, Ur neighborhood, Army Canal, the green line with streets on both sides]

small coke
Who then decides what will be reported? The military is clearly getting no traction on changing the public dialogue of demonization for either Iran or Sadr.
from the same link..

The Sadrists feel the growing political isolation and the need to invest in David Petraeus’ recent comments:
I think the way, the best way to characterize Muqtada al-Sadr is that he is the face and the leadership of a very important and legitimate political movement in Iraq.
Sistani and al-Sadr
According Awan, al-Sistani wants to meet al-Sadr in private to discus the disbanding of Mahdi Army, Sistani don’t want to meet al-Sadr’s representatives or spokesman or anybody on behalf of al-Sadr.
[This is the same scenario from 2004’s meeting]

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 18:57 utc | 17

i recommend badger’s new post. bonus, Reidar Visser’s comment.

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 19:17 utc | 18

annie –
Good links. Sounds like Arab world is hearing different news reports.
re badger’s comment on Petraus – The grapevine in Baghdad says that Petraus has been heard for some months referring to Sadr by a name that is a term of honor. (Sorry – I heard the name, but my western ears did not make sense of it.) The implication is that Petraus has taken a more respectful view of Sadr for some time, that this is not a result of recent violence.

Posted by: small coke | Apr 12 2008 22:27 utc | 19

Sounds like Arab world is hearing different news reports.
from wapo
U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 13 gunmen in clashes and air strikes overnight in the Baghdad stronghold of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who said the United States would remain his enemy until the “last drop of my blood.”
Authorities eased a blockade on Saturday in the Sadr City district of eastern Baghdad that had trapped residents in the battle zone slum for two weeks

Residents described the night’s clashes as among the worst since Iraqi forces launched an offensive into the area a week ago. A U.S. military statement said at least 13 gunmen were killed in one overnight battle.
Reacting to the upsurge in violence, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared to reach out to Sadr on Friday, saying the cleric would not be treated as an enemy if he played a peaceful role in Iraqi politics.
Sadr responded on Saturday by calling Gates a “terrorist” and accusing the United States of bombarding Iraq’s cities.
“You (infidels) will always be an enemy and you will remain so until the last drop of my blood,” Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the holy Shi’ite city of Najaf.
“If you don’t withdraw from our land or set a timetable for withdrawal acceptable to the Iraqi people, we will resist in the way we see fit.”
U.S. military spokesman Major Mark Cheadle said a U.S. convoy was struck by at least 10 roadside bombs while moving to help Iraqi troop in the west of Sadr City overnight.
Nadeem Qasim, a civil servant in the water department, said the situation would not improve as long as Iraqi army vehicles remained in Sadr City and U.S. planes hovered overhead.
“It means the problems and bombardment may resume,” he said.
A Reuters correspondent who spent the night inside Sadr City said U.S. helicopters and jets flew overhead before midnight and several of the aircraft could be seen firing missiles.

what i can’t figure out is wtf w/the pet and gates ‘reaching out’ while they are bombing them in nightly raids????????
it makes no sense. and it isn’t as if the people in baghdad don’t know this is going on. commenters on blogs from inside baghdad, like last of iraqis (as i recall), they can hear this stuff.
.

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 22:56 utc | 20

here’s a list from iraq today

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 22:59 utc | 21

…..and another thing the iran chatter drowns out, even tho i have already said this i am repeating it again, the complete ABSENCE/BLOCKADE in the press on this DRACONIAN development

The administration’s lead witness at the hearing, David Satterfield, had this to say after facing fierce bipartisan opposition to the agreement (building on opposition voiced during Petraeus-Crocker earlier this week):
“It was very difficult to discern the difference” between Republicans and Democrats, [Satterfield] acknowledged. He jokingly summarized lawmakers’ views this way: “Other than the fact that it violates the Constitution, statute law, common sense and the overwhelming judgment of the American people, this is a sensible thing to do.”
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
With the administration’s body language suggesting something entirely different from what it is saying, Congress must remain vigilant during the negotiation of this long-term pact. Luckily, there is precedent for Congress to get involved and various tools are available to restrict the White House’s freedom of movement.

supporting links@ the link

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2008 23:19 utc | 22

Annie # 20,
what i can’t figure out is wtf w/the pet and gates ‘reaching out’ while they are bombing them in nightly raids????????
It’s because Sadr can’t take this forever. The Mahdi Army won in Basra hands down. They can probably repeat that feat a few more times. But not indefinitely, not while they remain on the defensive and the enemy controls the skies. Seeing Sadr is not prepared to switch to an all out attack mode, the US is hoping they can send him off backstage if they pound him hard enough. And they probably can, too, unless Sadr hurries up and discovers his inner Nasrallah.

Posted by: Alamet | Apr 12 2008 23:52 utc | 23

Gates and co have been reading up their Roman history on the art of saying one thing to an opponent publicly; ie something friendly and welcoming, and then privately trying to kill him. The opponent’s reaction to the assassination attempt are then reported as a response to the ‘olive branch’ among the domestic audience.
Of course back in the day when the romans did such things communications were all to shit, there wasn’t a reporter with a sat link around every corner. I wonder what the media excuse for the dissonance between what they are reporting and what is happening on the ground in Iraq will be? “Sorry gang they done tricked us agin”?
There is no doubt that the overall strategy as well as local tactics have all been stolen from the murdering zionists Palestinian playbook. Targetted assassination even the whole ‘roman’ thing. The differences may make this a much bigger ask. For one the lack of a willing population of zealots close by who are prepared to kill on demand will make this tougher as will the vastly bigger population needing to be oppressed. When people refer to Sadr city as a suburb it gives a false impression. Sadr city is more like Soweto, a huge city in it’s own right holding millions of humans who may be disadvantaged but who do largely all share the same worldview. Most citizens of Sadr City have intimate connections with the tribal culture down South in Basra and therein is another problem an attack on Basra cannot be divorced from an attack on Sadr City and vice versa. Dividing the two the way the west bank was split from Gaza will be a much bigger problem.
The media won’t stay schtum forever.
Eventually the shouts of disbelief directed at NYT, CNN, wapo etc from these blogs will penetrate the mainstream. In circumstances like this where the elites come over all national security I’ve never seen the disconnect between reality and actuality sustained for more than a couple of weeks. CheneyCorp have had one week and it is unlikely they will get one more complete week before some greedy media personage decides too scoop the others with the ‘truth’.
Then all hell could break loose, the whole surge myth could fall apart.
This is why the attack has been ramped up this weekend of course. I suppose Petraus and Co hope that the primary Tuesday week might cover their asses for long enough to get away with this. Thing is the Hilary Obama roadshow has gotten very old very quickly and although the hearings were good cover for the slaughter it has gotten peeps thinkin about Iraq again. A risky strategy.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 12 2008 23:57 utc | 24

I agree that the duplicity regarding Sadr is out of gas and running on fumes. How much more does it to take for the peeps to realize that the supposed “purpose” of the surge was to reduce sectarian strife for a political settlement to occur. And now the Maliki/Badr/ U.S. coalition has been for two weeks wreaking sectarian havoc and raising all the numbers in a major propaganda contradiction. With nothing more to show for it than a jealousy fit by al-Dulaimi and the Accord front over Sadr assuming the mantel of resistance. The more prudent Dialogue party of Salalh al-Mutlak has been reticent enough to cast doubt on whether either of the Sunni parties will use the attack on Sadr to return to Maliki’s side – in which case Maliki comes up with nothing but more blood on his hands. I’m sure there’s more to the story than this, but my suspicion is that Maliki is personally furious with Sadr for having benefited most from the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, but refuses to go along to get along with his program ( also the root of the Sunni parties fury with Sadr for both hats).

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 13 2008 1:21 utc | 25

that would be wearing both hats.
also me above#25

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 13 2008 1:26 utc | 26

excellent comments guys. a few things running thru my mind. this being an election year and all that, one of the interesting features, is the disconnect between those willing to ‘see’ and those that are completely satisfied w/deferring to the propaganda. wrt the surge many from the left (i use that word very loosely) notice something is very amiss, including the obvious ‘no congress ‘treaty’;’ yada yada, even if they don’t actually DO anything about it. but the rethugs.. i don’t get it, they can’t be all blind. some of them must be following events.. how can they all line up behind the propaganda as if it is REAL?
When people refer to Sadr city as a suburb it gives a false impression.
no shit sherlock. like 2 million worth, thats 2 seattles. one would have to take a huge leap from reality to assume all these people are fringe characters. sadr is the closest anyone has come in iraq to actually providing services. these people would be trading in something for some fantasy government that has proven so far it can govern over zilch. completely unsustainable. even if you are a staunch republican and FOR the war, how can SO MANY not notice the complete disconnect bewteen what they are saying, and reality. some of them have got to be smart, do they all go along for the ride trying to prevent the reality bubble from bursting?
meanwhile , from badger

AlHayat this morning quotes two senior people in the GreenZone Interior and Defence Ministries who say if the Mahdi Army was ever put down in the South, probably what would happen would be a resurgence of the messianic groups that go by Army of Heaven, Followers of AlYamani, and so on, particularly in their strongholds in Basra, Najaf, and Karbala. And they seem to have learned some pretty up-to-date War on Terror terminology, if you catch my drift.
For example, General Mahdi AlSabih, head of the security and order division of the Interior Ministry, said the AlYamani group has evolved into a type of “sleeper-cell”, emerging only when it thinks the circumstances right, and relying on secrecy in relationships between members, in contrast to other armed organizations. And he admitted that it was the Mahdi Army (and not his own forces) that was key to putting them down in the uprisings in Basra and elsewhere in January 08.

in other words…they need him
unless Sadr hurries up and discovers his inner Nasrallah.
you crack me up alamet.
the US is hoping they can send him off backstage if they pound him hard enough. And they probably can
2 friggin million people? i mean that is a hell of a lot of genocide to cover up. my guess is these people are going to defend themselves regardless of what he says, if push comes to shove. but the guy ain’t stupid, that much we already know. he has what no other leader in iraq has, the masses. besides, w/out him, what kind of mass movement will come next?
here is something i think we in the western world vastly underestimate, especially in the /US. we think we know a thing or 2 about exceptionalism..we think we are the cat’s meow in terms of freedom and ladida whatever bullshit crapola red state americanism broha. we know nothing. iraqis have this resilience thing in their blood. as i have mentioned before, they not only think it, they are the cradle of civilization, that goes along ways towards feeding into archetypal consciousness. the only way to ‘hit them hard enough’ is to commit a massive crime against humanity making what we have done so far, w/the over million dead over 5 years, seem like pussyfooting.
the enemy controls the skies
that would be one hell of a cover up.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 13 2008 3:30 utc | 27

that was me

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2008 3:33 utc | 28

dan of steele:
I am not so certain that Iran will not be attacked, it might not happen this year or even in the next couple of years but eventually the game will have to played against Russia and China.
Maybe in the future but the problem right now is their army is bogged down in Iraq.
I think that most people in the US understand this and agree with it. I do not think it is a uniquely american thought either as all citizens of all countries would be happy to have something that is important to them even if it means taking it from some foreigner.
Of course most countries do it to some extent. History is replete with examples. In this case Americans have to ask themselves is the present strategy working? They can listen to General Odom’s and Nir Rosen’s testimony to the House or they can listen to General Petreua’s and Ryan Crocker’s testimony. The elites and the media are pushing the latter so we clearly know the direction they are going. If there is any evidence that the strategy is working I fail to see it. Here’s what b said about it above:
The U.S. position in various negotiations and economically is deminished because of such bellingerence.
In the illuminating words of the great Inspector Clouseau “That’s what I’ve been saying, you fool.” Or from the perpective of one of the World’s most prominent military experts, Martin van Creveld, stated “an unwinnable war in Iraq”.
You bring up the reality dan of steele and thanks for the kind words.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 13 2008 3:35 utc | 29

annie:
i’m not sure i am following you here. are you talking about the 28%? or are you saying 1/2 the american public thinks they have benefited from the war?
You throw in such wild statements against me that I don’t know how to respond. I suggest you read dan of steele’s post at # 12.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 13 2008 3:39 utc | 30

You need to change the name of this blog to ‘Moan over Iraq’.
For the situation going on now for five years, over which
MoA’s have had precisely zero impact on, or ever will have,
there sure is a mountain of peanut shells under your cages.
Newt Gingrich has laid the perfect trap and the Dimocrats
rushed in, like monkeys with their hair on fire. Both camps
have so polarized the campaign, the convention in August will
be like another 1968 Chicago, out of which half the registered
voters will walk away without looking back, and vote McCain.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105742/Democratic-Groups-Most-Risk-Deserting.aspx
Ergo, Gingrich is one hell of a lot more clear thinking that MoA,
dKos and Carville, combined. Your end-game in Iraq will look like
the end-game of Viet Nam, first Maliki as Provisional Leadership,
then once Ol’ “LameBrain” McCain is selected, he will by the
very force of his own ego find himself a Neo Nguyen Van Thieu,
and 2008 will drag into a continued escalating 2018, NO PROBLEMO.
Meanwhile,
Head of IMF Warns That if Food Prices Remain High, Poor
Countries May Face Dire Consequences
WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the International Monetary Fund
warned Saturday that if food prices remain high, there will be
dire consequences for people in many developing countries,
especially in Africa.
[I guess Dominique finally got the memo…]
Dominique Strauss-Kahn added that the problem could also create
trade imbalances that would affect major advanced economies,
“so it is not only a humanitarian question.”
The IMF does not want to have to liquidate any more of their
gold reserves to pay for humanitarian expenses, as they are now.
The US:UK:EU won’t pay, ha, fat chance! McCain will keep $2.5B
in Israel’s credit account, but start cutting the 3W countries
not found, “well-meaning and deserving”, Iraq among them.
This time next year, MoA’s will still be tugging on their chew toys,
ragging on McCain’s this, and McCain’s that, completely oblivious
to their own demise, the oil depletion allowances still in effect,
the agricultural subsidies still in effect, the bailouts for banks,
brokers and national homebuilders, the faster, bigger diversion of
food grains into ethanol and biodiesel, the invisible-in-plain-view
trade barrier of deliberate US$ devaluation, and “Defense” waste
of $750B a year for white labcoat welfare and mercenary armies.
No, let’s parse for the umpteenth time the precise meaning of
Petraeus’s latest utterings, and, oh, whether Maliki works for
Ahmadinejad, or Moqtada, no, pick me! pick me!, and whether the
occupation troops are going in too fast or coming out too fast,
as $74M of our taxes bleeds out on the cutting room floor, 24×7.
MoA’s have as much chance of finding truth in our collectivist wit
and sarcasm, as an asura of passing through the girdle of Sumeru.

Posted by: Terrence Micheals | Apr 13 2008 3:51 utc | 31

You throw in such wild statements against me
really. let’s try that again. your response(#10) to plushtown’s comment #9 and diebold link . he was referencing your comment about elites getting voted out of people caught on.
That’s besides the point……When you have almost half of the population of voters think that they benefitted from that business becuase their party won then it doesn’t really matter.
just not sure what to make of it. asking for clarification, again i’m not sure i am following you here. are you talking about the 28%? or are you saying 1/2 the american public thinks they have benefited from the war?

what did you mean?

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2008 4:03 utc | 32

here is what DOS said @ 12
I think that most people in the US understand this and agree with it. I do not think it is a uniquely american thought either as all citizens of all countries would be happy to have something that is important to them even if it means taking it from some foreigner.
is this what you mean? and therefore, if most of the people realized what they elites were doing they would vote them out in a heartbeat?
sorry, i am missing some part of the picture. and btw, i don’t agree w/DOS, all countries would be happy to have something that is important to them even if it means taking it from some foreigner
taking it from a foreigner is not the same as invading and causing genocide, so i don’t think most people would go along w/this, and that is why the war is very unpopular. not just because it has diminished american popularity, although of course it has. i would like to think most americans wouldn’t just ‘go along’ if they were benefiting (financially, oil prices?), besides, i don’t think most americans are benefiting, or think they are.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2008 4:19 utc | 33

Well one thing most MoA-ites won’t be doing is worrying about which asshole wins the prez lottery. The chances of a win by any of the three likeliest effecting anything other than the take home pay of those nearest and nearest to the candidates is zilch.
No one is trying to change the world through MoA, merely report on how they perceive the disconnect between reportage and reality.
‘Change the world’ dot com is just down the corridor past ‘getting hit on the head’ and ‘arguements’. There ain’t many people there though cause after thew first blush of blogging most of us recognised that causing change requires the same supplies at it always did that is a hard heart and a machine gun.
I am more interested in observing the media and net commentary for signs of what is inevitably about to occur. When I talk to people the I normally interact with I have discussions not unlike those here, except there is a greater percentage of reactionary dialogue from those who imagine whatever has happened in the last 8 years or so is just a blip before everything returns to normal.
I have been studying this year amongst people who are in the main two generations newer than myself and there the surprise is that although the kids are more materialist than I remember we were, they see the USuk empire as an obstacle to them fulfilling their ambitions.
Their views aren’t based on emotions or ethics, they are egocentric and seem to be divorced from race, nationality or creed.
The general point of view is that USuk have tried to turn the clock back to a time when the world was run by a particular group of peeps, but that time is past, although a conflict on this is inevitable no one is looking forward to it.
I was surprised at these views. The institution these kids are studying at is no sorbonne or anything like it, strictly meal ticket central. The general acceptance of an impending shitstorm: the rest of the world Vs. USuk disruption was an eye-opener.
The kids in this town have a reputation for anti-asian racism yet the vast majority appear to believe that China is going to be the country which put an end to the naked theft of resources by ecUSuk, and good job too.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 13 2008 4:27 utc | 34

You need to change the name of this blog to ‘Moan over Iraq’.
For the situation going on now for five years, over which
MoA’s have had precisely zero impact on, or ever will have,
there sure is a mountain of peanut shells under your cages.

which begs the question “why are you here”? there are so many options on the internet, and why not post your food prices posts on the OT thread, or better yet make a post and send it to b?
sheesh.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2008 4:28 utc | 35

‘Change the world’ dot com is just down the corridor past ‘getting hit on the head’ and ‘arguements’.
lol! sometimes i check out the squabbling over at the hilbama sites. jesus, talk about boring. flippant one atcha dribble.
i have learned a lot from everyone here. i have an insatiable appetite for reality in a world of fast food information.
thank you everyone, i think i would go insane w/out you.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2008 4:35 utc | 36

Terrence Micheals:
and 2008 will drag into a continued escalating 2018, NO PROBLEMO.
Yeah more IEDs and higher oil prices. It’s a wonderful life.
The IMF does not want to have to liquidate any more of their gold reserves to pay for humanitarian expenses, as they are now.
Yes I agree, but they will liquidate more gold to pay for those bloated humanitarian wages:

The reason is that its role in providing emergency foreign exchange to crisis-hit countries has been evaporating. Many potential client countries have built up big reserves to avoid having to turn to the IMF -a problem for the fund, since its money comes from interest on its loans.

International Monetary Fund attempts $11bn gold sell-off
And since you have been so generous in transferrring your industrial capacity, stuffing foreign reserve banks with your dollars and filling your opponents pockets with high priced oil profits they will gladly take your wealth too:

CARACAS, Venezuela: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Saturday that his government could afford to buy some of the International Monetary Fund’s gold reserves as the Washington-based lender faces hard times.
…
“Look at how the U.S. empire must be in unimpeded decline, that the International Monetary Fund … is selling its crown jewels,” Chavez said during a speech at a military parade.

Chavez says Venezuela could afford to buy some of IMF’s gold reserves
And wait untill all your foreign friends discover all their losses in your CDO mess and start to withdraw their investment funds enmasse then the party will really get going:
MoA’s have as much chance of finding truth in our collectivist wit and sarcasm, as an asura of passing through the girdle of Sumeru.
You got that right.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 13 2008 5:08 utc | 37

fitna

He said the US was urging creation of a “moderate” government, with ministers “that are not tied to militias, and will govern Iraq from the center, and if they don’t make the right choices then we in turn will look at what we do, and people cannot assume that we will continue to provide the support that we have financially and otherwise if they don’t make the right choice.” “That sounds like a threat,” observed interviewer Gwen Ifill.
As it happened, the next day, February 22, 2006, the golden dome was blown off the Askariya shrine in Samara, and the country was in turmoil.
…….
the language of veiled and indirect threats from the US starts to sound familiar. US Defense Secretary Gates said on Friday: “I think those who are prepared to work within the political process in Iraq, and peacefully, are not enemies of the United States,” and on that very afternoon, Riyadh Nuri, Sadr’s brother-in-law and the top Sadrist official in Najaf, is assassinated.
Moreover, by evening the US tanks were reportedly trying to push into Sadr City, and once again, in an atmosphere eerily similarly to late February 2006, people were bracing for the possibility that once again the country could explode in violence.
When the history of this era is written, if someone is around to write it, people will have to try and figure out whether fitna and of the threat of fitna regularly accompany US policy-failure in Iraq just by coincidence, or whether there is more to it.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2008 5:19 utc | 38

Wouldn’t all fit in #37 here’s the rest as it was meant:
And wait untill all your foreign friends discover all their losses in your CDO mess and start to withdraw their investment funds enmasse then the party will really get going:

FRANKFURT/LONDON, April 1 (Reuters) – The market for collateralised debt obligations backed by asset-backed securities (ABS CDOs) — the cause of massive bank write-downs as they spread exposure to U.S. subprime mortgages — may disappear, a report from the Bank for International Settlements said. The BIS said on Tuesday that the Joint Forum of international bank supervisors, securities commissions and insurance supervisors had told the March meeting of the Financial Stability Forum that investors, banks and securities firms had not understood the risk in such instruments.

ABS CDOs, at heart of crisis, may disappear
Here’s what the G7 leaders had to say about it after the latest meeting:

The plan is designed to make financial markets less secretive and improve supervision, which in theory would help prevent a repeat of the current financial debacles.

plan to halt financial crux
In other words they are telling you to clean up you books and put a leash on your crooks. No mention of actually doing anything to prop up the dollar.
MoA’s have as much chance of finding truth in our collectivist wit and sarcasm, as an asura of passing through the girdle of Sumeru.
You got that right.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 13 2008 5:26 utc | 39

annie:
what did you mean?
I think you are confusing one answer with another from another thread. This is what I said in response to a post with a link about the Florida elections. Did you click on the link?
That’s besides the point……When you have almost half of the population of voters think that they benefitted from that business becuase their party won then it doesn’t really matter.
Translation the Republicans liked it. I can’t say it any simpler. A lot of the Democrats still blame Nader. Daily Kos pratically banned election fraud posts. What does that tell you? This is what I wrote in another post referencing the occupation of Iraq:
Worse than that even though this spectacular incompetance on the World stage has been witnessed by the American public and they express their displeasure with polls putting Bush at only 28% approval ratings and Congress even less they still keep voting the same or similiar people into office.
These numbers aren’t much different than the pre 2006 election polls. A lot of people have framed that election as anti war and pull out of Iraq. In actuallity they voted in a lot of “blue dog” democrats that think they have a better plan for Iraq. If it really was an anti war election Lincoln Chafe wouldn’t have got booted out and Joe Lieberman wouldn’t have been re-elected.
taking it from a foreigner is not the same as invading and causing genocide, so i don’t think most people would go along w/this, and that is why the war is very unpopular. not just because it has diminished american popularity, although of course it has.
You buy into the crap yourself. You use the word war instead of occupation. A war is a fight between armies. How do you know it is very unpopular because of “causing genocide”? I hear more complaints about how it is being run than the fact they are not pulling out. The candidates that did talk about getting out were treated like the plaque. They re-elected Bush despite the occupation and the exposure of Abu graib.
i would like to think most americans wouldn’t just ‘go along’ if they were benefiting (financially, oil prices?), besides, i don’t think most americans are benefiting, or think they are.
I would like to beleive in fairy tales too but that’s not reality. And there you go with that “benefiting” again. Even the rosy Petreaus and Crocker reports promise the benifits will come not we are enjoying the benefits. I beleive no benefit will come of this and I think I have made that clear.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 13 2008 6:21 utc | 40

US edges closer to engaging Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
T S Eliot’s famous opening lines from The Waste Land come to mind as Washington confirms that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is heading for the Middle East to attend an international conference regarding the Iraq situation, in Kuwait on April 22. This will be no ordinary run-of-the-mill international conference. It’s about Iraq. And Rice may well bump into her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki.
The big question is, as Eliot wrote, will they “drink coffee, and talk for an hour?” Indeed, will Mottaki call Rice “the hyacinth girl”? All that US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack would say at his press briefing on Wednesday was that “there’s nothing on the schedule for them to meet”. He wouldn’t make promises, nor rule out anything. But then Tehran hasn’t yet announced Mottaki’s participation at the Kuwait conference.
McCormack, however, volunteered an estimation that the Iranians have incrementally thawed in recent months. He added, “There was a sort of avoidance [initially] on the part of the Iranians. But that’s changed … They [Rice and Mottaki] didn’t have what I would describe as any substantive conversations, but there was some interaction [at a previous Istanbul meet on Iraq].”
So, if the “iceman cometh” from Tehran, this could undoubtedly turn out to be one of the most crucial missions undertaken by Rice in her diplomatic career. The entire Middle East will be watching, attentively looking for clues in Rice’s gait, her demeanor. They will want to know whether Washington is taking the plunge for unconditional talks with Tehran.
Everyone knows that when the Americans talk to the Iranians, finally, the kaleidoscope of Middle Eastern politics will have irrevocably shifted. The stakes are particularly high for the Middle East’s “pro-West” sclerotic rulers. There is already serious unrest in Egypt, a key US ally. Helena Cobban, the contributing editor of the Boston Review and veteran writer on the Middle East, promptly put down in her blog a recollection from the great Cairo riots of 1977, when the late Mohammed Hassanein Heikal told her as he sat in his lovely Nile-side office at the al-Ahram newspaper that “the Egyptian people are like the Nile: they run deep and apparently quietly – until the point where suddenly they burst their banks”.

Regardless of what some think above, looks like the blitz is on…
Also see, Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says
and
Spy photos reveal ‘secret launch site’ for Iran’s long-range missiles
I find it laughable that anyone thinks they know what these grandios megalomanics are up to, for the most part, because I don’t believe they even know what they will do, but you can bet your bear sterns and eron stock it aint going to benefit the citizens of America or any other country…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 13 2008 6:24 utc | 41

US edges closer to engaging Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
T S Eliot’s famous opening lines from The Waste Land come to mind as Washington confirms that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is heading for the Middle East to attend an international conference regarding the Iraq situation, in Kuwait on April 22. This will be no ordinary run-of-the-mill international conference. It’s about Iraq. And Rice may well bump into her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki.
The big question is, as Eliot wrote, will they “drink coffee, and talk for an hour?” Indeed, will Mottaki call Rice “the hyacinth girl”? All that US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack would say at his press briefing on Wednesday was that “there’s nothing on the schedule for them to meet”. He wouldn’t make promises, nor rule out anything. But then Tehran hasn’t yet announced Mottaki’s participation at the Kuwait conference.
McCormack, however, volunteered an estimation that the Iranians have incrementally thawed in recent months. He added, “There was a sort of avoidance [initially] on the part of the Iranians. But that’s changed … They [Rice and Mottaki] didn’t have what I would describe as any substantive conversations, but there was some interaction [at a previous Istanbul meet on Iraq].”
So, if the “iceman cometh” from Tehran, this could undoubtedly turn out to be one of the most crucial missions undertaken by Rice in her diplomatic career. The entire Middle East will be watching, attentively looking for clues in Rice’s gait, her demeanor. They will want to know whether Washington is taking the plunge for unconditional talks with Tehran.
Everyone knows that when the Americans talk to the Iranians, finally, the kaleidoscope of Middle Eastern politics will have irrevocably shifted. The stakes are particularly high for the Middle East’s “pro-West” sclerotic rulers. There is already serious unrest in Egypt, a key US ally. Helena Cobban, the contributing editor of the Boston Review and veteran writer on the Middle East, promptly put down in her blog a recollection from the great Cairo riots of 1977, when the late Mohammed Hassanein Heikal told her as he sat in his lovely Nile-side office at the al-Ahram newspaper that “the Egyptian people are like the Nile: they run deep and apparently quietly – until the point where suddenly they burst their banks”.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 13 2008 6:26 utc | 42

hey man, nice shot
if you’re taking part in this fucking murderous war crime, you deserve whatever befalls you.

Posted by: ran | Apr 13 2008 7:11 utc | 43