Asking people why they do the things they do is not a reliable guide to truth even when they are not attempting to conceal their strategy. Psychologists know this.

Now, there are group of people much closer to the goings on of the “Bushies”, that often talk of Iraq policy and the goings on of Iraq. They are the people who actually impliment the “Bushies” policies. If you were to mentally prepare yourself for entering the lions den (and by this I mean try to control for any perceived bias), you could visit milblogger sites. If you email them, they usually respond or will answer you in a blog entry (if you are not making wild accusations that they are baby eating demons that should be put down).

Or you could keep blowing smoke.

But maybe they will be encouraging someone like him to rule. Like I said: I don’t see any reason to believe that the Bushies want to get rid of Jaafari because he is unacceptable to the Kurds and the Sunnis; so far it appears that the only reason the Bushies want to jettison Jaafari is that he is unacceptable to the Bushies.

I will give you that, that was not a good use of hyperbole. But it stands out from the rest of the post, rather than fitting in like part of a rant from a Daily Kossack.

The fact is that by keeping Iraq together the Americans have more influence. If ever the country split, the Sunni and Shia areas would be no-go areas for the US and the Shia area at least is where (some of) the oil is.

Putting Two and Two Together

NYT, March 28 – “Shiites Say U.S. Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside”:

Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country’s leader in the next government.
[...]

Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush “doesn’t want, doesn’t support, doesn’t accept” Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first “clear and direct message” from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

Newsweek interview with Fatah al-Sheikh, consigliere to Sadr, April 10 issue:

Tell us about the deal with Jaafari.
Jaafari promised Moqtada that should he become prime minister with Moqtada’s support, he would … demand a timetable for the departure of Coalition troops from Iraq, the return of sovereignty to Iraq, the provision of services to the people and about nine other items. Dr. Jaafari agreed and submitted himself as an obedient soldier of Sayyid Moqtada.

Coincidence?

So, the Bushies don’t like Jaafari (for his allying with al-Sadr, perhaps) and the ethnic/sectarian tensions that exist help the Bushies get rid of Jaafari. Note that the Bushies don’t put any pressure on the Sunnis and Kurds to accept Dr. Jaafari, no, the Bushies simply don’t want Jaafari, simple as that.

How is he a radical? He is a leader of Dawa; the alternative – SCIRI - is more radical and much more pro-Iranian according to wiki:

The SCIRI ideology was closely based on that of Iran’s Ruhollah Khomeini, and was far closer to the Iranian model than al-Dawa, with the SCIRI supporting control of government by the ulema, arbiters of Islamic law.

If the US were actually seriously pitting the Shias AGAINST the Sunnis and the Kurds (as opposed to attempting to get the Shias to work WITH the Sunnis and the Kurds) then this would simply be to great a risk: the country might fly apart, and that really is the last thing the Americans want. Hence the reason the Americans are attempting to get rid of Jaafari: he is too associated with ‘radical’ Shias. If the Americans were really trying to pit Shia against Sunni they would be all for Jaafari, as this would alienate the Sunnis even more.

Anyhow, I’m not saying that ensuring domination over the Iraq region is a piece of cake; obviously it’s a very messy and uncertain process.

All I’m saying is that now when the Chalabi/Allawi plan obviously has failed, if you were the top US strategist – what would your plan B look like? To support a strong united mostly Islamic fundamentalist mostly anti-American government? Somehow I don’t see the top US strategist considering this as a valid option. What are the other options?

Seems a bit strange (assuming this is true) that the US were frightened of this happening in the ‘90s, and now actually want it to happen.

In any case, this misses the key point. The salient phrase in that passage is ‘mutually hostile’. Assuming this does happen, it doesn’t mean that the wars will necessarily stop. And assuming that is the case then the one thing that can absolutely be guaranteed is: no free flow of cheap oil. But that (most people agree) was the point of the invasion. So why would the US want it?

You are talking as if the US’ political interests and its financial interests were opposed. I thought Marxists were meant to argue that these were the same thing? In any case: in this situation they undoubtedly are. America’s financial and political and military muscle is built, in a very large part, on cheap oil. Why would the US pursue a course of action that is almost certain to lead to an increase in the price of oil (and will undoubtedly have ‘collateral damage’ in terms of America’s dealings with other Arab (i.e. oil producing) states)?

There’s no magical plan, the plan is always the same: collective punishment, acts of brutal retribution, intimidation, terror, manipulation. It’s the opposite: Iraqis would need magic to endure this treatment for a couple of decades and keep resisting. But, like The Man keeps saying, you need to be resolute and firm, and keep terrorising until it’s over. It might take decades.

I still don’t understand why Kurdistan should necessarily wreak such a havoc. I know there are some places in Iraq that are disputed, namely Kirkuk; but otherwise it’s nothing like Israel: Kurds live there and they always lived there, and if their region becomes a state – why should Iran and Turkey be torn apart? Do you mean something like Kashmir will happen inside Turkey? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe a bunch of ethnic Kurds will leave Turkey and move to Kurdistan and that’ll be the end of it.

No, Britan always was a very strong united country. You’re right: it’s mostly “weak” that counts.

I understand that Iraqi Kurdistan is not strong at all, there are apparently two large tribes there fighting each other all the time. That’s perfect.

I think you do have a point about the hypothetical Shia-stan, it may very well be a hard nut to crack; well, I am sure strategists in Washington are working on this as we speak. They already have Mahdi vs. Badr potential opportunity for a split there; it’s just a question of how to nourish it.

There was of course no such place as Kurdistan in the ‘90s. I’m talking about the creation of a whole new sovereign state, which would tear Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq apart. Think the creation of Israel times ten.

A final point, you use ‘small and weak’ as though these are synonyms. But Britain conquered most of the world despite the fact that it was a small country. Rome conquered the ‘west’ and it wasn’t even a country: it was a city. On the other hands, many countries (e.g. China in the fifties and sixties and throughout the late 19th century) are huge and weak. If Iraq breaks up, only the Sunni state is likely to be small and weak. Kurdistan and the new Shia state are likely to be small (ish) and strong, Kurdistan because it will be backed by Israel, and Shia-stan (or whatever) cos it will be backed by Iran, and because it will have oil.

It’s true this last bit of the equation will fail if Iran is ‘taken out’ but it’s very unlikely that American plans in this direction will be a success. Even Tony will bail out of Dubya goes nuclear on Iran’s ass.

Of course you don’t want a half dozen car-bombs going off in the capital every day, but that just a matter of time. Like the man said: eventually Iraq will have some kind of their own ‘security forces’; Badr/Sadr/Mukhabarat whatever.

I don’t think Kurdistan would be a problem, there was already Kurdistan there in the 90s, nothing terrible happened.

The only real problem would be Iran becoming the sponsor of the Shia part, and that’s one of the reasons Iran is the current Nazi Germany and has to be dealt with soon.