How Critical Is Hegemony in Iraq?

[domer]

One might responsibly ask: what are they fighting for, that is, the factions in Iraq that continue to resort to violence (guerilla war: terrorism) rather than throw their lots into the nascent Iraqi "formal, mainstream" political process? This question subsumes the "insurgents" as well as the "sectarians," but not the al-Qaeda-affiliated foreign terrorists (to the extent they are still a major factor) nor the regional nation-state actors influencing or controlling their surrogates ("marionettes") in the actual fighting and its attendant politics.

I'm afraid it's a complex and complicated mess, with aims ranging, variously, to a fair share of oil revenues, to a frank desire for "normalcy," to a resurgence of traditional (read "Baathist") lines of authority, to the creation of a strict, straightforward Islamic Republic based on Shia principles, to a regional and worldwide jihad aimed at "heretic" Muslim states and the great West of unconverted. These are just some trends. Underlying much of the energy for war, it seems, is a great Sunni-Shi'ite divide, which I don't understand historically or philosophically or culturally but can compare  in virulence, if not scope, to the Protestant-Catholic divide in Northern Ireland. (On that account, as a humorous aside to Prince, maybe President Bush can appoint former Senator Mitchell as special envoy to SAVE the situation, as he did in the popular mind in Ireland.)

There seems to be a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, the "designated forum," the Iraqi legislature and more broadly the Iraqi governmental apparatus, seems to be paralyzed. One question that arises is this: if the government can't fulfill its function, should a substitute be found so that "meaningful" dialog can proceed? Regardless of the adjustments that can rationally, effectively be made internally in Iraq (in the existing government or a parallel or substitute process), it seems like a champion idea to have a regional conference on all matters of concern which bear on the present Iraqi problem. This way would give all stakeholders a voice, ideally, and engage them in constructive action before they are forced to military action by the spreading strife.

[Michael Tee]

<<There seems to be a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, the "designated forum," the Iraqi legislature and more broadly the Iraqi governmental apparatus, seems to be paralyzed. >>

How do we know they aren't talking about it?  Does anyone know if there's a site where the transcripts of the daily debates are translated into English and posted?

<<I'm afraid it's a complex and complicated mess  . . . >>

What I'd like to see is a breakdown of the factions by popular strength, geographical distribution, interalliances.  Also with clan and tribal allegiances for each faction.  We know more or less what you posted in terms of the variety of causes, but we don't know much more about each one.  Wonder how much of this is addressed by the Baker Commission?

<<it seems like a champion idea to have a regional conference on all matters of concern which bear on the present Iraqi problem.>>

The only downside I could see is that it turns into a propaganda disaster for the U.S.A.  In regional terms it wouldn't matter because their prestige in the region couldn't be lower, but from the Bush administration POV, this would be a domestic disaster - - showing the American public, perhaps much more graphically than Bush would like, just how much contempt there is for America or even for him and his administration personally.  Since Bush can't control the outcome, this would have to be a big source of concern for him and his handlers.  It might also turn into a "coronation" of Iran, dramatizing their huge surge of regional influence, again something that the Bush administration feels it may not be able to afford domestically.

However, apart from the disaster potential for Bush's domestic ratings, I think there's nothing to lose from such a conference and it's possible that this could lead to a solution to the problem.  But I doubt if Bush will risk it.  Especially if the conference succeeds in establishing that the so-called bloodbath can be prevented, there would be no further reason (officially) for U.S. troops to remain, which would present a huge dilemma for Bush, since the real (unofficial and unadmitted) reason for the invasion being the control of the wells, Bush would be stripped of his fig-leaf excuse for remaining. So again, on balance, there are a lot of reasons for Bush NOT to go to such a conference and very little reasons for.

[domer]

I don't ask these question from "Bush's" standpoint but rather from the perspective of US and world interests. Indeed, Bush took an oath not to protect his political ass but to what is right and needed. There are two issues raised by these statements: Bush's very ability to conceive the issues properly, and his courage to act on those perceptions if he does understand it.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't ask these question from "Bush's" standpoint but rather from the perspective of US and world interests. Indeed, Bush took an oath not to protect his political ass but to what is right and needed. >>

You have wittingly or not raised the issue of what interests Bush in fact represents.  IMHO the evidence is overwhelming that he represents not national or world interests, but class interests, and a very narrowly defined class at that.

<<There are two issues raised by these statements: Bush's very ability to conceive the issues properly, and his courage to act on those perceptions if he does understand it.>>

Given the quality of Bush's advisers (and I'm not complimenting them, just recognizing a certain base level of competence that isn't all that hard to find) I think that even the most complex issues involved here can be sorted out into a scheme of things that even Bush would be able to grasp.

Courage to act is a non-issue.  Bush is unfortunately a coward and a bully.  And I say that more in sorrow than anger.  He's a likeable enough guy but I think he was unfortunate in his parents - - primarily his cold-hearted bitch of a mother.  Combine that with an emotionally  distant war-hero dad who he probably never felt capable of living up to, I think he never had a chance.  If he hasn't found courage at this stage of his career, it's not suddenly going to appear like magic.  More and more I'm seeing the tragic nature of this Presidency on both the personal and the national level.  Bush is just dug in too deep - - there is no way he can acknowledge the wrongness of this venture without at the same time having to admit to squandering the lives of 3,000 Americans and the health of 20,000 more.  (Also 600,000 dead Iraqis but in the American calculus, they just don't count.)

[BT]

I wouldn't be opposed philosophically to a regional conference.

I'm not quite sure that will enhance the prestige of Iraq's fledgling government, but then again their failure to control the violence does little to enhance it either.

[Plane]

"...since the real (unofficial and unadmitted) reason for the invasion being the control of the wells,..."


Tenacious are'nt you?

I can see how you would latch on to this idea , but I marvel at how well you can stick to it.

Never mind its total impossibility.

[Michael Tee]

<<Tenacious are'nt you?>>

"Tenacious" is a word I'd use to describe those who hang on to now totally discredited ideas, like the "noble" motives of the U.S.A., the total lack of concern its ruling class supposedly has over securing future oil supplies, the sincere desire of fascist thugs like Cheney and Bush for spreading all the benefits of democracy to all the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and similar fairy tales.  THOSE guys who believe THAT bullshit are truly tenacious.  Me, I'd just say that I never let the never-ceasing stream of Bush administration lies make me swallow anything my common sense tells me is ridiculous.

<<I can see how you would latch on to this idea . . . >>

It was like latching onto the idea that the guy who asks you for 25 cents in the subway so he can call his sick mother isn't really gonna call his sick mother.  Some people latch onto things real quick, others are conservatives.

<< but I marvel at how well you can stick to it. . .>>

That's OK, you probably marvel at how I can stick to a lot of things, like that man evolved  from lower life forms or that freeing the slaves was a good thing.

<<Never mind its total impossibility.>>

Of course.  Because Bush is incapable of lying. 

[BT]

Of course.  Because Bush is incapable of lying.

Bush certainly is capable of lying, you are apparently incapable of documenting the majority of your charges.

If the war is about oil, where is it?

[Plane]

" This question subsumes the "insurgents" as well as the "sectarians," but not the al-Qaeda-affiliated foreign terrorists (to the extent they are still a major factor) nor the regional nation-state actors influencing or controlling their surrogates ("marionettes") in the actual fighting and its attendant politics."


It does indeed , I had to think about the answer for this , and I don't really have it.

Do we know how much the Al Quieda and the catspaws of neighboring states matter?

Could it be that they are the main problem?  I can't tell from here.


At times like these some of the most important stuff hapens beneith the table , Perhaps this is analoguopus tot he situation of the Russians in Afganistan , the American and Saudi supporters of the Muj found that with reasonable investment the soldiers of the Soviet Union and the people of the Soviet union and the treasury of the Soviet Union could be exausted.

[Michael Tee]

<<If the war is about oil, where is it?>>

Where it's always been, under the sand.  Maybe I should have said "control of the oil" to avoid questions like this.

[BT]

Where it's always been, under the sand.  Maybe I should have said "control of the oil" to avoid questions like this.

If we control the oil, why are the baathists, sunnis, shiites and kurds fighting each other for control of it?

[Michael Tee]

<<If we control the oil, why are the baathists, sunnis, shiites and kurds fighting each other for control of it?>>

I didn't say you controlled the oil, I said that your moron "President" was persuaded that by invading Iraq, he could gain control over the oil, probably as phase 1 in an operation which would then move to phase 2, Iran.

In reality, your fight description lacked one key element - - the U.S.A. is one of the parties fighting for control of the oil.  You are fighting Shi'ites and Sunnis (themselves factionally divided) and possibly others for the control of the Basra ol fields.  The Kurds are staying out of this, they've already got the control of the northern oil fields.

Things didn't really go as your moron "President" was persuaded they would go.  As I predicted from the start they wouldn't.  But it's not all bad - - from the POV of the Zionists who egged him into this, things went very well indeed.

[BT]

But it's not all bad - - from the POV of the Zionists who egged him into this, things went very well indeed.

How so? Are Israeli's safer now than they were before the war? Has Hezbollah and the influence of its masters been diminished?

I saw a tongue in cheek column the other day that suggested that US troops redeploy to the territory of our new best friends in the Middle East, they being Iran and Syria. Think Murtha would approve?

[sirs]

"Tenacious" is a word I'd use to describe those who hang on to now totally discredited ideas, like the "noble" motives of the U.S.A., the total lack of concern its ruling class supposedly has over securing future oil supplies, the sincere desire of fascist thugs like Cheney and Bush for spreading all the benefits of democracy to all the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and similar fairy tales. 
Of course.  

Naaaa, Plane had it right the 1st go around.  I'd even add pathologically to "tenacious"  It's the same type of tenacity Brass uses to try and convince others how Jesus couldn't be the son of God, how he had to have been married.  You and your ilk use it to spread dren like Bush lied us into war,.. it's all about the oil wells,.. our Military is one big mass of murderers & rapists.  Completely unsubstantiated garbage like that, but boy oh boy, are you tenacious at spreading it.

<<Never mind its total impossibility.>>

Of course.  Because Bush is incapable of lying.

Now, whowever said that?  Just because you insdiously fail miserably at trying to prove how Bush lied us into war, doesn't make it incapable that he can't lie, or even that he hasn't lied since becoming President.