Needlenose

Back in ’03 I believed that all parties in the recently fractured Iraq would want to keep us around, the newly empowered Shi’ites in the ‘Coalition Government’ for protection, and the coalition of the Evil-Doers (former Baathists and jihadis) to have easy access to Americans to kill.  I posited that it wouldn’t take much for the latter to keep U.S. troops mired in the Quicksand of Iraq through acts of terror or sabotage.

Obama’s decision to close up shop in Iraq is already being sorely tested by the recent Coalition of the Evil-Doer’s massive terror attack, and of course is already being second-guessed by our home-grown warmongering reactionaries.  Of course if it were up to them, we would still be fighting in Vietnam.

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans are pretty tired of hearing about a war that was only supposed to last a couple of weeks is now almost 9 years old, and that most of them probably don’t really care how many Iraqis die, the Coalition of the Evil-Doers will need to bump up the game and threaten the oil supply to keep around the American piñata – or in the words of Frank Herbert: “The Spice must flow!”

 

“I shure love the smell of napalm in the morning!”

Seems like only yesterday Shrubya was silently gloating over his secret plan to deceive American into invading Iraq.  But that was almost 10 long years ago and the costs of the Republican’s elective war have been extreme:

“More than 4,400 American military lives have been lost since the start of the war in March of 2003, and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, according to Iraq Body Count, which cross-checks news reports with hospital and other official data. As of March, the war had cost the U.S.$806 billion.”

Looks like Obama is finally going to get us out of it.  Send this to every Reactionary you know and remind them of how much they supported this war back in ’03 and ask them who really failed America.

Could President Obama actually be prepared to hold firm to some position this time in his upcoming round of negotiations with the Congressionals?  Or is he some sort of Republican Manchurian Candidate who will just appear to have some sort of plan or convictions and then cave in on demands to cut social programs (as he did recently with the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy)?  What with extending warrantless wiretapping, keeping Gitmo afloat, ‘surging’ troops in Afghanistan and keeping a sizeable number of troops in Iraq, Obama seems to be hell-bent on keeping the Bush Legacy alive!

*Update* California is a crazy bi-partisan microcosm of the Great American Stalemate.  However, under Jerry Brown’s stern governance, we’ve somehow managed to move forward on a budget before our bonds became Junk.  That’s a mixed omen, with a ray of light indicating that budget deals are possible, however the budget was largely an exercise in painful cuts to education and social services.  It wasn’t all bad, though, as it seems like Jerry was still able to piss off a few Reactionaries – some of the more radical counties want to split and form their own Hicksylvania.  I’d be all for it were it not for the creation of two more Repug Senators.

…the Iraqis apparently haven’t forgotten us.  Rocket attack kills 5 American soldiers on their compound.  American reactionaries are too busy gluing teabags to their hats and trading racist photoshops of Obama to put new ‘support our troops’ ribbons on their bumpers.

Please can we leave now?

"I'm sooo gonna enjoy campaigning for 2012!"

Some early reactions from various parties to the news of Osama Bin Laden’s death:

Sean Hannity, Fox News: “What we want to know here at Fox, is ‘Why did it take Obama three years to catch him?’”

Donald Trump: “”I am really honored to play such a big role in hopefully, hopefully getting rid of him”

Tea Party Nation head & Birther Judson Phillips: “How do we know it’s really Osama Bin Laden?  We demand that he produce see long form death certificate!”

Apple Spokesperson Lynn Fox: “See?  We told you that retaining your locational information was a good thing!  Osama sure loved his iPhone!”

Got any more?

*Update 5/2/11* Checked out Redstaters.  In spite of their happiness in the killing of their great BugBear, they can’t help but throw in some spite, first with a slap at us for “the relentless drumbeat of “war crimes” for those who did so much of the long and lonely work to make this possible.”  Academic Elephant, the “war crimes” were perpetrated by Shrubya for invading a country in contravention of international law that had absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden (as well as war crimes shit like not protecting the Iraqi antiquities museum, National Library, letting folks raid uranium out of the Tuwaitha Reactor .  Dumbass.  His pal streiff can’t help himself, he has to take a swipe at Code Pink, whom, he presumes, will hold a “take back the night march’ some place to mourn his passing.”  Asshole.  streiff’s big fear now?  That Obama will use this as the justification to close down Guantanamo.  I guess streiff was too lazy or blinded by ideology to notice that Osama was located through classic intelligence work, not through another 100 waterboardings of  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or Osama Bin Laden’s driver.

*Update 5/2/11, 5:10P* spoke with a reactionary co-worker, who echo’d streiff’s sentiments – he claimed that intelligence gleaned from Gitmo was responsible for locating Bin Laden.  I guess for conservatives, old-fashioned intelligence work just isn’t as sexy as waterboarding and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’

*Update 5/4/11* Heh Fox had to find something to criticize.  Shep Smith floats a trial (leaden) balloon that Obama’s operation was illegal.  I thought reactionaries loved violent action and results by enemy means necessary?  I guess the Wrong Wing Wurlitzer is throwing shit on the wall looking for something that will stick to nay say Obama’s achievement.  There is always a backlash, this will just be hard for them to spin.

The Administration would like to keep our forces sitting around in Iraq past the current deadline in case something flares up – think of it as Obama’s insurance to avoid getting egg on his face if things suddenly spiral out of control again amongst the competing factions there.  Mookie doesn’t think that’s such a good idea.  Swopa’s old pal Sistani hasn’t weighed in on the matter yet.

The street protests have finally spread to Iraq.  Surprising only because it took so long – I would think the Iraqi people are suffering more than anybody in the Arabic world nowadays, along anyway in which you wish to measure quality of life. During the early days of the Shrubya occupation, co-blogger Swopa was fond of discussing the role of Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s role as the behind the scenes ‘power broker,’ who could always pull the card of a popular uprising to stop the worst overreaches of Shrubya’s various Mayberry Machinations.

I had once mused that a real popular uprising could upstage Sistani and really bring about an end to the occupation (a concept that Swopa laughingly disparaged).  Well it seems like Sistani is in fact trying to get in front of the popular uprising train, except that it has already left the station.  Hard to say though if this is in fact the beginning of the end for Maliki, or whether this is just another bloody miserable episode in the string of misery that has become the lot of Iraq since the Repugs decided to trash the place and seize the oil

(NOTE: This is a re-written version of the post below, updated to reflect a NY Times story that appeared online after I posted it.  It originally appeared at Firedoglake.)

You’d think the American government would be happy that Iraq’s post-election political process — which has been a perpetual-immobility machine since last spring’s parliamentary elections — is finally starting to inch forward.

But you would be wrong.  In a story from Sunday with the bland headline of “U.S. Presses Iraqi Leaders to Broaden Coalition” (yeah, what else is new?), the New York Times buries this detail after the lead paragraph:

The administration has sought and received assurances that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki will not offer the followers of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr positions in charge of Iraq’s security forces in exchange for supporting Mr. Maliki’s bid for a second term in office, according to officials familiar with negotiations now under way.

. . . The Sadrists’ surprising support of Mr. Maliki, only weeks after opposing his nomination, raised alarms in Washington and gave new urgency to the efforts to persuade Mr. Maliki to include the country’s other main factions in a new government.

The article goes on to quote U.S ambassador James Jeffrey as saying the Obama administration wants “clarity on whether the Sadrist movement is a political movement or it is an armed militia which carries out political objectives through violent means.” In fact, though, the Sadrists could soon be both.

Reports to this effect have been cropping up in the fine print of news stories for a few days now.  Last week, the Associated Press reported:

A leading member of al-Sadr’s movement said their demands include as many as six of the 34 Cabinet-level ministry posts, possibly the trade ministry and one post linked to security operations.

Meanwhile, Sam Dagher wrote for the Wall Street Journal:

A senior leader in Mr. Maliki’s party said Mr. Sadr’s movement had demanded key ministries [and] a 25% quota of all government jobs, including in the army and police.

Whatever “assurances” the Obama administration has received that these deals won’t come to fruition are likely to be illusory.  Although his regime has accomplished little else, Maliki has shown expertise in finding or creating loopholes in any rules designed to limit his power–in fact, that is why the prime minister has had such a hard time finding any allies since March.

And here lies the real explanation of why Sadr, who at one point seemed to be the political figure most opposed to Maliki’s re-nomination, become the first major leader to officially endorse him.  The conventional wisdom credited the turnabout to pressure from Iran, but the truth has more to do with cold-blooded horse-trading within Iraq.

Any added power the Sadr faction gains over its previous participation in the government will come at the expense not of Maliki, but of the Sadrists’ erstwhile allies in the short-lived Iraqi National Alliance, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), who named a would-be prime minister (Adel Abdel-Mahdi) with support from the Sadr bloc just a month ago.

Having followed Iraqi politics for a while, that was the announcement that surprised me.  You see, ISCI and the Sadrists have had a feud that dates to before the U.S. invasion and has erupted into violence on several occasions since 2003, usually in regard to ISCI’s control of key Muslim shrines in Najaf and Karbala.  In fact, Maliki came to power as an unknown in 2006 due to Moqtada’s determination to keep the prime minister’s job from going to… Adel Abdel-Mahdi of ISCI.

That history appears to be repeating itself now.  Because, with Sadr’s supposedly secured backing, Abdel-Mahdi and ISCI went hat in hand to other major factions (Iyad Allawi and the Kurdish parties) looking for further support in deposing Maliki — only to have the Sadrists go back to the prime minister and cut a deal that threw ISCI under the bus, leaving their powerful ministries (ISCI had been in charge of the army, police, and finance ministries since the 2005 elections) up for grabs.

Those ministries, and the power they represent, appear to be what Sadr was angling after all along.  I’d say, “cue the Scott Joplin piano music,” if it weren’t for the grim implications of what a Sadr-influenced army and police force might have in store for the Iraqi people.

Cracks finally appear to be forming in the perpetual-immobility machine that has been Iraq’s post-election political process since last spring’s nationwide elections.

This morning, Qassim Abdul-Zahra of the Associated Press reported:

The Sunni-backed political coalition that narrowly won the most votes in Iraq’s parliamentary election appeared Sunday to be giving up its demand for the premiership, boosting the Shiite prime minister’s drive to keep his job.

. . . “We have reached a position that we don’t care anymore about posts,” said Sheik Adnan al-Danbous, a Shiite who is close to Iraqiya chief Ayad Allawi. “Posts are not as important to us as having participation in decision-making.”

. . . “We don’t mind if al-Maliki is the prime minister, but we have to have a decision-making post,” al-Danbous told The Associated Press.

What Abdul-Zahra refers to as a “stunning turnabout” from Iraqiya’s months-long refusal to have anything to do with a Maliki-led government signifies that Allawi is beginning to accept that he’ll be Iraq’s Al Gore, as I dubbed him when his slate won a narrow plurality in the spring elections.

It’s no coincidence that this shift happened just days after Moqtada as-Sadr’s similar about-face caused his faction to back current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki (joined by some smaller allied Shiite parties).  By bringing him within one more key bloc of having a parliamentary majority, the Sadrist endorsement gave Maliki the leverage needed to tell Iraqiya to get on board or miss the train of government power — and the resulting patronage opportunies — completely.

Not that Iraqiya is likely to get the “decision-making post” the Allawi aide mentions as a fallback demand.  In an interview on Friday, Maliki told the Jane Arraf of the Christian Science Monitor that he was offering to create a new National Council for Strategic Studies as part of the cabinet, and put Allawi in charge of it.  But this gambit has been tried before, and failed.  Although his regime has accomplished little else, Maliki has shown expertise in finding or creating loopholes in any rules designed to limit his power… in fact, that is why the prime minister has had such a hard time finding any allies since March.

So why did Sadr, who at one point seemed to be the political figure most opposed to Maliki’s re-nomination, become the first major leader to officially endorse it?  The conventional wisdom has credited the turnabout to pressure from Iran, but I think that view is too shallow.  What Iran wanted was to keep a coalition led by Iraq’s Shiite religious parties in power, and that was always inevitable — the main reason the stalemate over creating a government has dragged out so long is that despites the Sadrists’ fervently voiced objections to Maliki staying in power, they really had nowhere else to go.  It was just a matter of what price they would demand for coming on board.

That price, according to various reports (which, despite a denial in the CSM interview from Maliki, are likely accurate), is that Sadr’s supporters will run substantially more influential ministries than they did the last time they were in the government… including a key role in the army/police forces.  This added power will come at the expense not of Maliki, but of the Sadrists’ erstwhile allies in the short-lived Iraqi National Alliance, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), who named a would-be prime minister (Adel Abdel-Mahdi) with support from the Sadr bloc just a month ago.

With that tentative backing in hand, Abdel-Mahdi and ISCI went hat in hand to Allawi and the Kurdish parties looking for further support in deposing Maliki — only to have the Sadrists go back to the prime minister and cut a deal that threw ISCI under the bus, leaving their powerful ministries (ISCI had been in charge of the army, police, and finance ministries since the 2005 elections) up for grabs.

It’s not really that surprising when you understand that ISCI and the Sadrists have had a feud that dates to before the U.S. invasion and has erupted into violence on several occasions since 2003, usually in regard to ISCI’s control of key Muslim shrines in Najaf and Karbala.  In fact, Maliki came to power as an unknown in 2006 due to Moqtada’s determination to keep the prime minister’s job from going to… Adel Abdel-Mahdi of ISCI.  That history appears to be repeating itself now, even if it was preceded by a thoroughly convincing head fake on Moqtada’s part. (Cue Scott Joplin piano music.)

Of course, you’ll note that in these tales of political maneuvering, there’s precious little to be said about actual government policies, much less the benefits to ordinary Iraqis that should be the goal of such policies.  As with politics in so many other countries, that seems to be an irrelevant concern to the supposed leaders of Iraq.

…in a trophy-hunter kind of way.  This is horrific:
Collateral Murder

Via Huffington Post