THIS WEEK, THE ENRON WHORE, CONGRESS MEMBER SHEILA JACKSON LEE, EMERGED FROM HER DO-NOTHING, UNETHICAL POSTURING TO INSIST:
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Turning to Iraq, Ed O'Keefe and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) report that Iraqi and American officials are both stating that the 'deadline' for informing the US that they want the US military to stay will not be kept. That deadline was Jalal Talabani's deadline. Set and announced by Talabani. Among the problems O'Keefe and Alwan state is that there is some speculation, on the American side, that "a request might not come until March." For those late to the party, the Status Of Forces Agreement extended the US military occupation of Iraq by three years -- unlike the UN mandates which had been used previously and only covered one year at a time. December 31st of this year, the SOFA (negotiated by the Bush administration) expires. If it is not extended it can be replaced with a new agreement or all US forces (except those protecting the sprawling US Embassy in Baghdad and the US consulates sprouting up all over Iraq) can leave.
The White House's primary plan is to reach an agreement and keep the US military in Iraq as is -- meaning under the Pentagon. The back-up plan is sliding them over to the State Dept and keeping them in that way. With Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio), John Glaser discussed the US military staying in Iraq. Excerpt:
John Glaser: Whatever sort of contingent forces remain in Iraq -- there surely will be some amount -- they're going to be in combatant capacity despite the denials of US officials that are saying right now they're going to be noncombat and so on and so forth. They will have to continue to fight against an insurgency whose main aim is to get them out of the country. There's no -- There's really no indication that the national security state in America will treat Iraq any differently than they've treated the many other countries which they continue to okay. Why would they treat it any differently than South Korea where we still have 50,000 some odd troops. There's just no indication that they would. And so we need to either come to grips with the fact that they will be there and they will continue fighting or -- I'm not really sure what the alternative is.
Scott Horton: Yeah, well, I'm already making bumper sticks that say: "End The Iraq War: Ron Paul 2012."
John Glaser: Right.
Scott Horton: Cause Obama sure ain't doing it.
John Glaser: No, absolutely not. I'm glad that Ron Paul is running again. I think he sort of invigoarted a d a distinct class of antiwar and I think he'll build on that this time around and we'll get some more colleagues in that endevaor.
We'll come back to withdrawal and the 'trainers' but they were talking about Ron Paul and yesterday Judy Woodrfuff conducted an interview with US House Rep Ron Paul (who is running for the GOP presidential nomination). Excerpt:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's go to some of the international issues you touched on very quickly. You want to bring troops home. What should the U.S. footprint be internationally? What is the U.S. role in the world?
REP. RON PAUL: Well, it should be a footprint of trade and friendship, as we were advised and as the Constitution permits. The footprint shouldn't be a military footprint. It shouldn't be -
JUDY WOODRUFF: So bring -
REP. RON PAUL: The footprint we're leaving now - our drone missiles dropping bombs and killing innocent civilians, launched from the United States with computers. That's not the kind of footprint I want.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Afghanistan. How quickly would you bring the troops home?
REP. RON PAUL: As quick as the ships could get there. It's insane on what we're doing. And I'll tell you one thing about this business about the military: We just had a quarterly report, and they listed all the money that all the candidates got from the military. I got twice as much as all the other candidates put together on the Republican side, and even more than Obama got, which tells me that these troops want to come home as well because they know exactly what I'm talking about.
Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reported earlier this week on Kirkuk, "Nowhere, Iraqi and U.S. officials say, is the argument for keeping American troops in Iraq past Dec. 31 stronger than in Kirkuk." He quotes stating the Governor of Kirkuk Najmeldeen Kereem, "The Iraqi security forces do not have the ability to secure Iraq's borders, its airspace or its sole seaport in Basra." The governor wants the US military to stay on.
While Kirkuk might want the US to stay on, supposedly the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq) will be keeping US troops. Al Rafidayn reports the Iraqi president gave an interview to China Central Television in which he explained that the Kurdistan region is planning to keep US forces. And what of outside the Kurdistan region? In the rest of Iraq? Well there are a few problems, Jalal explained. See Iraqi has trouble protecting itself. It can't, he declared, protect its own air space, the land or the sea. I'm confused, what does that leave? By air, land or sea. What else is there? How does that passage in the US Marines' Hymn go?
From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea
What else is there?
I guess we could go Wiccan and talk the four corners? Earth, Air, Water and Fire? So Jalal would be saying that Iraq has the capacity to protect the fire?
Who knows but it's pretty clear that if you're the president of the country and you're maintaining your forces can protect your country . . . except by land, air and water, you've just tossed out a huge "but" and, no, your forces can't protect your country. (Or, at least, you don't think they can.)
To keep the US military in Iraq, Jalal Talabani hid behind "trainers." That's the lie that the Iraqi government currently thinks it can trick the Iraqi people with. The US will remain in "a limited number" as "trainers." Strange. I don't see how "trainers" can protect your air space, or your waters, or your land. Al Sabaah also notes Talabani's non-stop use of "trainers." Phil Stewart (Reuters) notes, "Legal safeguards for U.S. troops could become a major stumbling block to any potential deal with Iraq to keep some American forces in the country beyond a year-end withdrawal deadline."
Nizar Latif (The National) reported at the end of last month that a number of Shi'ites were worried about a possible US departure and fear that civil war could return and they worry about the Mahdi militia of Moqtada al-Sadr: "Critics now worry that the militia, which supporters claim can call up 150,000 fighters will pick up weapons if a new security vacuum opens up when Iraq's army and police take over the departs." Moqtada al-Sadr made many threats to rain down fire and brimstone should the US military stay in Iraq. Then he announced he wouldn't oppose such a decision. NPR's Kelly McEvers (All
Things Considered) reported on the issue on yesterday. Excerpt:
KELLY McEVERS: This is the issue with Sadr's organization. Despite its new image as a political player, it still maintains a militant wing that stands ready to threaten or even fight its rivals. In the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the ostensible reason for keeping guns is to resist Israel. For Sadr, it's to resist the U.S. But what happens when the enemy occupier leaves? Here's Thanassis Cambanis again.
Professor THANASSIS. CAMBANIS: If the logic of resistance is what defines you as a movement, you're going to have a lot of trouble shifting to some other footing when the enemy you resist is gone.
McEVERS: That's why following the Hezbollah model too closely might eventually be Sadr's undoing, Cambanis says. Two decades after its civil war, Lebanon remains volatile and divided, and Hezbollah, he says, is losing credibility. In the short term, though, Cambanis says, as long as Iraq's weak and incomplete government remains unable to provide security and basic services, Muqtada al-Sadr will remain a reasonable alternative.
Staying on the topic of Moqtada al-Sadr, we have maintained that he would back down on his 'vow' to reform the Mahdi militia to attack US soldiers. The 'vow' (empty threat) was similar to ones he had made before and not followed through on and there was also the issue of hs long stay in Iran while he was supposedly a 'leader' to 'his people.' More and more US, European and Arab opinion (intelligence and diplomatic community) was that Moqtada had lost hold of 'his people' and was at a very weak point -- one similar to 2008 when the Bush administration elected to attack him (with Nouri joining in) and allow him to play 'dangerous rebel' and up his prestige and 'cred.' By remaining out of Iraq after being seen as strong (after the 2008 attack), he lost what he'd gained. That's what we based our opinion on.
Events have backed up that view. Gareth Porter has a different take on why Moqtada changed his mind. He explains it in his article "What Is Sadr's Game on Future US Troop Presence" (IPS via Dissident Voice) which we've noted twice this week. And he explained it in his conversation with Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio). We noted that interview twice this week. Read his piece but my summary of it is that Moqtada realized he will be the next prime minister and is now interested in perserving the system and not destroying it.
Gareth Porter could be correct. The opinion we've offered here could be completely wrong. But Gareth's opinion really doesn't make sense. And even Scott Horton seems to sense that as he returns to that topic (such as in the interview we noted earlier). It's possible that Moqtada had an about face on this because Jalal Talabani, who's been meeting with everyone, pointed out the details Gareth presents. And hearing that from Talabani, Moqtada did an about face. For Gareth's version to be correct, it appears to require someone points out to Moqtada all that 'will happen.' If Moqtada had come to the realization on his own, the sudden about face makes no sense.
So maybe something like that happened. Gareth could be correct. But I don't think it makes sense and I'm sticking with what we've argued for months. In that scenario, Moqtada has little to command because his refusal to keep 'skin in the game' by staying in Iraq, loosened his hold on his organization and all of its aspects. That hypothesis may be backed up by Moqtada's own remarks that he had to bring the Mahdi militia under control. This is again hit upon today in a report by Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters):
Anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has spawned dozens of renegade splinter groups which frequently assassinate Iraqi officials on behalf of foreign sponsors, Sadrist and security officials say.
[. . .]
A popular Shi'ite cleric who leads the militia as well as his own political bloc, Sadr has repudiated the splinter groups, describing them as "murderers" and "criminals", and has called on Iraqi security forces and tribes to expel them.
"They have turned into mercenary groups which have no ideology or specific agenda. They are more like contract killers," said Major-General Hassan al-Baidhani, chief of staff for Baghdad's security operations command.
While Moqtada spent the last years in Iran, time did not stand still and common sense will tell you that if Ida is the leader but Ida's out of the county and Jose, Mia and Bill have to do all the wok in country -- including risking arrest, including risking death -- Jose, Mia and Bill aren't going to be thrilled when Ida pops back into the country three years later and expects everyone to listne to her. Moqtada can't run a 'revolution' by remote.
Gareth Porter may be right and I may be wrong. Wouldn't be the first or last time that I was wrong. But the yarn being told does not add up and that's why Scott Horton's trying to suss it out in his conversation with John Glaser. That's why he keeps returning to it trying to figure out what Moqtada is thinking. Because it doesn't add up.
Why the sudden turn around by Moqtada? In Gareth's version it's because Moqtada realized he would be the next prime minister in a couple of years and realized he couldn't afford to tear down the system he would command. Okay. Well why did Moqtada all the sudden realize that? Every step on the ladder begs another question because on the most basic level -- human nature -- it does not make sense. We've excerpted from Gareth's article and we included lengthy quotes on this from his conversation with Scott Horton. There's a link to his piece several paragraphs up. I'm not trying to distort what he's saying. But what he's saying doesn't currently make sense. It may be missing a step or it may be invalid. I don't know. But my opinion is that Moqtada lost control of his group -- and we've argued that repeatedly pointing to the low turnout for parades and Moqtada's sudden decision to turn a parade into a march by his armed supporters. Moqtada's own remarks appear to back up that he's lost control (but his remarks indicate also that he thinks he can take back control -- maybe he can).
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The smoke & mirror game called 'progress'"
"The NewsHour makes its priorities clear"
"Borders Books to close"
"Tired of the racial double standard"
"3 men, 3 women"
"the little bitch debbie wasserman schultz"
"And the Emily's List you rode in on!"
"Gwen Moore, Jackie Spier and the rest, get a damn life"
"White girl attacks Black man and then whines"
"Black man attacked for defending himself"
"The Libyan War"
"Libyan War, so-called 'debt crisis'"
"The Party Girl Is Over"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S NOT GOING WELL!"
