Thursday, December 21, 2006

The New Way Forward takes a bipartisan turn?

The New Way Forward takes a bipartisan tact:

Up until now W.'s entire presidency has been about going it alone, not listening to the appeasers who would coddle terrorists (i.e. the democrats). Now though, his administration is going to "listen with people . . . work with democrats. . . work with the military" to "put a plan in place that achieves the objective."
It seems what he's really saying is that, from now on when "stuff happens," (as Rummy used to put it) it will be on the military and the Democrats, not just him. He's still going to do exactly what he has been doing all along, making the same mistakes over and over again, but now that the Dems are in control of Congress he can spread the blame around. He seems to be implying also, that he's going to take his fellow Republicans down with him if they don't play along.

Beyond cutting off funding to the war, which is approaching $600 billion (more than the entire cost of Vietnam,) there is not a whole lot Congress can do to keep W. from doing whatever he feels like doing. Even the election fiasco hasn't slowed him down. While the rest of the world saw the utter defeat of the GOP as a call by the American electorate to get out of Iraq, W. sees it another way. W. says, "There's not a lot of people saying 'Get out now.' Most Americans are saying, 'We want to achieve the objective.'" Really? I thought I saw a recent poll that said --------------

And what exactly is the objective in Iraq anyway? The story keeps changing. Those pesky nonexistent WMD won't be producing any mushroom clouds over New York any time soon, Saddam has been overthrown and the Iraqi people have been "liberated," so what's left? A viable Western style democracy in the Middle East able to defend itself against regional foes? Not going to happen.

Our choices in Iraq are between supporting one Shiite religious fanatic who is beholden to Iran versus backing another Shiite religious fanatic who is more pro-Iraqi. Ironically, W. decided to meet with the one who's more aligned to Iran. In case no one told W., Abdul Aziz al-Hakim -- though he may not be Muqtada al-Sadr -- runs an organization created in Iran called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri)." There's some truth in advertising there I think. Al-Hakim actually thinks the Iranian Mullahs have lost their way when it come to really enforcing Sharia law.

If the objective in Iraq is now to undercut the power of Muqtada al-Sadr -- who contrary to popular belief actually distrusts the Iranians and their influence in Iraq -- by supporting Sciri, I'd say to W. & Co., "there you go again." We can train and equip Iraqi security forces 'til the cow comes home, but the question is which religious fanatic will ultimately wind up controlling them?

The real objective W. seems to be going for here, is to find the least objectionable strong man who can use enough force to get Iraq off the TV screen every night and focus America's attention on the threat to Israel coming from Iran. Obviously, the threat to Israel thing will be played down for public consumption -- it will be framed more as the Iranian threat to the entire world posed by their 300 centrifuges -- the Israel angle will be mainly employed to bring Congress along.

In a funny twist, if and when W. is able to garner the minimum of political support he needs to go after Iran -- perhaps an engineered naval "incident" in the Persian Gulf would do the job -- he's going to find his Sciri and Dawa buddies in the Iraq government turn on him. The only other militias operating in Iraq with enough fire power to counter the Iranian influence would be either, the Mahdi Army or the Sunni insurgents. Now won't that be an interesting PR problem to triangulate?


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter script Top Blog Lists Favourite Blogs Top List
My Zimbio
Top Stories