The Surge is working! ..The Surge, (and everything else) is...uh...over!

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

In December the UN mandate that authorizes the invasion of Iraq will expire. The Iraqi government and the United States have been in talks to reach an agreement the allow troops to remain past the expiration. To date, no agreement has been reached. The Iraqi's openly state the talks are at an impasse .  The problem is simple; the Iraqis aren't buying what we're selling. But they have a new sugar daddy in mind...

 

 

The Iraqis are now actively considering (and planning for) the ending of the US presence. Part of those considerations is turning to Iran to assume the training of the Iraqi army and police. The Iraqis will also assume full control of the Iraqi Intelligence service, removing the CIA effectively blinding the US on the ground, merging the service with the other intelligence gathering groups in the country, including the Iranian backed ones. Micheal Weir, CNN in Bahgdad June 13 2008

We have been repeatedly told the surge is working, if so, how did we get here?

The Myth of The Surge

The so called "success" of the surge is based solely on the fact that the Shia militia have been restrained by the pro-Maliki contingent, al Sadrs control of his group and the overall influence of Iran. Each group has been keeping the militia restrained in the response to the increase in American troops. This fact ,plus the partitioning of the Baghdad, Basra and other major cities along sectarian lines and the payments tendered to Suni sheiks to oppose the minimal al Queda forces in Iraq has resulted in the "sucess" in Iraq.

Withdrawal time line was set in 2003  

One constant from the right are strident outcry's at any attempt to set a withdrawal time table. The dirty little secret is that there has been a withdrawal time line all along;  the expiration of the UN mandate that authorizes the invasion of Iraq.

To that end the U.S. and Iraqi sides have been meeting for several weeks, trying to negotiate a Status of Forces accord, a common agreement between nations that establishes the conditions under which U.S. troops operate in a sovereign country. Results?

"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, speaking in Amman, Jordan, said ongoing talks with the U.S. on a Status of Forces Agreement "have reached an impasse." The impasse, he said, came at the end of the first phase of negotiations, with others to follow "until we reach a decision that ensures the sovereignty of Iraq."

Meanwhile, one of Iraq's most influential clerics, Muqtada al Sadr, divided his thousands of followers into a smaller armed contingent that would be authorized to attack American troops and a much larger group that he he called on to show restraint against the American occupation." McClatchy News Service

The U.S. has similar agreements with 80 other nations, but the Iraqis have objected to the terms the Bush Administration are dictating, terms they arguably view as violations of their sovereignty and unprecedented among nations. Demands by Bush include 58 military bases, immunity from prosecution for both American troops and private contractors and control over Iraqi air space.

Iran: Game Set and Match 

Since the invasion Republicans were focused on finding or creating and  exploiting an al Qeada presence for political purposes  The 800 pound gorilla in the room was Iran who has been consolidating and increasing its influence in all areas of Iraqi life.

<Muqtada al Sadr (well, most of it, apperently Iranian orthodontists are in short supply .MRFred)

Consequently, as I stated in the lead in; the Iraqis are now actively considering ending the US presence and turning to..wait for it...Iran to assume the training of the Iraqi army and police. The Iraqis will also assume full control of the Iraqi Intelligence service, removing the CIA effectively blinding the US on the ground, merging the service with  Iranian backed ones.

With these revelations the shape of endgame should be clear. Best guess is that the Iraqis continue to reject the SOF until the expiration, we leave and Iran steps in.  Once that happens the "chaos" touted by McCain will most certainly take  place, first against the Suni , then the Kurds and any of the few fighters remaining stupid enough to claim to be al Qeada

Bush I was right .

I think it is ironic that the ultimate outcome was predicted by Bush the First and was a forgone conclusion since the very moment the first US soldier crossed the Kuwait, Iraqi border.

Finally, with US troops gone the agreements between US oil companies and Iraq will be vacated and the Iranians and the Iranian "influenced" Iraqis will control and / or influence about 30% of the known reserves of petroleum in the world.

In the mean time we are paying the tab for all of this fun.

So, in the end what will we have accomplished?

  1. We did spread democracy to Iraq, unfortunately, the democracy we spread was Iranian style  democracy and influence.
  2. We made our foreign oil supplies even more precarious by placing more under Iranian control and influence.
  3. We have almost bankrupted the American Treasury.
  4. We have dangerously depleted the Army and Marines and successfully outsourced many military functions to private companies controlled by Republican contributors.
  5. We have adapted the torture methods of our enemies.
  6. We have damaged, maybe irreparably ,American influence and standing in the world, particularly the Muslim countries.
  7. We have allowed al Qeada to rebuild to pre 9/11 levels in safe haven provided by our "allies"
  8. The Republicans have learned to use fear, threat and corruption to maintain political power at home and to invoke the "we are at war" mantra to bludgeon political advantage from the electorate when it suited their purposes. In most case the purposes were for personal gain.
  9. We have given up many of the civil liberties we previously fought to preserve.
  10. We only asked our troops to sacrifice,rewarding the rich with tax cuts and mortgaging the future of our Republic.

Mission accomplished.

 

 

Related Blogs:

Serendipity: How Republicans Are Losing The War

The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat

Afghanistan Falling Back Into Hands of Taliban and al Queda

 

< A hidden 'legacy' of Bush's America | Questions about the Hogan thing >
 Display:
I have long been confused by this UN mandate. What is that? When was it issued? What did it say?  Did the 2003 invasion have unequivocal UN backing after all I'm confused.

David

by yturks on 06/13/2008 02:50:01 PM EST


Pre "conservative spin" , United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 was the basis for the invasion. It passed on November 8, 2002 staing  "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions. BUT:

On Mar 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq).

The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions.

Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. Various sources and Wikipedia

by MRFred on 06/13/2008 03:11:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Here, you add really useful replies in MY threads and I got NOTHIN' to add that would make things clearer than you already have!

Good post, Fred.

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2008 03:24:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Resolution 1723 - where the US "stepped aside" and let the UN take the lead.

Here's the extension

The 2003 invasion was NOT authorized by the U.N. That was the reasoning behind Bush NOT going back to the U.N. the second time in 2002, because he knew the Security Council would say "don't do it" and he desperately wanted to invade.

After we had invaded and were firmly in possession of the country, the U.N. tried to make the best of a bad situation.

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2008 03:16:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There has never been a doubt in my mind that once the Sunni authority had been taken out the Shiite majority would tend to align with Iran.  It's all so complicated, yet ultimately all so simple.

by bfaul on 06/13/2008 03:48:51 PM EST


So is Resolution 1441 the resolution that is about to come to an end? Is that the Res that Bush claims allows the US to operate in Iraq?  Or were there UN resolutions passed after the invasion, to deal with the fact that the US already went in?

David

by yturks on 06/13/2008 04:01:26 PM EST


1723 is the one up in June, 1441 was the one from the Gulf War. 1441 was supposed to have been superseded by 1723

by MedfordTim on 06/13/2008 04:08:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the resolutions ,in total, that "authorized" the war and occupation will expire in December.

by MRFred on 06/13/2008 04:09:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shouldn't he know all this? You should ask him.

by Cogitor on 06/13/2008 04:13:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This of course begs the question: what do we do now? I think we'll have to concede that Iraq is an Iranian puppet - little can change that now, as any action the US or the international comunity take will force the Iranians in their preferred victim-role which generates political capital both in Iran and Iraq for the radicals.

I think it's time to start some old fashioned wheeling and dealing. After all, the Iranians are not irrationel; far from it. Apart from a weak economic policy, all their moves have ended up furthering their national intrest, or will do so in the future (future atomic weapons program: to be used as a gift coupon, much like happened with North Korea): the US has made some big mistakes, but the Iranians have also shown initiative to play into those mistakes.

This is not a bad thing per se, as it suggest we're not dealing with the religious madmen they're made out to be. If we approach them without preconditions and with a bag full of meaningless treats, maybe recognise their position of power in the region, good deals can be made, much like with Libya.

Anyone can be bought, even the ayatolahs. Or does anyone really believe they're holy man?

by Cogitor on 06/13/2008 04:11:30 PM EST


when this comes to pass...he will have no choice BUT to meet with Iran without preconditions.

by MRFred on 06/13/2008 04:18:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It may well be true, that the Saudi's fear of a "Shi'a arc" is becoming a reality. No wonder the Saudi's are flouting Bush and cozying up to the Russians (as they are starting to buy Russian arms instead of American) as a way to influence a re-emergent power in the Middle East, Russia. The US has been weakened significantly in the Middle East, eventhough it has 100,000s of troops spat in the middle of the M.E.

Also do not forget, that the US surge is only successful because its partial aim was to subvert Al Qaeda. In order to have done that, the US needed Sunni militia's to suppor them, according to a new article from The Economist:

"A few Sunnis, motivated by Islam or simple resentment of foreign military occupation, continue to attack American forces. But many Sunni tribes, repelled by the atrocities committed by their former and often foreign allies in al-Qaeda, have joined the so-called Sunni awakening, the Sahwa, and crossed over to America's side. At the same time, Sunnis and Shias have stopped killing each other in the vast numbers that followed the blowing up of a Shia shrine in early 2006. General Petraeus's surge is only one reason for this. Another reason, less flattering to the Americans, is that after last year's frenzied ethnic cleansing fewer neighbourhoods are still mixed."
--------------------------- --------------------------- ----------
"Needless to say, these conflicts could resume. The But it is also the case that a lot of Iraqis, having waded briefly into the horror of indiscriminate sectarian slaughter, have for the present made a conscious decision to step back.Sunnis fighting on America's side today could direct their fire back towards the Americans and Shias tomorrow if not enough room is made for them in the new, Shia-dominated order. On the Shia side, it is not clear whether Mr Sadr has given up violence for good. And his is not the only political movement to have a private army. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alike still see their respective militias as a hedge against an uncertain future."

--------------------------- --------------------------

http://www.economist.com/op inion/displayStory.cfm?Stor y_ID=11535688

 Iraq looks marginally better from a casualty POV, but politically it is a disaster for the US.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/13/2008 05:26:19 PM EST


    Ya done the old guys proud.

It's another day in paradise...

by happyhominid on 06/14/2008 08:29:41 PM EST


 Display: