George Bush and his small clutch of neo-con cheerleaders stand alone. No one else, it seems, has a good word to say for the Bush 'surge' in Iraq, not even the Iraqis. If America's best ally, Britain, thought it was a good idea it's chosen an odd way of showing it. Britain has announced it will go ahead with major troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Weeks before the Bush Surge speech the Iraqi PM, Nouri al-Maliki said he didn't want more US troops in Iraq. Then again why would he? Maliki is a weak prime minister presiding tenuously over a Shiite-dominated government that is closely tied to Iran. His army is approximately 80% Shia with much of the balance being Kurdish. While the US was looking elsewhere, the Iraqi government and its institutions have been ethnically cleansed. A number of Sunni legislators have been reported to have fled Baghdad. Even Baghdad's neighbourhoods are being reshaped with mixed areas going either Sunni or, more often, Shiite, organized under the protection of their sectarian militias.
Bush has issued Maliki with a set of "benchmarks" (I guess "roadmap" was already taken) that he is supposed to meet or else. Or else what hasn't been made clear.
A coup maybe? That would destroy Washington's pretence that Iraq has a functioning, democratic government. I expect that's something Bush would like to avoid, if only for appearances sake.
A withdrawal of American forces? That prospect would probably be an incentive for Maliki to continue to defy Bush, to get rid of him and establish a Shia state of Iraq with an isolated Sunni minority and an autonomous, virtually sovereign Kurdistan in the north.
Doing nothing may be Maliki's favoured option. Bush is weak, Iraqi defiance will undercut the president's last remaining excuse for staying in Iraq. The Sunnis have already been reduced in control and influence. Shia power is ascendant.
Look at the alternative. Meet the benchmarks. They will work directly against Shia interests. They provide mainly for Sunni advancements. More Sunnis in the government. A return of former Baathists. Constitutional reform and an agreement to equitably share Iraq's oil, none of which is in Sunni territory, with the Shia's arch-enemy. What's in this for the Shiite majority? Not much at all.
Meeting the Bush benchmarks would also virtually guarantee a dominant, US military presence/occupation for another three to five years. It is this factor, more than any other, that has shackled Iraqi independence and sovereignty.
No, I think Maliki, along with al Sadr and al Sistani, has Bush in an ideal spot of the American president's own making.
When Bush invaded Iraq he played straight into al-Qaeda's hands. Now he seems bent on playing into the hands of Shiite fundamentalism. Good one, George.
No comments:
Post a Comment