Two articles with opinions on the chaos in Iraq

[cal04]

Knowing that we don't get the whole truth from our Media, how do we know what's really going on in this administration?
Chaos Theory

Mark LeVine is assistant professor of history at the University of California, Irvine. He is the co-editor, with Pilar Perez and Viggo Mortensen, of Twilight of Empire: Responses to Occupation (Perceval Press, 2003) and author of the forthcoming tentatively titled Why They Don't Hate Us: Islam and the World in the Age of Globalization (Oneworld Publications, 2004). It is perhaps hard for Americans to understand the U.S. occupation of Iraq in the context of globalization. But Iraq today is clearly the epicenter of that trend, and in this context, chaos is king. Here, military force was used to seize control of the world's most important commodity: oil. And that's only the beginning. Corporate prospectors allied with the United States search the country like safari hunters on elephants for any opportunity to profit from Iraq's misery—that's how conspicuous they are. Meanwhile, inside Baghdad's green zone, where the U.S. occupation headquarters are located, their innocuous-looking counterparts draft regulations for privatizing everything from health care to prisons. It is chaos that makes this whole system possible. Without the chaos, Iraqis would not allow the country to be sold off wholesale, or allow the U.S. troops to remain after the June 30th "transfer" of sovereignty. Without chaos, there is little reason to assume that the imposition of neoliberal globalization, which has wreaked such havoc in so many other countries of the developing world, would be in the process of entrenchment in Iraq. Without the chaos, there would be more reporting on the appalling conditions in the hospitals and schools, which are violations of the United States' obligations as occupying power under the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10195


On the surface, this chain of events is mystifying. With the so-called Sunni triangle in flames after the gruesome Fallujah attacks, why is Mr. Bremer pushing the comparatively calm Shia south into battle? Here's one possible answer: Washington has given up on its plans to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, and is now creating the chaos it needs to declare the handover impossible.

A continued occupation will be bad news for George Bush on the campaign trail, but not as bad as if the handover happens and the country erupts, an increasingly likely scenario given the widespread rejection of the legitimacy of the interim constitution and the U.S.-appointed government.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0405-07.htm

[Quahog]

1. Major mistake being made

The speculation that the chimp maladministration is pushing an escalation of violence in order to provide cover for missing the 6/30 pullout deadline makes some sense, especially in light of the fact that Bremmer is continuing to assert today that we are ending the occupation on that day. You can hear them already: "Hey, we were COMMITTED to bringing all our troops home on 7/1, but just look what those crazy Iraqis did!"

But by using Al-Sadr as the locus of the new violence among the formerly compliant Shia populace, a major mistake is being made. It seems to me that the one thing that has saved our troops over there to this point is that the conflict has at no time been clearly drawn along religious lines. As long as it was USA versus Ba'ath, we were able to avoid stirring up too many of those memories of the Crusades.

But now we are attacking a religious figure, making a prominent Muslim cleric an official "outlaw." This could cause the whole business to blow up in our faces. A lot of Iraqis who are practicing Muslims but disinclined to embrace fanaticism will be radicalized by the martyring of any Islamic leader.

I can't believe they fail to see the stupidity of this.

Or maybe, to revive an old speculation, a Holy War is what they want. Maybe this all ties in to that Armageddon craziness.

God help our troops if this turns into Christians versus Saracens. Huge losses will be suffered on both sides if it goes that way.

[KoKo]

3. Interesting post Quahog. "Christians vs. Saracens." It's another

elephant in the room. Remember when Chimp used the word "Crusade" and was criticized after 9/11 in a speech.

Looking at what you say, it's possible to see that our CPA could be split along religious/military/PNAC lines. There are two religious factions: PNAC and RW Christian Fundamentalists. Both seem to have the same goal but how to achieve it? Making Iraq a Christian Nation would be the goal of one and protecting Israel from Muslims would be the goal of the other.

Interesting. We could end up the way the British did with the "Mahdi." And, probably will.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

2. Raed's latest blog entries are also worth reading

albeit v. scary.

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. I agree that the second scenario is quite believable

it's a disaster on wheels headed straight to hell if we leave it on its own now.

[IrateCitizen]

5. I think the first article gives the Pentagon wonks too much credit

Granted, it would not at all surprise me to find that they are following the course of sabotaging any positive development there in order to suit their own short-term political purposes. That is COMPLETELY feasible, IMHO. However, when looking at things through this lens, considering the incredible short-sightedness of such a plan, it is nearly impossible to say that they planned this all out perfectly.

I would say that they DID look to unleash "chaos theory" on Iraq as a means of enacting their agenda of military control and privatization -- but it is also important to remember that these people were the same ones who said that Iraqis would be throwing flowers to the troops who were "liberating" them.

These people may be bright, for the most part, but they certainly are not wise, nor do they act out of any kind of foresight. They possess excessive arrogance that blinds them to realities that come in conflict with their ideology.

They may have unleashed chaos on Iraq in order to advance their self-serving agenda, but eventually it will come back to bite them all in the ass -- and many of us at the same time.