|
there are an unspecified number of options listed in the Baker Report. 2 of those, partitioning the country and phased withdrawal from Iraq, Bush has recently rejected. That leaves the "stability first" option. (there might be other options we haven't heard about, but this is one that is definitely mentioned) What does stability first mean? It means in the first place that democracy and the democratic shape of the currently dysfunctional Iraqi gov't is no longer important to our (Bushler's) policy. Our priority is to have a gov't in Iraq strong enough to control its own territory, democracy is an afterthought. The obstacle to the present gov't fulfilling that role is the majority-minority conflict between the Shia and Sunni. By imposing democracy we just inverted their dominant-subjugated relationship. That ignited a low grade civil war and has paralyzed the Iraqi gov't since it is presently bound by a constitutional and parliamentary framework in which the minority is represented just enough to monkeywrench the majority. So one suspects that pursuing a "stability first" policy in Iraq probably means we are about to back Maliki or some other representative of Iraq's majority Shia population in the traditional role of "strongman", a dictator who rules by fiat and threat of arrest and execution. Maliki, or the "New Saddam" whoever he is, will rule Iraq without democratic mandate. Instead, he will probably assert "emergency powers" and begin a governmental attempt to suppress the Sunni minority, to put down the Sunni insurrection with a superior level of violence that is supposed to convince them to put down their arms. He may employ Shia militia rather than the Iraqi Army for the worst of the violence. In the nature of things like this, the brunt of the counterinsurgent violence will fall upon the host population from which the insurgency derives its strength. Civilian casualties won't just be "collateral" but will be directly caused as part of the government's "persuasive case" that the Sunni people should stop supporting their armed militia and terrorist groups. In other words the horrific killing in Iraq may have just begun. Naturally the government's strategy will be to demonstrate that, since they are the gov't with a majority of the population and US funding, they can inflict death and destruction against the Sunni at a rate that the smaller Sunni terror cells cannot hope to match. Meanwhile we will not withdraw from Iraq. Bush's goal of planting the US flag in the center of the world's oil patch is much too important to him and his faction to give up just because some Arabs are killing each other, and he will have many quiet supporters for maintaining US military dominance of the Persian Gulf within the Democratic Party. Although we will express regret about the level of violence "necessary to restore order in Iraq", we won't be trying to stop the Shia on Sunni violence, instead we will be funding it, and from time to time directly supporting it with air strikes. Our troops will probably be pulled back into their bases--at least they will be pulled out of the cities--rather than get in the middle of a hot civil war, which in the irony typical of Republican policy language, is what "stability first" almost certainly means.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
