Designated Driver

Sometimes, if you want to get reality straight, it pays to read pieces in our press with care and to the end. Take a recent New York Times piece by Richard A. Oppel Jr., headlined: Iraqi Official Reports Capture of Top Insurgent Leader Linked to Shrine Bombing." It's pretty typical of reporting on this story. Forget for a second that the capture of second-in-commands and "top lieutenants" of al-Qaeda in Iraq have been staples of Bush administration announcements for the last year or more -- or that you could practically fill Abu Ghraib (recently turned over to the Iraqis empty) with these "top" figures. Though this was billed as a joint U.S./Iraqi operation, it's been heavily flogged as an Iraqi success story. Hence the Iraqi national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, proudly made the announcement that "the second-ranking leader" of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Hamid Juma Faris Jouri al-Saeedi, was in custody.

Read a little farther into the piece though and you get this telling bit of journalistic anonymity: "However, a United States military official was more cautious in describing Mr. Saeedi's place in the organization's pecking order… ‘I'm not sure we are ready to put a number on him,' said the American official, who agreed to speak only without being named because Iraqi officials had been designated to announce the capture. ‘It's a very decentralized operation.'"

Is this the equivalent of designated driver, Iraqi-style? You all go to the bar and boisterously down a few -- except for that little guy in the corner, drinking coffee, who's there to drive you home. Is this what they call "sovereignty" in Iraq?

If you read on to the very end, you'll find this gem: "In Baghdad, Iraqi and American officials worked to overcome disagreements over the transfer of direct operational control of the Iraqi armed forces to the Iraqi Defense Ministry. At issue is the delineation of responsibilities between Iraqi and American forces, said an American official, who called the disputes minor."

Ah, now I get it. The "Iraqi Army" may soon be turned over to the Iraqis -- as today's Times put it, this is a "plan to take over formal operational command of the Iraqi Army from the United States."

Back in 2003, Americans in the occupation used to wield a wonderful term for all this. They would speak of putting an "Iraqi face" on things -- in Iraq. Now, they don't say it, they just do it. Whatever "formal" plan may be worked out, as Michael Schwartz, a smart sociologist I know, wrote recently: "There is no Iraqi army… The government's military consists of Iraqi units integrated into the U.S.-commanded occupation army."

Increasingly the question is: Is there an Iraq?

Comments (57)

1. Ultimately....I think we're looking at the "Three State Solution". The Kurds get "old Kurdistan", the Shiia get the south, and the Sunnis get the "Triangle".

   While nobody in Congress, the next Democratic Congress, or the Bush Administration wants to admit it....once the "Murtha plan" gets inacted, whether 2008 or 2009, the break-up will quickly follow.

   Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 4:39pm

2. Mask

   Won't work as the oil is unevenly distributed....of course, maybe George can can sway them with his statemanship to "play nice" and "share and share alike".

   Wait...gotta take another toke to keep this hallucination stable.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/05/2006 @ 4:44pm

3. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/05/2006 @ 4:44pm

   Not so sure. Nothing saying we can't hold the south and let the Kurds and Sunnis fight over the "crappy parts".

   Seriously...three-state is a pretty good proposal, Biden's pushing it and I think as we have the "Saigon-1975" moment in Baghdad in one-three years, it'll become more viable.

   Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 4:55pm

4. Who's censoring what?

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/05/2006 @ 4:45pm

   FRANK....WHO do you think is "censoring" the New York Times these days?!?!

   Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 4:56pm

5. Unfortunately, the Iraqi military/police have been engaged in a Sisyphusian exercise since their inception. At nightfall their numbers are high. By the next morning, they're back to square one. Until the ethnic divides in Iraq are stablized and can reach a compromise, the Sisyphusian exercise will continue. Locked as the US is in the trap of its own propaganda, democracy building, it ain't gonna to happen.

   Posted by felicity at 09/05/2006 @ 5:38pm

6. Iraq is a disaster, support 2800 more troops.

   Posted by LiberalPride at 09/05/2006 @ 5:40pm

7. How about that "Salvadoran Solution for Iraq"?

   Posted by LiberalPride at 09/05/2006 @ 5:46pm

8. Let's not forget the immense influence the mullahs of Iran will have over their Shiite brethren in the south of the country formerly known as Iraq once the seperation occurs. The western (Sunni) portion will be about as useful as any other piece of wasteland (sans petroleum) and the new Iran will get a few more provinces. And more petrodollars, which makes them even more powerful and, ouch, my head is spinning. To paraphrase Casey Stengel, "Doesn't anybody there in government know how to play geopolitics?"

   Posted by The Goods at 09/05/2006 @ 6:13pm

9. Let's not forget the immense influence the mullahs of Iran will have over their Shiite brethren in the south of the country formerly known as Iraq once the seperation occurs. The western (Sunni) portion will be about as useful as any other piece of wasteland (sans petroleum) and the new Iran will get a few more provinces. And more petrodollars, which makes them even more powerful and, ouch, my head is spinning. To paraphrase Casey Stengel, "Doesn't anybody there in government know how to play geopolitics?"

   Posted by The Goods at 09/05/2006 @ 6:14pm

10. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/05/2006 @ 4:59pm

    No, FRANK...who? Schulzberger?...the day editors?...the reporters?

    Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 6:35pm

11. I'd like to thank the troops who died creating the disaster in Iraq

    Posted by LiberalPride at 09/05/2006 @ 6:45pm

12. Liberal -

    The troops did not create it, they were victims of it.

    And neo-cons wonder why we hate the guy who actually did create it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 09/05/2006 @ 6:48pm

13. Did some troops die creating freedom? Yes. Did some troops die creating a disaster? Yes. We ought to thank them & give them credit.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 09/05/2006 @ 7:08pm

14. Did some troops die creating freedom? Yes.

    oh really? what freedom are you talking about? I honestly don't see it? where?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/05/2006 @ 7:26pm

15. another excellent piece of media studies, in the same vein as norman soloman.

    i've been saying some of these same things for years now. the bush administration has repeatedly exaggerated the threat posed by 'al qaeda', as well as the stakes in the overall 'war on terror'.

    al qaeda doesn't exist, as such. and the global war on terror is little more than a sideshow, for the deeper, complex, sectarian problems being resolved (or spun up) in the middle east, in relation to the us/israeli hegemony.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 7:46pm

16. to the us/israeli hegemony.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/05/2006 @ 7:46pm

    DD, let me ask a question, answer it, and then ask another...hehe.

    1. What will the next, presumably Democratic, President do about that "us/israeli hegemony"?

    Answer-"Be a fair, non-partisan arbitrator between Israel and the Palestinians"?

    Okay...now, given that HOWARD DEAN called the Iraqi PM an "anti-Semite" for his "soft-pedalling" Hezbollah and just going after Israel...who's going to be President AND further to the Left than Governor Dean?

    Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 10:27pm

17. i'm not going to enter into a discussion about how to solve the israeli/palestinian war.

    or the israeli/lebanese war.

    it's hopeless.

    it might sound heartless to tell israel, "you're on your own," but sometimes i feel like saying that.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 10:33pm

18. come on mash, stick to the point. al qaeda ain't a threat. that's mainstream thinking these days. we have been talking about this for 5 years now. couldn't mention it during the '04 election, would have been crucified. would have loved to, but 1/2 the american "public" was simply STUPID, and willing to lap up whatever bush told them. some still do, which is beyond extraordinary, and makes us look like the dumbest people on earth. bush is perhaps the single greatest embarrassment in our nation's history. even harding was more curious, and more engaged, than bush.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 11:05pm

19. On what basis do you conclude that al Qaeda isn't a threat? It seems that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates otherwise:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55705-2004May25.html

    http://healthandenergy.com/al_qaeda_threat_growing.htm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4595313.stm

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/06/2006 @ 12:28am

20. none of those articles cites hard numbers nor provides convincing evidence to the contrary.

    al qaeda will never obtain the political legitimacy with which to engage with the rest of the world body. they are a decentralized, radical, fringe movement, with almost nothing in terms of a coherent, political manifesto or legal doctrine.

    tell me, thrawn, what are their numbers? which nations clearly support them? show me proof.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 12:57am

21. how many people have al qaeda killed over the last 15 years? 5,000? and that's pushing it.

    that's NOTHING compared to: cancer, natural disasters, american bombs, the list keeps going...

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 01:00am

22. the neoconservatives will use the exaggerated threat of al qaeda until they are ousted from power. that is because their entire movement has been a disaster. they are using fear to keep their horrendous ideas from extinction.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 01:02am

23. jesus christ, thrawn, that post article is TOTAL propaganda.....ashcroft-era propaganda!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 01:05am

24. Posted by DARLADOON 09/06/2006 @ 01:00am

    This is interesting on two counts..

    1. the fact that 3000 people didn't die instantly...of cancer!!!

    2. "american bombs"? I smell a good ol' fashioned Hard Left "moral equivalency" argument coming, don't you?

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 07:20am

25. posted by MASK 09/06/2006 @ 07:20am

    1. the fact that 3000 people didn't die instantly...of cancer!!!

    more than a thousand will die of cancer... today.

    and tomorrow... and the next day

    2. "american bombs"? I smell a good ol' fashioned Hard Left "moral equivalency" argument coming, don't you?

    There is no equivalency, immoral or otherise, "american bombs" (glad you placed that in quotes. In the hands of evangelic conservatives, they're not so American anymore) have killed way more people that anything evangelic "muslims" could ever hope to do

    Posted by Will C. at 09/06/2006 @ 08:47am

26. so to sum up...you hamsters are still winning the most murderous and vile contest

    Posted by Will C. at 09/06/2006 @ 08:47am

27. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/06/2006 @ 08:41am

    or we could thank them for having us over... and let the Iraqi's handle Iraq

    Posted by Will C. at 09/06/2006 @ 08:50am

28. does anyone know what happened to DailyKos? I have been getting a blank page.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2006 @ 08:55am

29. Posted by WILL C. 09/06/2006 @ 08:47am

    WILL, if the Democratic Party gets dragged over to the "DARLA" wing, where terrorism is "no big deal" and 9/11 was a "once in a lifetime thing, never happen again"....plus the "'american bombs' are worse than anything anybody else has done" Blame-America-Firstism....

    they'll lose....and lose with their best shot at winning in a decade!

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 08:57am

30. they'll lose....and lose with their best shot at winning in a decade!

    Posted by MASK 09/06/2006 @ 08:57am

    if you hamsters have so flubbed our national security in the last five years so that 9-11 isn't a once in a lifetime thing...

    and maybe we should start calling them evangelic bombs. It has a nice ring to it don't you think?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/06/2006 @ 09:06am

31. Johannes Same here...

    Posted by geoman77 at 09/06/2006 @ 09:16am

32. Posted by WILL C. 09/06/2006 @ 09:06am

    WILL, what do we need "national security" for?

    As you and DARLA said, compared to "cancer, natural disasters, and american bombs"....terrorism is no biggie!

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 09:41am

33. WillC

    Napalm...soon to be renamed "Freedom Fire" so we can then "spread the love"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/06/2006 @ 09:44am

34. What is wrong with you traitorous pinko lefties?

    GWB said we were going to Iraq to disarm an imminent danger. We had to "go to war with the army we had not the amry we'd like", because the imminency of the threat was so very real and so very scary (all in a post 9-11 world you know).

    But he didn't lie to us that that was the reason we went (and therefore the reason we didn't get out immediately the threat was nuetralized) because we all "knew" we went to get rid of Saddam.

    But he didn't lie to us when we didn't get out after getting Saddam because we all "knew" that we actually went there to set up a democracy.

    But he didn't lie to us when we didn't get out after the elections, because we all "knew" that we went there to train their security forces. So what is the problem with you "cut and runners"? Isn't it obvious that just because Bush refuses to quantify in terms of numbers and months of training what Iraq "being ready" means that we will of course withdraw as soon as Bush says they are ready?

    Cut the guy some slack....it's not like he's a liar or anything!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/06/2006 @ 10:02am

35. i love how mask literally creates quotes for me.....and out of thin air! rather than approach my argument, or the thesis of this thread, mask resorts to......more nonsense.

    mask, get a grip, dude. answer my questions:

    --how many members of al qaeda are there? can you even give a rough estimate?

    the point, mask, is that:

    - al qaeda is not a grave threat to ANY country, whatsoever.

    - the 'global war on terror' is a sideshow in relation to inter-national disputes.

    the GOP uses the fear of terror to further its (literally) secret agenda, because it has nothing else going for it. the tax cuts are merely a way for the GOP to lure as many uneducated, middle and lower class voters as they can. the children of these voters will grow up and despise the GOP.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 10:25am

36. so, mask, is iraq the "central front in the war on terror"?

    giggle...

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 10:39am

37. so, mask, is iraq the "central front in the war on terror"?--(giggle deleted...hehe)--Posted by DARLADOON 09/06/2006 @ 10:39am

    Nope...it's a civil war initiated by the fall of Saddam and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. But that's not what you were discussing.....to quote-

    "how many people have al qaeda killed over the last 15 years? 5,000? and that's pushing it. that's NOTHING compared to: cancer, natural disasters, american bombs, the list keeps going..."

    And so, logically, "cancer, natural disasters, american bombs, etc" are a bigger deal to you than terrorism.

    And therefore, I noted that if the Democrats get labelled politically as "more concerned about OUR bombs, than terrorist attacks like 9/11"...they'll lose a chance at an easy victory.

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 12:15pm

38. Darla

    Although al-Qaeda and its affiliates/proteges aren't an existential threat, any group that encourages the types of outrages that have taken place in Bali, Madrid, London, etc. needs to be neutralized. For the most part, this is a question of law enforcement/intelligence. Afghanistan (bungled by this administration) was an exception.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2006 @ 1:07pm

39. any administration that encourages the types of outrages that have taken place in Iraq, Lebanon etc. needs to be neutralized.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2006 @ 1:15pm

40. Mask's right, and part of the reason that they'll lose is that one of their foundational assumptions (al Qaeda isn't a significant threat) is factually unfounded.

    First of all, your analysis of "comparative deaths" proves too much. Things like cancer also kill off more people than the Iraq War has done to date, so that should logically not be a major concern either. I think we'd both agree that this conclusion is absurd, but it follows inexorably from your argument. As such, it illustrates how ridiculous your argument here really is.

    Second of all, none of your source criticisms are at all compelling. For one thing, you don't even have sources to justify your claims. In addition, your attempts to disparage my sources didn't really make much sense; for example, you said that the Washington Post article was "propaganda," a blatant assertion that you never even bother to back up. In fact, the incident this last August seems to lend obvious credibility to the article's claims; the fact that these articles don't cite precise numbers or troop strengths doesn't make al Qaeda not a threat.

    Third, the one justification you give for saying that al Qaeda isn't a threat is that no state is actively supporting them. First of all, that's not entirely accurate; they do receive some covert support from countries like Iran, and from the Baath Party that is attempting to regain power in Iraq. More importantly, though, state support isn't critical to their operations. The kind of asymmetrical warfare that they practice doesn't require the sorts of resources that a state-centered enemy would need; they just need to be able to plan and carry out specific, focused strikes rather than an all-out conventional war, so their threat isn't contingent on them having the resources of a state behind them.

    In addition, they can gain support the way that many insurgent groups within agitating populations do, by appealing to the convictions of people in the society who don't like the state. That's what they've been trying to do in Saudi Araba recently, and even though their efforts have only met with limited success, their potential to actually overthrow Middle Eastern regimes makes them a threat to Middle Eastern stability.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/06/2006 @ 1:25pm

41. any group that encourages

    you mean cheering from the sidelines is a capital crime? you couldn't kill all those folks in a million years. i'm sure you meant something, but I'm not sure what, Brunowe

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2006 @ 1:27pm

42. thrwan, the post article is a pentagon memo. that's it. why should we believe it?

    second, can you prove that iran supports al qaeda? try me.

    third, the number of deaths that we think al qaeda has caused is negligible compared to, say, cancer or natural disasters or iraq. there is nothing inherently wrong with this statement. i'm just trying to point out that pouring ALL of our energies into what bush calls 'the global war on terror' is misguided policy. it's also a vast mischaracterization of what's actually going on. the american people deserve better than that.

    if americans actually knew that what we're engaged in is not exactly a 'global war on terror', then they would be far less likely to vote GOP in the fall....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 1:43pm

43. Posted by THRAWN 09/06/2006 @ 1:25pm

    A great point that I missed....thanks, THRAWN---

    Using DARLA's "logic", the Iraq War US casualties aren't a big deal either....compared to "cancer, natural disasters, american bombs" (Note, I said "US casualties", not "Iraqi casualties", since the main thrust of the opposition to the war is the mounting death toll of GIs....it seems to be little concern if you compare it to ....pancreatic tumors, huh?)

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 1:45pm

44. thrwan, the post article is a pentagon memo. that's it. why should we believe it?

    Well, one reason to believe it is that (as I said in my last post) its predictions of an attack came true this August. Also, since when was Pentagon intelligence not a credible source of intelligence? Did they get the Iraq intelligence wrong? Yeah, but so did many other countries' intelligence networks (as Francis Fukuyama, a harsh critic of the neoconservatives, points out in his recent book). Moreover, if you don't trust the Pentagon's intelligence, who are you going to get intelligence from? Are you going to only consult European sources?

    second, can you prove that iran supports al qaeda? try me.

    All right:

    A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers--that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers--passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards--in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel--and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier.

    The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

    Here's the source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html

    I'll admit, though, that Iran has also been holding some of al Qaeda's operatives in custody more recently. This isn't reason to believe that they're not cooperating with al Qaeda, however, particularly given that they have a powerful incentive to (namely, that they have a powerful mutual enemy).

    Even if that weren't the case, though, al Qaeda is still a meaningful threat for all the unanswered reasons that I gave; they don't need the kinds of resources that a state adversary does because of the kind of asymetrical warfare that they practice.

    third, the number of deaths that we think al qaeda has caused is negligible compared to, say, cancer or natural disasters or iraq. there is nothing inherently wrong with this statement. i'm just trying to point out that pouring ALL of our energies into what bush calls 'the global war on terror' is misguided policy. it's also a vast mischaracterization of what's actually going on. the american people deserve better than that.

    This is definitely an improved version of the argument you made earlier, when you contended that al Qaeda isn't really a threat. You're right that we shouldn't pour all of our energy into the war on terror....but we're not doing that anyway. It's not like 80% of our budget is going to "antiterror operations" and 20% is grouped into "everything else." None of the Administration claims that we're doing so, either, so I don't know where this argument is coming from. All they claim is that we're investing significant amounts of effort into the war on terror, as we should be.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/06/2006 @ 3:43pm

45. Al Qaeda= Sunni, Iran=Shia, collaboration unlikely.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2006 @ 4:22pm

46. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/06/2006 @ 4:22pm

    THAT opens up another ugly possibility...and maybe strange bedfellows...

    If the Iraqi Sunnis and Al Queda get the Triangle, and the Iraqi Shia and Iranians get the south....and the Sunnis try to take it back, then you've got a full-scale civil war with Iran helping the Shias.

    So....to stop Iran from dominating Iraq, would we support and arm the Sunnis...thereby essentially....helping Al Queda?

    Posted by Mask at 09/06/2006 @ 4:32pm

47. look, i don't have time to write a fucking thesis here, ok?

    nobody is disputing that al qaeda is a (relatively small) threat; what we are disputing is the extent of the threat, as well as the degree to which the bush administration deliberately mischaracterizes it. according to bush, everyone who is not on 'our' side is a terrorist, nevermind the various, complex, and striated political and religious factions to which these so called 'terrorists' belong.

    let's take iraq. less than 5% of the fighting there is being done by foreign jihadists. these are not terrorists, per se. these are, for lack of a better word, men with weapons. everyone else fighting in iraq would fall under this distinction as well. and they have names, sunnia, shia and kurd. so, how can iraq be the central front in the war on terror? does bush actually think that 'al qaeda' (whoever they are) would fill the void once we leave? that the sunni, shia and kurds would let al qaeda take over the country?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/06/2006 @ 5:35pm

48. one of the conditions of a civil war is that everyone fights everyone. we saw that recently when Shia militia and Shia gov't forces clashed/ that will surely increase. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a nonfactor, except for our clueless and floundering pres. he has trotted out so many inanities, his speeches don't even make the front pages of newspapers any longer.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/06/2006 @ 5:49pm

49. WILL, what do we need "national security" for?

    Posted by MASK 09/06/2006 @ 09:41am

    for the same reason we have doctors, fire departemnts... and we would have called them evangelic bombs.

    one day they'll be American again

    Posted by Will C. at 09/06/2006 @ 11:37pm

50. Maasch, what happened when the US pulled out of Lebanon? a civil war, a decade long. what happened when the US pulled its troops out of Saudi, handing Bin Laden a huge victory? a war in Iraq AND a civil war. did you have your eyeballs tinted rose?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2006 @ 12:41pm

51. the score is: Bin Laden 1, Bush 0

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2006 @ 1:33pm

52. I really have to laugh at the three state solution. It's been hawked since even before the invasion of Iraq. It's a solution in desperate search of a problem. I find it particularly ironic that it is a solution which seems favoured by well fed, comfortable, white males sitting pretty thousands of miles away from the borders that they're so eager to redraw. The reality is that the three state solution is not a solution at all. The Shiites, having waited eighty years, are simply not interested in ruling a piece of Iraq, they want the whole enchilada. The Sunni aren't interested in being hived off into a piece of desert without resources. The Kurds would love their own state, but the Turkomen, Assyrians, Christians and Arabs living in their area certainly disagree and the Turks and Iranians wouldn't put up with it. Meanwhile, populations are mixed around enough that an attempt to put the three state solution into effect would simply be a recipe for draconian ethnic cleansing and regional attacks of Genocide. Basically, its just another example of the botched and incoherent muddle that passes for American thinking on Iraq.

    Posted by Canadianist at 09/07/2006 @ 2:43pm

53. Canadianist,

    yup

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2006 @ 2:44pm

54. For the record, I'd have to dispute that Iraq's civil war was initiated by the fall of Saddam Hussein. Chronologically, that makes no sense at all, there's a lag time of years. Rather, the best explanation for the timing and nature of the Iraqi civil war, is likely that the United States has covertly implemented its El Salvador option.

    Posted by Canadianist at 09/07/2006 @ 2:49pm

55. canadianist,

    the Iraq civil war precedes the american invasion. when Saaddam attacked the Kurds, when he attacked the Shia in '91, those were manifestations of an incipient civil war. when the US invaded in opposition to the rulers of Iraq, the Baath party led by Saddam, it unleashed a full blown civil war. by taking the side of the Kurds and the Shia, this civil war became unavoidable.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2006 @ 2:59pm

56. of course, the US sided with the Kurds and to some extent he Shia long before the invasion, as evidenced by the no fly zones in the north and the south.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2006 @ 4:21pm

57. Excellent post, Tom, and welcome to blogging!

    No, there is no "Iraq". There is no unified Iraq, and likely never will be. Eventually, a "Three State" solution may be cobbled together. The oil will be under U.S. control (if the U.S. can somehow manoeuvre this via puppet governments in the oil regions), so the average Iraqi (Kurd, Sunni, Shia) will not reap benefits regardless of which "state" they live in.

    In their quest for Iraq's oil, the Bush administration has managed to totally shred the fragile fabric of that country. I just wonder how long before they realize that their dreams of pumping Iraq's oil may eventually have to be abandoned. Five more years? Ten? Or maybe they are already beginning to see this, hence the big push for a war with Iran, which also has oil. The neutered corporate media is obligingly furthering the insane rhetoric, while the Administration's incessant 'fear card' keeps the sheeple obediently in line. Those who dare to raise questioning voices are labelled as unpatriotic, spineless 'lefties'.

    All this carnage for the planet's non-renewable resources, namely oil, instead of putting those vast sums of taxpayers' money into viable alternative energy sources. All this to appease 'Big Oil' and keep those campaign contributions flowing. All this so that the real criminals have free reign to run the U.S. - a once great country - into the ground.

    As the war drums beat ever louder, the obvious question is: after Iran, who will be next? Syria? How many American lives will be sacrificed in this insane quest for U.S. hegemony over the world's resource-rich nations?

    Posted by Annamarie at 09/08/2006 @ 01:20am