Congressional Resolution on Iraq Blasts Bush Policies
56% Say Iraq War is hopeless.
The House passed a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation of the Iraq War by a significant margin, 246 to 182. Only 17 Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats on the "surge," while 2 Democrats rejected the resolution.
The resolution is not important for immediate policy-making, but rather as a straw in the wind. Sooner or later, Congress is going to begin cutting off money for the Iraq War, and then the troops will just have to come home.
Most Republicans in the House seem to think they can go on playing the patriotism and support the troops and Islamic radicalism cards, and somehow all this will at some point start working for them again. In my view, that outcome is unlikely barring some big unforeseen event, and they will be sunk in 2008 if they stick to this line.
56% of Americans now feel that the Iraq War is hopeless. I can remember when it was a third. The trend lines are not favorable to the war supporters. Their talk about the Dems wanting to 'cut off funding to our troops in harm's way' will increasingly just raise questions in the public's mind about who put the troops in harm's way and why.
Reuters reports that 11 bodies were found in Baghdad on Friday and another 4 in Mosul. Guerrillas killed 3 bodyguards of Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari at a phony checkpoint. A roadside bomb in Kirkuk killed or injured 4. In the southern port city of Basra, clashes between militiamen and British troops broke out.
The guerrillas and militiamen are beginning to lie low, according to al-Zaman in Arabic. One of their hopes is that their rivals will fight the Americans and so be destroyed or much weakened. Since no one is volunteering to fight openly, however, it is possible that guerrillas will attempt to provoke US-militia fights so as to achieve the same result. Those recent huge bombings in Shiite districts of Baghdad were probably intended to make the Mahdi Army commanders rethink their policy of melting away temporarily, and come out to fight the Sunnis and then the Americans when they intervene. We are liable to see more of that kind of thing.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab praised the Sunni Arab guerrillas as "honorable" and "sincere" and said that the Iraqi government and the US must negotiate with them, given American failure.
Al-Hashimi also slammed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for not cracking down on Shiite militiamen (who, I guess, are not in his view either honorable or sincere). He also lashed out at the Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard line Sunni religious group that has been deeply critical of people like al-Hashimi for serving in a government they see as American puppets. I personally think al-Hashimi is right and that a negotiating track must be opened up with the Sunni guerrillas. The Kurds and Shiites in the government won't go for it, though.
Tom Lasseter on the way the Kurdish Peshmerga paramilitary controls Kirkuk and the trouble that is likely to cause. He points out that Iraqi Army units in the province are mostly actually Peshmerga. The article doesn't talk much about police, but the police is even more Peshmerga than the army. Arabs and Turkmen see this situation as dangerous.
The International Organization for Migration in Geneva predicts that up to one million Iraqis will be forced out of their homes this year if current rates of violence continue.
Don't miss Roger Morris on the Rumsfeld legacy at the indispensable Tomdispatch.com
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/17/2007 12:34:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Juan says:
"Most Republicans in the House seem to think they can go on playing the patriotism and support the troops and Islamic radicalism cards, and somehow all this will at some point start working for them again."
"...so we don't have to fight them here," has lost its force. The only point I can imagine that could re-energize the Republican argument for the war is another devastating terror attack against a U.S. target. We've reached a state where Republican success is tied to unthinkable events.
You really never know what outcomes the neocon administration wants. There is little sincere handwringing about the collapse of the Iraqi nation, and the accompanying harm done to its people. The administration's ability to exonerate itself of any wrong and create culprits on a moments notice means, to me, that it has little or no attachment to its publicly proclaimed objectives.
My guess is that its ideal outcome would be the Musharraf model - a military controlled state kept in line with promises and deliverance of shiny bounty, and political support from the US.
The Iraqi army may be weak but at least it operates outside the Green Zone, and does suffer real and substantial casualties. When the dust finally settles, the military will be the strongest legitimate government entity in the country, and will have an established comraderie with the US military (our biggest gorilla). All it will take is a wink and a nod from us and the general declares himself supreme leader.
That neocons like the Musharraf model is clearly evident in how we treat the real thing. While we vilify and threaten Iran for maybe adding some shaped charges to Iraq's unlimited arsenal, we make no public threats against Musharraf for allowing the Taliban safe haven on the Pakistan border. No carrier task force is steaming toward Karachi. And its strictly "what me worry?" about Pakistan ever returning to democracy.
Just a thought.
And in all of the war rhetoric spewn from the Bush Administration, we still don't know what "victory" looks like.
I think Murtha's plan that specifically addresses permanent military bases in Iraq is the one that the Dem's need to get behind.
The Republicans are left with fear-mongering, as usual. They use trite phrases and specious arguments. Killing thousands in Iraq is not going to stop international terrorism. Terrorism is a much more complex issue than one country or one religion. Party Hacks like Congressman Dan Burton, use fear-mongering phrases, because they fear the facts. They dont understand the diverse cultures in the Middle East, in Indonesia, or anywhere else on this planet. Congressman Burton spends as little time as possible voting on issues. He is one of the leaders in missing votes. From his record, one should be able to reasonably assume he doesnt spend much time building a knowledge base about the Middle East. That seems to be the preferred pattern of the Bush Administration: Throw out a few catch-phrases and ignore the facts. The munitions trade is global. Guns made in one country, end up in another because the arms trade is lucrative. Those who engage in it are not known to be particularly interested in World Peace. That would be bad for business. Money is the driving force in the arms trade, rather than political ideology. Since war-profiteering has been a major boondoggle in Iraq to the tune of billions, Bush and Cheney/Halliburton should be well aware of the profit motive. To attack Iran based on finding an insubstantial number of guns is ludicrous. But, reason and logic have no cachet in Bushland; and the Republicans are hell-bent on supporting the ludicous.
In the first comment, Michael Markman could have continued the quote:
"...In my view, that outcome is unlikely barring some big unforeseen event..."
Indeed, that is the gorila (or should we say elephant in the room that nobody really wants to talk about. Of course, as Michael says, a new terror attack on the "homeland" would be very convenient -- but that sort of thing can't be ordered up, I suppose.
On the other hand, the long telegraphed attack on Iran could stir up, perhaps, enough hysteria to bring on a "Constitutional Crisis", although not necessarily the sort that Joe Lib. has been blathering on about so much recently.
Post a Comment
<< Home