Karzai Attacked in Kabul
Afghan President Hamid Karzai escaped unharmed from a guerrilla assassination attempt on Sunday.
US politicians who keep saying that Afghanistan is the good war would be well advised to consider whether the mission there is actually clear, whether it can be accomplished, and whether it is worth blood and treasure. Afghanistan is an enormous, rugged country riven with tribal and ethnic rivalries, and standing up a strong central state friendly to US and European interests is not going to be easy.
Fred Barnes, who says the war for Iraqi oil is more important than fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, didn't get the memo. He doesn't seem to know about the Central Asia gas fields that actually explain Bushco's interest in Afghanistan. And, he is admitting that the remnants of al-Qaeda over there are not very important.
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/27/2008 07:48:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Fred Barnes is a neocon cartoon. He's never heard a suggestion for war that didn't excite him, especially if it involves American troops fighting to advance whatever israeli whim is fashionable at the moment. I wish the guy would buy a condo in tel aviv, make the move and get it over with.
Not many others seem to remember the meeting bewteen the Taliban and Bush in Crawford that took place about 10 months before 9/11. As I recall Bush wanted the Taliban to allow the USA to put a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan. When the Taliban refused, Bush told them they would regret their decision. So, when 19 Saudis attacked the US, who did Bush take it out on?
A most enlightening analysis is found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671819.ece Finally, some things become much more clear to me.
The interplay between Badr Corps., the Mahdi Army, and Iran is well and credibly discussed. It has always been a puzzle to me that Badr Corps and it's Iranian-trained cadres have seemed to exist on an equal footing with the Mahdi Army, in the eyes of the Iranians. I would have thought that al-Sadr's position favoring Iraqi independence from Iran would have made him persona non grata to Iran. But now it seems the Iranians have been using al-Sadr, and playing a very clever game of good-cop, bad-cop with the U.S. Maliki and Hakim cozy up to Bush, while the Mahdi Army drives the British out of Basra. But with that accomplished, the Iranians see that it is time to reel in al-Sadr in the South, but continue to provide support for him in Baghdad, where the American presence is still strong. Meanwhile, the Iranians install their real proxies, the Badr Corps in Basra, now that the British are reduced to a token foothold at the airport.
So it would seem that the Charge of the Knights offensive in Basra got the green light, not from Washington, but from Tehran. That's why, when the offensive ran into initial problems, Maliki's representatives scurried to Iran to force al-Sadr to stop resisting the operation. Al-Sadr claimed victory, but the Badr takeover of Basra continued, and Badr is steadily gaining control of the city.
Now the Mahdi Army increases it's bombardment of the Green Zone, and ups the pressure on the U.S. to get out of Baghdad.
All the while, the Iraqi government forces appear to be fighting alongside the U.S. in combatting al-Sadr in Baghdad. But there is fighting for show, and there is fighting for real blood. The supposed incompetence of Iraqi troops and police provides the perfect cover for a half-hearted effort when a real effort is not desired.
It would seem that Maliki and Hakim's next phase will be to continue to voice support for the U.S. and solidify their support in the South, and allow al-Sadr to fight the Americans, inflicting enough U.S. casualties to keep the war an issue in the U.S. elections in November. That struggle will continue to weaken the Mahdi Army, placing the Hakims in an even better position.
This will result in a U.S. president who will start withdrawing U.S. troops, but who will try to maintain a few permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Once that phase is reached, and with power solidified, Iran will keep a low profile, and the Hakim-dominated Iraqi government can do what the Philippines did with American bases: demand that they leave. The winners will be Iran, and their surrogates, the Hakims. The losers will be the U.S. and Britain. Al-Sadr, if still alive, will be discarded, as no longer needed.
An alternative outcome for al-Sadr, is that his life will be spared, and he will be co-opted into the Iraqi government, in order to capture some of his grass roots support for the Hakim regine.
In part, this depends upon another unknown, which is to what extent is al-Sadr in on the double game in which he is actively participating? Al-Sadr has to be aware of the extent to which the Iranians either support him or impede him, both by giving and withholding material support, and politically, as well. Was it the Iranians who caused the Mahdi Army's cease fire that has lasted for the better part of a year, now? Iran provided al-Sadr safe haven throughout that time, and remains his safe haven whenever things get too hot for him in Iraq; that seems like just too convenient a coincidence... Surely it suited Iranian interests to take the pressure off the U.S. while the Sunnis in Anbar were being suppressed. Did al-Sadr call his ceasefire at the insistance of the Iranians, on his own initiative, or both?
i had a ringside seat to yesterday's "event" here in kabul... i posted on it including a short video clip of my own...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2008/04/attack-on-afghanistans-independence-day.html
i've also been doing some heavy observation and thinking as i make my way around the city from meeting to meeting...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2008/04/this-nyt-article-about-afghanistan.html
whatever diminishing resource or pipeline route the u.s. is out to tie up here, by completely failing the afghan people, we've succeeded in perpetuating if not creating much of the mess that is in such abundant evidence here, or perhaps that was the intention all along...
"He doesn't seem to know about the Central Asia gas fields that actually explain Bushco's interest in Afghanistan."
You mean, explains the interest in Afghanistan of BushCo, the rest of the Republican, the Democrats, a coalition of nations around the world including those who opposed Iraq.
Are we pandering to the conspiracy theorists, or is this just a misleading assessment for some other reason ?
-Cain
While Bushco and his partners in crime at NATO and Pakistan are getting their behind kicked in Afghanistan like the Russians before them, the Chinese are busy making bilateral deals with the Central Asian oil states (and Iran)...consequently, the reason for the pipeline is fast disappearing...and, this comment seems to say that Bushco has conceded this oil to the chinese.
Post a Comment
<< Home