From: Sid Shniad Globe and Mail July 29, 2007
After the Americans leave By Gwynne Dyer The audience has lost interest, but the play continues. General David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad, produced a plan this month whose “near-term” goal is to provide “localized security” in the capital by June, 2008, and a broader sense of security nationwide no later than June, 2009. The plan blithely assumes that large numbers of U.S. combat troops will be available to pursue this strategy, as though Congress, American public opinion and the election deadline of November, 2008, did not exist. Political reality in the United States is shaped by the fact that American military deaths in Iraq will reach 4,000 some time this fall, with little to show for it in terms of quelling the insurgency. Unless the “surge” strategy is abandoned and troops are pulled off the streets, that number will reach 5,000 just as the presidential campaign enters the home stretch in fall 2008. The political strategists on both sides know exactly how that will play with the American public. That's why the Democratic majority in Congress goes through the motions of trying to get troops out of Iraq, but will not seek a decisive confrontation with the White House. If George W. Bush wants to tough it out and dump the blame for accepting defeat in Iraq on his successor, that's all right with them – at least the next president will be a Democrat. Senior Republican strategists are concentrating on saving seats in Congress. And both sides know that U.S. troops will start coming home from Iraq very fast after a new president is inaugurated in January, 2009. There will be no “enduring bases” in Iraq, no useful purpose for the gigantic U.S. embassy under construction in Baghdad's Green Zone. So what happens after that? Mr. Bush's administration insists that the heavens will fall if the United States does not “persevere” in Iraq. Radicals will overthrow pro-U.S. regimes throughout the Arab world, the oil will stop flowing and all the jihadis now fighting in Iraq will show up beside American highways, killing infidel commuters with IEDs. Or something like that; the details are always a bit fuzzy. So let us consider Iraq after the Americans leave. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will probably lose his job, for he is too closely tied to the Americans, but the Shiites will certainly stay in charge of most of Arabic-speaking Iraq, where they are three-quarters of the population. The Shiites' strategic alliance with the Kurds will also probably survive, although there may be some nasty fighting around oil-rich Kirkuk. The big questions are: Who runs Shia Iraq, and who controls the so-called Sunni triangle? There may be major fighting between the rival Shia militias after the Americans leave, but the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr is bound to win and the prospective losers may just cut a deal in advance. The Americans struggled long and hard to keep Mr. al-Sadr out of power, but he has the biggest militia and the mass of the Shia poor behind him. He is also an outspoken Iraqi nationalist who never makes divisive sectarian remarks in public, which recommends him as the “national unity” candidate when the time comes. If not the next prime minister, he'll be the next power behind the throne. Could even Mr. al-Sadr bring the Sunni-majority areas back under the loose authority of the central government? The U.S. withdrawal will take the wind out of the Sunni extremists' sails, since the occupation was their main justification for slaughter. Mainstream Sunni authority figures – traditional sheiks, ex-army officers, former Baathist officials – might then reassert control over their society, in which case all will be (more or less) well. But the Sunni triangle may remain a lawless enclave dominated by jihadis. That would be a pity, but it would be a heavily quarantined enclave. The Baghdad regime, the Syrians, the Jordanians and the Saudis would all work to ensure that nobody got out of that enclave without the most stringent identity checks, for those regimes would be the primary targets of the radicals' attacks. The extremists' main goal, after all, is to bring Islamist revolutionaries to power in Arab and other Muslim countries. An American attack on Iran would invalidate these predictions, as would a successful terrorist attack in the United States. But unless it suffers a U.S. bombing, Tehran will neither cut the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf nor commit “volunteers” to Iraq. Iranians need the money the oil brings in, and they know they would be unwelcome in Iraq even among Shiites. The jihadis will certainly try for another terrorist attack on American territory, hoping to slow the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (their main recruiting ground), but they're unlikely to succeed. Given U.S. border controls, such an attack would have to be carried out by resident Muslims, who seem less susceptible to the blandishments of extremists than, say, their British counterparts. Five years after the rooftop denouement of the U.S. adventure in Vietnam in 1975, it had already ceased to be an issue in domestic politics, and the United States' international influence was as strong as ever. The disgrace of the Iraq invasion and defeat could be washed away just as fast. It never really mattered much who “controls” the Middle East, because only its oil matters to the rest of the world – and the regimes that control the oil have to sell it, since they live off the proceeds. Five years from now, there may be a couple of Islamist regimes in the Arab world, but that will matter a lot less to the rest of the world than people now think. It's going to rain a bit, but the skies will not fall. Gwynne Dyer is the author of The Mess They Made: The Middle East After Iraq *** http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/073107R.shtml Britain Will Take Troops out of Iraq Regardless of US, Says PM By Andrew Grice Belfast Telegraph UK Tuesday 31 July 2007 Gordon Brown has paved the way for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by telling George Bush he would not delay their exit in order to show unity with the United States. After four hours of one-to-one talks with the US President at his Camp David retreat, Mr Brown told a joint press conference he would make a Commons statement in October on the future of the 5,500 British troops in the Basra region. The Bush administration, under mounting domestic pressure to produce an exit strategy from Iraq, has been nervous that a full British withdrawal would add to the criticism. But Mr Brown made clear - and President Bush accepted - that Britain would go its own way, even if that gave the impression the two countries were diverging. Mr Brown's willingness to pursue an independent British policy in Iraq will be seen as an important break with Tony Blair. Mr Brown said the two leaders had had "full and frank discussions" - diplomatic code for some disagreements. President Bush heaped praise on Mr Brown after their first meeting since he became Prime Minister, playing down suggestions that Mr Blair's departure would weaken the strong US-UK partnership. Revealingly, Mr Brown did not return the personal compliments, instead focusing on the historic links between the two countries and predicting they would get even stronger. This reflected his desire for a more business-like relationship with the President, instead of the strong personal bond forged by Mr Blair. The two leaders also had to paper over their different approaches on how to respond to terrorism. While maintaining a united front, Mr Brown told President Bush that the fight could not be won by military might alone, and called for a "Cold War-style" propaganda battle in the Muslim world. Deliberately avoiding the phrase "war on terror," Mr Brown said: "Terrorism is not a cause but a crime - a crime against humanity." In contrast, the President spoke of "this war against extremists and radicals". But he said of Mr Brown: "There is no doubt in my mind that he understands the stakes in the struggle." On Iraq, Mr Brown insisted Britain would honour its responsibilities but admitted there had been problems with political reconciliation and that the reconstruction effort had taken longer than expected. He said that Britain's decision in the Basra region would be based on the military advice from its commanders on the ground. Later, British officials insisted that the departure timetable was not being accelerated and said it was too soon to speculate on the plans that would be set out in October. Initially, they would mean handing military control to the Iraqis and moving to "overwatch." However, President Bush acknowledged that a British withdrawal could take place while the US remained in Iraq because, he said, decisions would be "results-orientated". He said America could be there for "a long time". He added that America's next moves would be decided after a report in September by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, on the "surge" of US troops in the Baghdad region. But despite their differences over Iraq and terrorism, the two leaders agreed to work together to end the stalemate over a new world trade agreement, to resolve the crisis in Darfur and impose a new round of sanctions against Iran unless it halts its nuclear weapons programme. Bush on Brown "I would describe Gordon Brown as a principled man who really wants to get something done." "Not a dour Scot ... not an awkward Scot ... a humorous Scot." "He's got a strong commitment to helping people realize the blessing of education. I thank you very much for that vision." "He's a glass half-full man." [Referring to the death of Brown's 10-day-old baby in 2002.] "He's a man who's suffered unspeakable tragedy - it's strengthened his soul." "I was impressed." Brown on Bush "We have had full and frank discussions. We have had the capacity and ability to meet yesterday for two hours to discuss person-to-person some of the great issues of our time." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
