A unified Iraq 'surge' theory
I had a thought the other day, about a possible deal that might have been struck between Bush and Maliki and Sadr. It sort of makes sense, since it's a nominal win-win for all the major players. There have been bits and pieces of this floating around but I haven't seen anyone else put them together in a suitably cynical way:
Since Bush's 2 most attractive remaining options are: a) pacify Iraq enough to declare victory and get out; or b) stay the course long enough to hand the problem (and thus a share of the historical blame) to the next president -- with a) being obviously preferable --
And since the Shia government, who have previously been opposed to more troops (because they apparently want to get on with it and crush the Sunni insurgency militarily), are suddenly so agreeable on the subject --
And since things have suddenly gotten much quieter in Baghdad, despite only the first 'surge' troops being in place, with Sadr and his militia having been been remarkably well-behaved (some say melted away to Iran or Sadr City to "wait out" the surge) --
What if all of the above is part of a grand deal? What if the Mahdi army really have 'disappeared' to wait out the end of the surge, with the agreement of Bush and Maliki? Think about what would follow: Bush's "give the surge a chance" miraculously works (the surge being necessary to demonstrate an assertive action). The Americans stick around for a few months of peace and prosperity, declare victory, and finish the mission. After which, Sadr and Maliki get on with the business of ethnic cleansing. The Shia crush the Sunnis and take full control. From afar, Bush cheerleaders and neoconservatives back home in America get to work writing their "we gave them freedom and they chose civil war" history books as the US administration and the military, looking reasonably clever after finally pacifying Baghdad, decide to wash their hands of the whole affair. The official story: America won the Iraq war, but the Iraqis were intent on civil war and that was none of America's business.
A bit messy, but sort of a win-win, no?
Since Bush's 2 most attractive remaining options are: a) pacify Iraq enough to declare victory and get out; or b) stay the course long enough to hand the problem (and thus a share of the historical blame) to the next president -- with a) being obviously preferable --
And since the Shia government, who have previously been opposed to more troops (because they apparently want to get on with it and crush the Sunni insurgency militarily), are suddenly so agreeable on the subject --
And since things have suddenly gotten much quieter in Baghdad, despite only the first 'surge' troops being in place, with Sadr and his militia having been been remarkably well-behaved (some say melted away to Iran or Sadr City to "wait out" the surge) --
What if all of the above is part of a grand deal? What if the Mahdi army really have 'disappeared' to wait out the end of the surge, with the agreement of Bush and Maliki? Think about what would follow: Bush's "give the surge a chance" miraculously works (the surge being necessary to demonstrate an assertive action). The Americans stick around for a few months of peace and prosperity, declare victory, and finish the mission. After which, Sadr and Maliki get on with the business of ethnic cleansing. The Shia crush the Sunnis and take full control. From afar, Bush cheerleaders and neoconservatives back home in America get to work writing their "we gave them freedom and they chose civil war" history books as the US administration and the military, looking reasonably clever after finally pacifying Baghdad, decide to wash their hands of the whole affair. The official story: America won the Iraq war, but the Iraqis were intent on civil war and that was none of America's business.
A bit messy, but sort of a win-win, no?
posted by Andy at 11:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home