|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
Bush visits Middle East to intensify Iraq war
By James Cogan
29 November 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The thrust of todays talks in Jordan between George Bush
and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is clear in advance.
Bush, accompanied by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, will
insist that the Iraqi leader bow down to US demands for a bloody
crackdown against the largest faction in his own government, the
anti-occupation Sadrist movement headed by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr
and its Mahdi Army militia. An unnamed senior US official bluntly
told the New York Times: Its decision time
and everybody knows it.
On the eve of the talks, the justification for an attack on
the Sadrists was published on the front page of Tuesdays
New York Times. According to senior correspondents Michael
Gordon and Dexter Filkins, an anonymous senior intelligence
official leaked allegations that up to 2,000 Mahdi Army
fighters have been trained in southern Lebanon by Hezbollahthe
Lebanese Shiite movement classified as a terrorist organisation
by Washington.
Iran, the official said, has facilitated the link between
Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq and Syrian
officials have also cooperated, assisting the Sadrists to
cross into Lebanon through Syrian territory. The unnamed official
declared: There seems to have been a strategic decision
taken sometime over late winter or early spring by Damascus, Tehran,
along with their partners in Lebanese Hezbollah, to provide more
support to Sadr to increase pressure on the US.
The lurid claim of a Sadrist-Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axiswhich
is not supported by any evidence and smacks of a planted story
by the White House or the Pentagonplays directly into the
hands of Bush administration powerbrokers such as Vice President
Dick Cheney who have always viewed the Iraq war as the prelude
to regime change in Damascus and Tehran.
The article directly cuts across the Iraq Study Group headed
by former Secretary of State James Baker. Its report, due out
next month, has been widely predicted to recommend that the US
request the assistance of Iran and Syria to end the fratricidal
civil war that is now raging in Iraq. It was published just hours
after Iraqi President Jalal Talabani flew into Tehran for what
were viewed as preliminary talks with the Iranian regime.
In Iraq, the allegations against the Sadrists can be used to
justify a long-planned tactical shift. There have been hints throughout
the year that the White House wants to replace the Shiite-dominated
Iraqi government in Baghdad with some type of Baathist-style military
regime. In exchange for an amnesty and the prospect of a return
to power and privilege, the Sunni Arab elite would be expected
to collaborate with American aggression against Syria and Iran
and work alongside US forces in brutally crushing any element
of the Sunni insurgency that refuses to lay down its arms.
The Sadrist movement, with its millions of Shiite working class
and urban poor supporters in Baghdad and across southern Iraq,
is viewed by the Bush administration as the main obstacle to their
agenda. Sadr has resisted demands for reconciliation
with the previous Baathist establishment. His organisation continues
to demand a timetable for an end to the US occupation and insist
on Iraqs right to determine how its oil resources are exploited.
Moreover, in the event of a clash with Shiite Iran, the prospect
of the Mahdi Army launching attacks on US forces in Iraq is considered
a real and dangerous threat. According to intelligence officials
cited in the Washington Post on Tuesday, the Mahdi Army
now consists of between 40,000 and 60,000 fighters.
The demands in American ruling circles for a change of course
in Iraq that brings the country under some degree of US control
have reached a fever pitch. More than 3,700 Iraqis were killed
during October in Sunni-Shiite fighting. Hundreds more have died
over the last week in savage Sunni bombings and reprisals by Shiite
militia. The country is on the brink of economic, social and political
disintegration, while none of the US objectives in Iraq have been
realised.
In the western Anbar province, where the Sunni resistance is
most entrenched, the Washington Post revealed this week
that a US military report had declared in August that the
social and political situation has deteriorated to the point
where American and Iraqi forces are no longer capable of
militarily defeating the insurgency. The carnage taking
place every day and the constant American casualties are fueling
mass antiwar sentiment in the US and calls for the withdrawal
of troops. Domestic political tensions and recriminations are
steadily rising.
The Bush administration, however, is making clear it is not
prepared to adopt a course change that involves any
concessions to Iran or Syria or a retreat from the perspective
of US domination in the Middle East. On Saturday, Vice President
Dick Cheney flew into Saudi Arabia. While refusing to speak with
Tehran or Damascus, the White House is enlisting the support of
the Saudi monarchy and other Arab states behind the ultimatum
that will be delivered by Bush to Maliki.
The New York Times reported on the weekend: Specifically,
the United States wants Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to work
to drive a wedge between the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki,
and the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi
Army has been behind many of the Shiite reprisal attacks in Iraq,
a senior administration official said. That would require getting
the predominantly Sunni Arab nations to work to get moderate Sunni
Iraqis to support Mr Maliki, a Shiite. That would theoretically
give Mr Maliki the strength to take on Mr Sadrs Shiite militias.
If Maliki refuses to sanction the massacre of the Sadrists,
the Bush administration is prepared to move against him. Senior
Republican Senator Trent Lott told Fox News on Sunday: There
are problems with him [Maliki]. Hes going to have to decide
whether hes going to really try to control his militia groups...
I dont know whether the government is going to be able to
survive if the circumstances dont change there... I think
we are going to have to be very aggressive and specific with him...
if he doesnt show real leadership... if in fact he becomes
part of the problem, were going to have to make some tough
decisions. Do we go in, try and do it for them?
Just three weeks after the November 7 congressional election
produced an unambiguous repudiation of the Republican Party and
a vote for an end to the war, a new and even bloodier stage of
the Iraq conflict is looming. Far from a withdrawal of US forces
from Iraq, the most likely scenario is a substantial increase
in American troop numbers to carry out operations to stabilise
in Baghdad and other cities. Bush used a press conference in Latvia
yesterday to declare: Im not going to pull the troops
off the battlefield before the mission is complete.
The open contempt for the democratic will of the American people
being displayed by the Bush White House is only possible because
of the essential agreement of the Democrats and the media establishment
with its agenda. Whatever tactical differences have been expressed
over the conduct of the Iraq war, they are just as committed to
maintaining US troops in Iraq and completing the mission
in the Middle EastUS economic and military control over
the regions territory and oil resources.
See Also:
What the New York Times has learned
from Iraq
[28 November 2006]
More than 200 dead in Baghdads
deadliest day of bombings
[25 November 2006]
UN report documents huge October death
toll in Iraq
[24 November 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |