2. Let me point out that Shia-on-Shia violence is not new or rare. It's an annual event, and it even happened under Saddam Hussein, who most likely gets blamed for everything even when he didn't have a hand in it. A lot of the Shia clerics go at it over stances on Iranian involvement in Iraq and Shia Islam (as Iraq is the spiritual homeland of Shia Islam) and over control of the shrines and mosques, because the pilgrimmage industry in places like Najaf and Karbala is HUGE. Typically they knock each other off for control of more money. So mafia-like behaviour isn't limited to the Tikriti or secular Shia (Chalabi, Allawi) or religious Sunni (who actually strike me as the ones with cleanest hands). It was these types of murders of clergy that they tried to blame on al-Sadr in order to discredit him, when it seems to me that his movement is actually attempting to get rid of all this Shia corruption. And when you see a moderate, ecumenical, anti-occupation Sunni clergyman get slaughtered in Mosul, do you think it was Sunni trying to stop elections who did it?
3. A lot of how events are interpreted seems to go back to what individuals think was the motivation of the invasion in the first place. I see the invasion and occupation as a rationale for 600 billion dollar annual military and intelligence budgets, made all the easier by conditions post 9-11, but reflecting a geopolitical agenda that was always at the heart of Bush's lies about 'compassionate conservatism' and 'isolationist foreign policy for priorities at home'. That's just a bunch of lies grafted on to the Republican platform to satisfy the nationalist and Christian ideologues while the Bush and Cheney clans carve up and dish out the national security state patronage. The goal isn't to establish 'democracy' in the ME (what the hell do the national security state Repugs and Demoncrats know about 'democracy' anyway), but to break up a unified, oil-rich, educated, technologically capable Arab country that didn't fit into the US-dominated system the way the Gulf States do. That Israel wants this break up too is probably often discussed at high levels in relation to Sharon's peace plan (take away the Baathist Arab threat and the zionists will make peace with the Palestinians).
At the level of greed for federal money, there's no way that CentCom or the Pentagon want a quick end to their occupation because that would be 100 billion dollars or even more a year taken away from them and their contractors. They'd have to go find another war, and that would just show how awful their tactics and equipment really are. I think a lot of people who follow the DoD and CentCom are now asking, what can you do besides drop bombs? Your tanks don't run, your personnel carriers burn quickly, your humvees offer less protection than a Mercedes Benz, and your troops can't fight (only call in air support). CentCom's plan seems to be the hope that they can mount retrofitted, armored humvee rat patrols for 5 more years (or til the suspensions wear out, then they can buy Toyotas and Nissan maybe) while the Thais, Koreans, Japanese and Kurds build them some bases, all is set for a permanent occupation of a totally divided and defeated Iraq.
4. I don't think at this point there is one insurgency, so notice I have't denied the possibility of a rogue element of some part of the Sunni-side of the insurgencies being involved in bombings to ruin elections. But it's just a bit too convenient that no evidence is given, and clearly insurgents would want to target those setting up the elections, not funeral processions or clergy deep in the Shia holy cities. Nor do I think it would have been the defenders of Fallujah mounting such an operation, because I don't think they could nor do I think they would want to. Their job is to kill Occupation forces in the 'killing zone' that the Occupation itself created, and to kill their collaborators, and they have done just that.
5. Make no mistake about it, the insurgencies are hardpressed and their success is not guaranteed. But realize that a successful unified Iraqi insurgency, if it emerges, will be anti-US, anti-Occupation, anti-Allawi, anti-Chalabi, AND anti-Sistani. The possibility of the emergence of a unified insurgency rests, I believe, with the Sunni and the Shia Sadrists rising up to throw off all remnants of the old regimeS. Regimes because, one Saddam's control of old Iraq was not as total as we'd been led to believe, and certainly not total in the past 15 years. In order to stay in power and get regional cooperation during the ruinous times of the war with Iran, the periods of low oil prices, and the USuk military actions and embargo, he had to give up a lot of control, even to Shia religious leaders (who are themselves another part of the old regime). What I am talking about now, though, is the emergence of a unified Iraq based on religion and social ideals, but also religious tolerance between Sunni and Shia, and a practical attitude towards technology and outside knowledge (remember, the Iraqis have long been the Arabs who didn't need to hire outsiders to run their country when compared to the Gulf States). The old regimes have many elements, but collectively they are a way of ruling and running Iraq that included Iraqi collaboration with gross interference from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the USuk coalition, and now the elements of the Iraqi Resistance who have been grafted onto the occupation by the US (led by Allawi, the ex-Baathist secular Shia who hates Saddam H.).
6. A few final comments. It's widely reported that the 'Shia' support elections, but what information is this really based on? I'm not saying that there isn't some information that would support the view, but right now we have a lot of journalists simply citing each other to make it look like 'fact', just like they did with the Sunni theory about the Shia bombings. I would think a lot of Shia think they can use the elections to make demands of the occupation after the election, as do more than a few Sunni. And I also think that the term 'Shia' refers to a lot of different types of people, and I need to see a better demographic analysis before I just start accepting such statements about what 'they' want. But if they are overall anti-occupation, then how can they really support the elections?
Also, someone stated on this list that it was the UN that ran the regime of sanctions, embargo, military bombardment, establishment of 'the Iraqi resistance'(Allawi, Chalabi, etc.), etc. Not as I remember it. I remember that this was largely put in place by the US and UK, using some UN resolutions as a pre-text for their illegal and genocidal actions against the people of Iraq. The UN acted as a legal cover for the US and UK, and it acted as a spy cover for the US and UK (who used the last missions to Iraq to find WMD as information gathering for their long-planned invasion).
Fugazy -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10