>>The Boston Globe report below supports the view that the US may not so much be trying to "win" the war in Iraq, as it is desperately trying to find a way to extricate itself from a deepening quagmire without it appearing to the world that it has been routed, which is not the "demonstration effect" the invasion was intended to have. There can be few illusions - even deep within the Bush administration - that the insurgency can be defeated. >>
You have to remember though that with one rhetorical shift, the 'quagmire' simply becomes a 'security necessity', justifying the continued presence of the US military in Iraq. How else do you justify 500 billion dollars plus (and growing) in the federal budget going to defense, intelligence, security and 'reconstruction of Iraq'? For the people who run the national security state and it's ME extension, CentCom, it's doubtful that there really were any other serious considerations.
>>Najaf and Fallujah, apart from being ostentatious displays of US firepower, seem to have been designed to temporarily put the resistance movements on the defensive. long enough for the US to claim that it has created the conditions for an "autonomous" Iraqi government and army to stand on their own.>>
I might also be the case that no one really controls Fallujah, and the rebels will make the US military demolish the rest of it just to say they have control. In which case, the 300,000 - 500,000 displaced people will not have a city to go home to (not even a largely destroyed one). The invasion production we have seen by CentCom is largely for homefront consumption, so we shouldn't so easily buy into stories about the overwhelming firepower securing anything. The US military just doesn't have the capability to occupy or reconstruct, but at what point does destruction cease to be their 'option'?
>>What happens after it draws down its forces, well, happens. Some of the
fiercest US bombing of Vietnam (and Cambodia) occured at the same time the US had determined to withdraw its troops from that losing conflict, and was trying to cut a deal with North Vietnamese and NLF representatives, knowing full well that "Vietnamization" would not succeed.>>
Not quite a good analogy because at least in the historic case of SE Asia, the US didn't officially occupy all the countries it was bombing.
>>At best, it may bribe and bully enough of the Shia and Sunni armed resistance to form a relatively stable Iraqi government, with which it would have to deal on an equal footing with the Europeans and other rivals vying to tap Iraq's oil wealth.>>
Huh? It would have to admit that the two forces it has fought fiercely during its occupation are the only leaders who could form a stable Iraq. Do you really think Bush and CentCom are going to let a Sunni Council and al-Sadr form a coalition government? BTW, the oil wealth means nothing now. First, the infrastructure is largely destroyed. Second, by the time Iraq becomes a major oil exporter again, the price of oil is almost sure to crash, minimizing the profits that could be got from that wealth. This would put Iraq into the league of squabbling oil exporters with less power than Venezuela.
>>At worst, it would watch as the country sinks into civil war, and work with the UN and the other states in the region to end it.>>
Huh? By supporting Kurdish autonomy, and allying with secular Shia, and the anti-Arab Sistani, the US PROMOTES civil war in Iraq. It would seem that in accord with its Israeli and Kurdish allies, that this is basically what the US occupation has done from the very start--a continuation of the 'regime change policies' of the previous decade of lower level war and embargo.
>>It could try to stay the course in Iraq, but doesn't seem to have enough blood and treasure or solid domestic political support to do so, and attend to the needs of Empire in other theatres at the same time.>>
If it were to admit that, then it would be like admitting that the US--at the very center of the post-war capitalist system and trade alliances--was the worst possible case of a monetary and fiscal disaster NEVER envisioned by the post-war planners of 1945-1952. Can the capitalists really admit that NOW? If the Democratic wing had wanted to admit this, they would have made Gov. Dean their candidate.
At any rate, I think the only chance Iraq has of coming out of this time of abomination is indeed a Sunni-al-Sadr alliance (with some participation from Iraqi nationalist and religious Kurds) and a mild form of socialistically oriented Islamic law. The dangers of a civil war stem mostly with the Kurds and secular and pro-Sistani Shia. If it's al-Sadr assassinated, there is little hope. If it's Sistani sent packing, then there is hope. In any case, I can't see Allawi having much of a future period.
F
-- _______________________________________________ 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