Hence the conflicting leaks about the US, on the one hand, throwing its weight behind the Shias against the Sunnis and, on the other, the rumours of Saudi intervention on behalf of the Sunnis, underscored by Cheney's recent visit to the Kingdom. Yet Cheney - or rather his "office", according to yesterday's Times - is now reportedly contemplating a "Darwinian" solution aimed at crushing the Sunnis.
The consecutive White House summons' earlier this month to the Iraqi prime minister, Malaki, to Hakim of the SCIRI, and to Hashemi, the leader of the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament, were further efforts to force some movement on the parties.
The US problem is that the favoured Iraqi politicians most inclined to compromise are losing control to the militias who are supported by their respective communities as necessary instruments of self-defence against terror attacks by the other in Iraq's spiralling sectarian conflict.
This is why the Baker-Hamilton report is being decried in many quarters as too little, too late, in proposing that the Americans act in concert with Iran and the Sunni states bordering Iraq to force their political clients to rein in and disarm the militias.
This is also why there has been much talk but very little action against the Medhi army in Sadr City, who hold the balance of power in Iraq. If the Bush administration decides on one last desperate roll of the dice against the Sadrist militia, it will need to ensure that the politicians - above all, Sadr himself - are onside. The fact that Sadr has maintained his distance from Maliki and Hakim is very frustrating to the politicians and diplomats on all sides.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] FT: Anatol Lieven on Iraq
>
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Colin Brace wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2006, at 1:48 AM, joanna wrote:
>
> > Why wouldn't the U.S. want a regional war in the Middle Eas?. Apres
> > nous, le deluge?.....which could serve as a bottomless sink for
> > arms/supplies, keep oil prices up
>
> Most sectors of US capital are hurt by high oil prices, so there's no
> generalized interest in that. Besides, a broad ME war would threaten
> oil supplies - not even ExxonMobil would like it if oil were at $200
> a barrel because no one could get any.
>
> It appears not to be unthinkable, not least by the oracles at the NYT.
>
> Yup. Here's the article. It seems demented beyond words.
>
> Doug
>
> ----
>
> New York Times - December 17, 2006
>
> Brainstorming on Iraq
> The Capital Awaits a Masterstroke on Iraq
>
> By HELENE COOPER
>
> WASHINGTON - SOMEONE in Vice President Dick Cheney's office has gotten
> everybody on this city's holiday party circuit talking, simply by
> floating an unlikely Iraq proposal that is worthy of a certain mid-19th
> century British naturalist with a fascination for natural selection.
>
[...]