Who Will Ultimately Control Iraq? Bush or the Shiite Majority?

[bigtree]

So, now Sadr and his Shiite following are on the outs, and we're targeting them with our military


Up until now our military has been waging their war against Iraq's minority Sunni population, claiming to be fighting al-Qaeda. Now there's a push to step up attacks on Sadr's Mahdi Army, which should escalate as the Bush administration and their puppets in the Iraqi regime aim their aggression against the Shiite leader and his followers.

One of the tactics I expect to come in the next few days will be an attempt by Bush and his minions to further associate Sadr's forces with Iran as they increase their assaults on the Shiite areas of Baghdad and elsewhere.

Yesterday, the Bush government downplayed the exit of ministers aligned with Sadr from the Iraqi parliament, suggesting that the move was actually a "positive development."

After meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan, Defense Secretary Gates told reporters that, "There is an opportunity to turn what might seem like a negative potential into a positive development . . . The impact these resignations have will depend in some measure on who is selected to replace those ministers . . . and whether those vacancies are used in a way that could further advance the reconciliation process," he said."

What Gates expects - and what Maliki is counting on with his own support for the Sadr coalition's exit - is that the new Iraqi regime will now be able to consolidate their manufactured authority by replacing the Shiite ministers with members who would be more compliant than those who had openly resisted and protested the government's closeness with the U.S. occupiers.

However, the unity the Maliki regime may achieve within the bubble of the echo chamber they're planning for their reorganized parliament is not going to translate on the Iraqi street into any of the reconciliation Maliki claims he wants with those actively engaged in militarized resistance to his rule. Stabilizing the Iraqi regime is a far stretch from stabilizing the Iraqi landscape which has produced an increase of casualties among our forces as Bush's escalation proceeds.

By insisting on accommodating and encouraging Bush's escalation, Maliki has driven away the very entity in Sadr's influence which enabled the U.S. to quell the violence enough for the initial elections to take place; the very elections which enabled Maliki to assume power. The seemingly effortless act of organizing the bulk of his followers to put aside their armed resistance and proceed to the polls to vote was essential to Bush's ambition to follow through on his promise for elections right after he was returned to office in 2004. It's no exaggeration to assert that without the efforts of Sadr and his spiritual counterpart, Sistani, there would likely have been no elections at all within the timetable Bush had planned.

Earlier in the month, at the assumed direction of Sadr, thousands of residents of Sadr City headed to Najaf and rallied against the occupation. Those thousands of peaceful protesters could easily be transformed into an overwhelming 'surge' of Iraqi humanity in the streets which could bring a new reality to the puny coalition force as they are confronted by sustained, massive protests from the restless, exasperated population of Iraqi millions. There needn't be a militarized response from Sadr. There is a clear majority of Iraqis who want nothing at all to do with their U.S. invader/occupiers who could grind the new regime to a halt with their refusal to recognize their false, compromised authority.

The increasingly autocratic Maliki regime is positioning their government to become even more isolated from the will of Iraqis that the U.S. occupation end. It's inevitable that our military forces will be directed by Bush and his generals to step-up their intimidation of Iraqis who would resist their anti-democratic consolidation of power as the regime's public support fades.

Bush and his republican enablers just couldn't wait to bring us to this point. We can only hope that when the Shiite Iraqis do take to the streets, along with other Iraqis -- and they most certainly will now that Sadr is outside of the governmental process -- there will be a peaceful transformation of reality which will hasten Bush's realization of just who owns the sovereign nation; the U.S. junta and their hunkered-down, overburdened protectors, or the majority and pride of the citizens of Iraq.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070417_who_will_ultimately_.htm


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[ananda]

1. You mean..

.. somebody controls Iraq now?

hmm

[bigtree]

7. obviously, the Iraqi government can't even control their own regime

. . . all they've seemed to be able to do is mobilize Iraqis to attack other Iraqis along with their U.S. benefactors.

[KansDem]

2. My money's on the Shiite Majority

Bush has screwed up everything he's been a part of. From Texas "oilman" to TANG. From CEO to POTUS, he's a royal f**ckup, so why would he be successful with this?

[bigtree]

11. I gotta say

it's almost like Bush wanted the Shia to dominate, but I suspect he and his advisers were just ignorant and zealous.

[paparush]

3. Bush - With the Dems Help

The Dems have yet to pass an Anti War Bill.

The Dems are just as committed to American Empire, and forestalling the effects of Peak Oil for as long as possible. That DEMANDS access to, and control over, O I L.

That is what Iraq provides.

Failure is not an option.

Read about it here:
Blood For Oil Control by Paul Street
LINK

[bigtree]

12. how can we control Iraq with our degrading forces?

at best, we can't even protect our own soldiers

[Burma Jones]

4. Bush has a hard enough time controlling his bladder

Before long, the Chimp will be consigned to the dustbin of history and, in all likelihood, will not enjoy the rehabilitation that Nixon's reputation got....

[bigtree]

16. he is a font

would you buy a used occupation from this man?

[NI4NI]

5. My quess is, Bush will be happy with anybody,

as long as it's a secular government, (unlike his attempts to faith base America's government, no matter how phony his christian beliefs).
And as long as they deal with western oil companies.

But the Shia's should prevail because as a majority they were getting the wrong end of the stick for so long, and now that they've gained control they will never let go. Bush and Sunnis be damned.

[bigtree]

17. and as the Maliki regime remains tied to Bush and the U.S.

it's driving the majority Shia population away and into the influence of Bush's nemesis Iran

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell.

The real bosses, here and abroad.

[cliss]

8. I have read -

that the REAL reason we marched into Iraq:

to prevent the Shi'a in Iraq (who are a majority in that country)

+ the Shi'a in Iran

= to control about 90% of the world's petroleum supplies.

This is the scenario that causes the blood to drain from their faces, causes them to have a thermonuclear meltdown. They will NEVER let that happen.

But you know with Bush's stupidity, most probably that's exactly what will happen.

[bigtree]

9. amazing isn't it?

for years Saddam was our wedge against Shiite Iran's influence. Bush rushed forward with elections which were guaranteed by direct allies of Iran. You have to wonder just what they were smoking when they agreed to that one. Obviously, the 2004 election forced Bush to produce elections, but, I mean really . . .

[Jacobin]

10. Kurds in the north, Iran in the south

and a running battle with Sunnis supported by Saudi Arabia in the rest of that war torn terrain

[Demeter]

13. Pretty soon, Bush Won't Be Able To Control His Bowels, Let Alone Iraq

and as for the USA, it's slipping from his fingers as we cogitate....

[bigtree]

14. that must be why we're knee-deep

in it

[roamer65]

15. The country will be a three-way partition.

The Turks will eventually occupy the northern Kurdish region, the Shi'ites in the south and the Sunnis in the west (Al-Anbar). I suspect Al-Anbar may involve the Jordanian and Saudi military for stabilization. Iraq cannot exist as a democracy, never has and never will.