SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (320101)1/11/2007 5:35:52 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586843
 
Thursday, January 11, 2007

Bush Sends GIs to his Private Fantasyland

To listen to Bush's speech on Wednesday, you would imagine that al-Qaeda has occupied large swathes of Iraq with the help of Syria and Iran and is brandishing missiles at the US mainland. That the president of the United States can come out after nearly four years of such lies and try to put this fantasy over on the American people is shameful.

The answer to "al-Qaeda's" occupation of neighborhoods in Baghdad and the cities of al-Anbar is then, Bush says, to send in more US troops to "clear and hold" these neighborhoods.

But is that really the big problem in Iraq? Bush is thinking in terms of a conventional war, where armies fight to hold territory. But if a nimble guerrilla group can come out at night and set off a bomb at the base of a large tenement building in a Shiite neighborhood, they can keep the sectarian civil war going. They work by provoking reprisals. They like to hold territory if they can. But as we saw with Fallujah and Tal Afar, if they cannot they just scatter and blow things up elsewhere.

And the main problem is not "al-Qaeda," which is small and probably not that important, and anyway is not really Bin Laden's al-Qaeda. They are just Salafi jihadis who appropriated the name. When their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed, it didn't cause the insurgency to miss a beat. Conclusion: "al-Qaeda" is not central to the struggle. Izzat Ibrahim Duri and the Baath Party are probably the center of gravity of the resistance.

Bush admitted that the Sunni guerrilla destruction of the Askariyah (Golden Dome) shrine at Samarra set off an orgy of sectarian reprisals. But he does not seem to have actually absorbed the lesson here. The guerrillas did not have to hold territory in order to carry out that bombing. They just had to be able to sneak into a poorly guarded old building that Bush did not even know about and blow it up. The symbolic and psychic damage that they did to the Shiites was profound. Blowing up hundreds of worshippers on Ashura had not had nearly this impact, since the damaged shrine was dedicated to the hidden Twelfth Imam or Mahdi, the Shiite promised one. Many religious Shiites in Iraq are now millenarians, desperately waiting for the Promised One to reveal himself and restore the world to justice. The guerrillas hit the symbol of that hope.

There are other such targets. The Shrine of Imam Kadhim at Kadhimiya, the shrine of Ali in Najaf, and the shrine of Husayn in Karbala, and the person of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani himself, also the person of Hujjat al-Islam Muqtada al-Sadr. (The arrogance and ignorance of the US chattering classes is such that they openly talk about "taking out" al-Sadr, as though that would calm the Iraqi Shiites down. Saddam thought like that when he offed Muqtada's father; didn't work.) The US and British military nevertheless seem set to attack the Mahdi Army. Investments in guarding those sites (the most exposed of which is Kahdimiya) would be worth far more than temporarily intimidating angry Sunnis who have picked up a gun in the Dura neighborhood of Baghdad.

Bush could not help taking swipes at Iran and Syria. But the geography of his deployments gives the lie to his singling them out as mischief makers. Why send 4,000 extra troops to al-Anbar province? Why ignore Diyala Province near Iran, which is in flames, or Babel Province southwest of Baghdad? Diyala borders Iran, so isn't that the threat? But wait. Where is al-Anbar? Between Jordan and Baghdad. In other words, al-Anbar opens out into the vast Sunni Arab hinterland that supports the guerrilla movement with money and volunteers, coming in from Jordan. If Syria was the big problem, you would put the extra 4,000 troops up north along the border. If Iran was the big problem, you'd occupy Diyala. But little Jordan is an ally of the US, and Bush would not want to insult it by admitting that it is a major infiltration root for jihadis heading to Iraq.

The clear and hold strategy is not going to work in al-Anbar. Almost everyone there hates the Americans and wants them out. To clear and hold you need a sympathetic or potentially sympathetic civilian population that is being held hostage by militants, and which you can turn by offering them protection from the militants. I don't believe there are very many Iraqi Sunnis who can any longer be turned in that way. The opinion polling suggests that they overwhelmingly support violence against the US.

This strategy may have some successes here and there. It won't win the day, and I'd be surprised if it did not collapse by the end of the summer.

If part of the strategy is to assault the Mahdi Army frontally, that will cause enormous trouble in the Shiite south. I would suggest that PM Nuri al-Maliki's warning to the Mahdi Militia to disarm or face the US military is in fact code. He is telling the Sadrists to lie low while the US mops up the Sunni Arab guerrillas. Sadr's militia became relatively quiescent for a whole year after the Marines defeated it at Najaf in August, 2004. But since it is rooted in an enormous social movement, the militia is fairly easy to reconstitute after it goes into hiding.

The Arab allies of the US put pressure on Bush not to just withdraw from Iraq, fearing regional chaos.

James Ridgeway at Mother Jones compares Bush's speech to Kissinger's indirection during the 1972 negotiations with the N. Vietnamese. Making people think you are making progress when you are not has been a finely honed skill of this administration, far beyond anything Nixon could have dreamed of. But the dream machine is running up against Lincoln's dictum that you can't fool all the people all the time.

juancole.com



To: jlallen who wrote (320101)1/11/2007 5:42:53 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586843
 
Obama's Got The Bill Factor

NRO: The Illinois Senator Is The Clintons' Big, Unexpected Problem

(National Review Online) This column was written by Myrna Blyth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one person whom Hillary thought she would never — could never — have to run against was, of course, Bill. It was Bill, in fact, who consoled her last winter, after she was less than inspiring at Coretta Scott King’s funeral, with the observation that she would never have to face a charmer like himself. He told her — trying to be reassuring, I guess: "You don’t have to be better at this than me. You got to be better than whoever." But, oh dear, who would have thought the "whoever" she now may face would be so reminiscent of the Bill Clinton who unexpectedly captured the Democratic nomination in 1992.

Obama has several components of the Bill Factor. First of all there is the Great Personal Story. Bill's was "poor boy from Arkansas makes good," as he used his smarts to go to Georgetown, Yale, and win a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford. Obama's is much the same, another tale of "poor boy makes good" that sees the protagonist end up at an Ivy League school. And Obama was the first black president of The Harvard Law Review, which is as impressive as winning a Rhodes.

The personal tales of Obama and Bill have their similarities: Bill's father died before he was born; Obama knew his African father for only a couple of years. But Obama's tale, with its multicultural flair, is the more intriguing. He lived in Indonesia for a time, then was raised mostly in Hawaii by his maternal grandparents, who were originally from Kansas. As he told Oprah Winfrey, "Michelle [his wife] will tell you that when we get together for Christmas or Thanksgiving, it's like a mini-United Nations … I've got relatives that look like Bernie Mac and I've got relatives that look like Margaret Thatcher.” Hillary is shrewd enough to realize that it's a hard-to-beat Great Personal Story. (And, by the way, Obama's wife is a lawyer, too!)

The biggest rap on Obama is that he hasn't got much experience. Similar criticism was aimed at Bill, even though he had been governor of Arkansas, pointing out that he didn't have much experience on the national scene, especially when it came to foreign affairs. (Also, Arkansas was a very small state. I remember New York reporters coming back from Little Rock stunned at what a small town it was.) Obama has been a senator for only a couple of years, but he made it big on the national scene right from the start with his rousing speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention. In this, he has an advantage over Bill, who gave that never-ending speech at the 1988 convention.

Way back when Bill was the unknown quantity, the press liked his big personality and campaigning skills, but they were more interested in digging up the many scandals that surrounded him and seeing if he could be knocked out. The press now is adoring of Obama and has been building him up with flattering interviews and magazine cover-stories, lauding his appealing personality and campaigning charisma for the past six months. The mini-scandals that have surfaced about him so far are Clintonian at worst: A little real estate problem and the fact that as a young man he smoked marijuana and used "maybe a little blow." He is assured enough to admit, "When I was a kid, I inhaled. That was the point."

But perhaps the way in which Obama is most like Clinton is that he, too, thinks, his supporters say, that he is a man of destiny. And that it is, once again, time for a big change. He is something new and different and reflects and represents a new generation. In 1990, Clinton was the Baby Boomer competing with candidates from the World War II generation. Obama is the Generation X candidate, more multicultural, cooler, more media savvy than a baby boomer.

Yep, Obama is the Clintons' big and unexpected problem. Since Bill is Hillary's "Advance-Man-In-Chief," one wonders what advice he is giving the Missus about how to deal with an opponent who is turning out to be too much like himself.

By Myrna Blyth
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

cbsnews.com