Rules of the road

Kasama

On the Shelf

« Day of Solidarity with the People of Oaxaca | Main | Revolution Books Now Online! »

December 20, 2006

Comments

A

Like 9/11 conspiracists, you are giving the US government more power than it has. Violent civil war in Iraq is not in the United States best interest, particularly when the likely winner will be the Shiites, which will be de-facto allied with Iran. The invasion of Iraq was probably the least thought out move by the US military in over 100 years (btw Imperial Life in the Emerald City is an excellent account of how whole operation was dumped in the hands of College Republicans who wouldn't know a Sunni from a Falafel) and the collapse of all authority was not something expected or desired by CPA authorities. You can't have a profitable oil industry if the oil wells and the oil workers keep getting blown up.

qui bono

And Lebanon. And Somalia. And Palestine. And Iraq. And Pakistan.

The uptick in sectarian attacks by previously unknown/hidden organizations means that there is a very good chance that already existing conflicts can be provoked.

Divide and Conquer.

Jonothan Cook does not place blame only with the US (and Israel, which does know a Sunni from a Falafel).

Who is carrying out the assasinations in Lebanon? A very large number of Lebanesse, from all political persuassions, think that Israel is playing a role there specifically to spark a civil war. Leading people have said as much.

See too the escalating conflict between the PA and Hamas.

This isn't a new tactic. The British deployed it just about everywhere they went.

Find the internal contradiction, exploit it, fan it.

It's not the fault of imperialism alone that these sectarian divides persist. See too the Balkans. But the exploitation of them to further an agenda of conquest is not conspiratorial.

Put me in the camp that is also frakly skeptical that the ONLY people operating for the US & Britain are "College Republicans."

I know this is the Democratic Party's main talking point... and there is undoubtedly some truth to it. Some.

But who launched those attacks in Karbala on the Shite mosques? Who knows? To what end?

In the middle of a war against a foreign conquerer, attacking the Islamic equivelant of the Vatican wouldn't make ANY sense from the perspective of defeating such a conquerer.

A

"In the middle of a war against a foreign conquerer, attacking the Islamic equivelant of the Vatican wouldn't make ANY sense from the perspective of defeating such a conquerer."

Actually various Al-Qaeda statements have made clear they would like to provoke a violent confrontation with the Shittes. Being religious fanatics, they think the Shittes are as heretical as anyone. These guys aren't Che, they aren't interested in fighting for third world liberation; they want to run the Middle East according to their rather extreme interpertation of Islam. I'd imagine some ex-Baathists might like to strike against the Shiites, though for very different reasons.

I actually don't think the top goal of lot of the Shiite groups, possibly even the Sunnis is driving out the US. There is no single "resistance" like there was in Vietnam. The different Iraqi "resistances" are trying to set themselves up in the best position possible to take power when the inevitable US withdrawal happens. That means blasting US troops in between killing fellow Iraqis.

Who is killing professors, medical workers, journalists, secular leftists, trade-unionists and other forces that don't want to live under the rule of either Shiite militia leaders or ex-Baathists waiting in Syria to come back? It ain't the Mossad. Frankly, these kind of provacative assaults only push Iraq closer to an all out civil war(if they aren't already there now) that will likely end up in a Iranian allied Iraq;Israel does not want that.

"It's not the fault of imperialism alone that these sectarian divides persist. See too the Balkans. But the exploitation of them to further an agenda of conquest is not conspiratorial."

The US isn't conquering anything right now. The only area of Iraq they totally under their control is the Green Zone. The worse the strife grows, the less control the US holds over Iraq.

As for Lebanon, yes foreign powers have their muddy paws over internal strife, like most the twentith century. I have heard no evidence, but both Israel and Syria have a lot to gain from Lebanon breaking down.

If I've learned anything from the Bush adminstration, the United State government is a lot less powerful to shape the world in its image then I ever thought.

the iran iraq war

who wanted that one?

leftclick

Cook doesn't make the strong case that the US feels it is in its best interests to fan civil wars. If anything, the Bush regime has tried to implement the strongman approach in both Afghanistan and Iraq but neither of its choices of puppets had, or could generate, any kind of cohesive mass support.

I think the US is recognizing the reality of civil wars and, being unable to quell them, might be opting for a strategy of containment, but this seems more like the result of playing catch up than any serious plan.

In the long run, the chaos might justify continued intervention but as "A" said, makes for a poor business environment.

the burningman

A couple things. I think some of Arun Gupta's analysis that I linked to in the introduction is related to different versions of conflict than simple "strongman" approaches.

That is NOT what they attempted in Iraq, either through the arming and recruitment of various militias, the promotion of Zarqawi as something he plainly was not(!) or in the almost entirely anonymous nature of the most spectacular (apparently) sectarian attacks.

I'm not arguing that there are not indigenous conflicts of an intense nature. But I do think this is a serious discussion – especially with recent events in Lebanon and Palestine. In these latter countries, there are obvious and definite signs of Israeli (hence American) provocations.

Again the anonymous bombings and assassinations.

Also, regarding Alex's comments on the sectarianism of al-Qaeda: what do you think "al-Qaeda" is?

The Saudi ruling class is certainly sectarian in this sense. But guess where they get ALL their weapons (and money, really) from?

A

"But I do think this is a serious discussion – especially with recent events in Lebanon and Palestine. In these latter countries, there are obvious and definite signs of Israeli (hence American) provocations."

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel is some how behind the rising chaos in Lebanon and Palestine, though I have not seen concrete proof as of yet. I would add that Syria is as likely to be messing around in Lebanon too. They would love to be "invited" back in if the country looks like it will collaspe into civil war.

I don't think Israel=USA anymore than UK=USA. Every think I've read points to an adminstration that really could care less about every other part of the world than Iraq/Iran. Kim Jong IL can parade nuclear weapons and nothing happens. The US has essentially given the Likudites a green light to do whatever they want in Palestine and Lebanon; no questions asked. Even Reagan made a quiet protest over the 83 invasion. I believe the US foreign policy establishment will likely have some kind of self-correction on this post-Bush. The US role in Palestine right now it nearly zero, as the Baker report points out.

Bush has opened a big can of worms he can't control and its the Iraqi people who will have to suffer that chaos and whatever horrible regime or regimes will come after the soon to be ending occupation. My prob with the posted article makes the US seems like its getting stronger when I would say the exact opposite is the case.

What is Al-Qaeda? I guess you're getting at that its an unattended consequence of CIA aid to Afghan rebels and too much oil under SA. Does that make it a agent of the US? Now you're getting into 9-11 Truthout territory.

repeater

The proof of Israeli involvement in the burgeoning civil wars in Palestine and Lebanon is in the attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Israelis and the "International Community" created the conditions for civil war and they did it with full intent. They back "the moderates" and have attempted to use their economic and military power to force their "peace partners" into power.

Whether they have actually committed the most obvious provocations or not, they have been systematically trying to create conditions in Palestine and Lebanon that would agree with the Zionist project.

I don't say this as a defence of the ideology of Hamas and Hezbollah. The situation is as it is because their is no viable revolutionary movement in either contexts. This is partially because of Israel's own attacks on the secular forces in these areas, but also because the secular forces in these areas were killed by bullets of a different nature.

The situation is a fucking shitstorm, and the only solution is going to be for a revolutionary movement and leadership to develop, something which will likely take decades.

repeater

"Israel Confirms Arms Shipment Sent to Aid Abbas"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1167368400&en=44a45f282ea0bd63&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hot Shots