« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Is Iraqi sovereignty an oxymoron?
The New York Times reports that the president's plan to embed American troops with Iraqi units will provide the twin benefit of providing support to the Iraqis while keeping them on a short leash:
American generals have acknowledged that the twinning of American and Iraqi units, and the sharp increase in American advisers, will serve the dual purpose of stiffening Iraqi combat performance and providing American commanders with early warning of any Iraqi operations that run counter to American objectives. In effect, the advisers will serve as canaries in Mr. Maliki’s mine, ensuring the American command will get early notice if Iraqi operations threaten to abandon the equal pursuit of Sunni and Shiite extremists in favor of a more sectarian emphasis on going after Sunnis alone.
There's a similar tension with regard to Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who, since he's being given more authority, can't be left without babysitters:
The arrangements appeared to suggest that Mr. Maliki would have the power to halt any push into Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold that American commanders have been saying for months will have to be swept of extremist militia elements if there is to be any lasting turn toward stability in Baghdad. But along with more authority for Mr. Maliki, the American plan appeared to have countervailing safeguards to prevent sectarian agendas from gaining the upper hand. Bush administration officials said that Americans would be present in the commander in chief’s office and that an American Army battalion — 400 to 600 soldiers — would be stationed in each of the nine Baghdad military districts.
Advertisement
Comments (12)
Maude wrote on January 11, 2007 10:06 AM:Once PM Maliki stood up to the US, he has been swift boated by the Bush Admin.
John Emerson wrote on January 11, 2007 10:10 AM:The US would like to get rid of the Shia militias.
PM Maliki stands in they way of that.
Never mind that Iraq is 60% Shia.
Pay no mind.
Just pick a war with Iran and see how that goes.
All other questions aside, in present circumstances embedding sound like a horrible idea. Suppose 20 or 30 Americans were embedded in an Iraqi unit whose loyalty was questionable. What happens if the Iraqis decide to flip?
Either they kill the Americans and disappear with their weapons, or they lead the Americans into a trap and then switch, or they just desert and/or switch the moment things get hot.
oldtree wrote on January 11, 2007 11:00 AM:let's face it. we are never going to hear any truth publicly. it is going to have to be leaked. in iraq, democracy is going to have to be leaked. Kurt Vonnegut describes mirrors as leaks (into another dimension)
Josh wrote on January 11, 2007 11:12 AM:personally, I think the same amount of thought is being used to create the iraq scenario as it requires me to take a leak.
I'm no fan of Bush or the surge plan but this is actually a good idea. Maliki is not being "swiftboated". If you are going to send more troops into Baghdad you have to make sure they aren't being used as Maliki's pawns to attack his Sunni enemies.
Gregory X wrote on January 11, 2007 11:44 AM:Al Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist who has opposed the US occupation from the beginning. This is why he was demonized by the Bush regime and the American media and has been turned into the new monster that we must crush, even though the Mahdi army is not attacking US troops. Al Sadr is also suspicious of Iranian influence in Iraq and has been trying to reach an accord with some Sunni elements. Since he is an Iraqi nationalist, Al Sadr is most likely opposed to the new oil laws the US is attempting to ram through that would give control of the oil fields to US and British companies. He continues to withhold his deputies from the parliament which makes it impossible to pass these laws. This is the real reason that Al Sadr has to go. Bush's escalation is needed to complete the theft of Iraqi oil.
Conrad wrote on January 11, 2007 11:51 AM:As the Times points out, President Bush’s speech contains an obfuscation regarding the mechanics of his plan. He states that Iraqi police and army units will be deployed through Baghdad neighborhoods to keep the peace. In the following paragraph he says “our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help”. Whose plan is this really? Its widely reported that many elements of the Iraqi police and military are infiltrated by sectarian militias and operate as partisan death squads (hardly an example of a “young democracy”). I suggest that the work of American military help for Iraqis deployed to keep peace in Baghdad will be to prevent them from committing partisan crimes. In other words we’ll be there to referee the civil war. That’s a mere band-aid over Iraq’s structural wounds, not a plan to resolve the problems Bush has created in Iraq.
Can President Bush humble himself and wholeheartedly support a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq? If he does, he'll have to
give up control over any puppet government.
Concerning the disposition of Iraq’s oil; If there’s an arrangement to allot 75 percent of the revenue to American and British oil companies, why shouldn’t they pay a proportionate cost of securing the oil? Why should American taxpayers and soldiers subsidize the military expense and risk their lives to secure the resource? We’re not making the world safe for democracy but safe for Halliburton.
Lets ask the hard questions about Bush's policies in Iraq. It's time for Americans to demand an honest accounting and hold the Bush administration accountable for its failures.
slb wrote on January 11, 2007 12:07 PM:The president can't excuse his mistakes in lives and money with a lame explanations.
"Suppose 20 or 30 Americans were embedded in an Iraqi unit whose loyalty was questionable. What happens if the Iraqis decide to flip?
Either they kill the Americans and disappear with their weapons, or they lead the Americans into a trap and then switch, or they just desert and/or switch the moment things get hot. "
-----
The article makes it sound like that's the whole point -- the fate of the embedded Americans is going to be the early warning that the Iraqis aren't playing nice: "In effect, the advisers will serve as canaries in Mr. Maliki’s mine, ensuring the American command will get early notice if Iraqi operations threaten to abandon the equal pursuit of Sunni and Shiite extremists in favor of a more sectarian emphasis on going after Sunnis alone."
You know how the canary-in-the-mine thing works, right? If the canary dies, that's how the miners know the air has gone bad and they'd better get out of there.
Bryan wrote on January 11, 2007 12:08 PM:I would say that Iraq's sovereignty is questionable based on this statement in his speec last night:
"...Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis."
How does he know this will happen? Doesn't Iraq have a national assembly that has to vote on it first?
greensmile wrote on January 11, 2007 1:53 PM:I'll look up the Arabic spelling of "frag" for y'all :(
Suad wrote on January 12, 2007 7:04 PM:Reminds me how the Soviet Occupations worked.
yq2ttg7vy wrote on April 25, 2007 12:25 AM:Execuse mee plees for vis messaga posted from Norenbergen Shutgorto blin...
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:00 AM:Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye