[Marxism] al-Hakim, main Maliki ally, criticizes US detention of Iranians as violation of Iraq's sovereignty

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a response to a discussion on the Marxism list. Consult
www.marxism.org  for more details.

Gary is right.  We are converging.  Clearly the strategy of the surge is
still in formation. Maliki's stand is a clear warning to Washington: We need
Iran, we need Baghdad.
As far as a confrontation with Sadr goes, the problem not only for Maliki
but even for the Badr Brigade leader Hakim, both of whom HATE Sadr, is that
only Sadr can give them Baghdad. 

In a sense, they would be happy to see the British really go after Sadr in
Basra, where the only leadership that could replace him is Shia, but who
could replace them in 
Baghdad.  

A Badr army occupying and terrorizing a savagely attacked pro-Sadr Shia
community in Baghdad could not be hegemonic.  Hegemony might belong to the
Sunni, but more likely to the Green Zone, that is, the US.  And Maliki's
crew really do not want that.

Sadr has brought the Shia elite hegemony in Baghdad. The Badr brigade cannot
replace him moment, they have to protect him against being destroyed by the
"surge" although they dream of destroying him when the Shia elite's regime
becomes more secure. But that is not today.

Bush's idea seems to be that a Shia regime is the ideal regime to prevent
Iraq from exploding when the US attacked Iran.  What could keep Iraq from
exploding if the US invades Iran if the Shia majority are denied the
illusion of ruling the country.

This idea is not invalid.  Bush is not an idiot.  Nor are those who advise
him in this direction.  But I doubt that it will work.  The ties, especially
since the 1991 Shia revolt have become much closer. Al-Hakim makes it clear
that ties with Iran are not an option for the Iraqi Shia but a NECESSITY
despite their ties to the US.

But Bush is under enormous pressure from bourgeois forces who, on the one
hand, believe the war is probably lost (which is probably right) but that
just MAYBE it can be won if Bush attacks the Shia (only the extremists, of
course, like 
Sadr -- but what Shia isn't an extremist compared to the desires of the US
rulers? Kind of open-ended, no?

This is being reflected in the arguments -- they are line, not just news,
just like when I wrote for the Militant, although John F. Burns is
duty-bound, and therefore sincerely believes that nothing like "line"
determines his coverage -- that they US should come into action as saviors
of the 
Sunni victims against Shia forces who are too independent of imperialism,
whatever their faults.

Bush actually is sticking with the Shia as the best prop for imperialism
under the difficult circumstances. He may have to change course against his
will. But meanwhile, even the Kurds -- not to mention the Sunni are wobbling
-- in the face of the drive against Iran. The fact is that at this point, I
don't see how any strategy is likely to work.

I think Timesman Burns, who fawns over the new commander in the Times, may
be right that Gen.Petraeus favors the turn against the Shia and making Sadr
a prime target no matter how much he tries to duck a conflict.  The best
history of the US civil war is Williams' four-volume (and unfortunately
incomplete) "Lincoln Finds a General," about how he and Grant finally found
each other.  Hard men willing to make the hard decisions despite their
humane feelings.d

Its possible that a useful history of the Iraq war can be built around the
them of "Bush Loses a General", as  Bush replaced general after general who
dreamed of showing he could "win" in favor of those who would go along with
keeping the Republicans in office.
Fred Feldman

BBC News
Top Iraqi condemns US over Iran 
One of Iraq's most powerful Shia politicians has condemned the arrest of
Iranians by US forces in Iraq as an attack on the country's sovereignty. 

The comments by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, made in a BBC interview, are seen as
the strongest expression yet of Iraq's concern about the US approach to
Iran. 

They follow two recent US raids in which Iranians were arrested. 

The remarks are interesting as Mr Hakim is seen as close to President Bush,
says the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad. 

Mr Hakim also has close links to Iran, after many years in exile there. 

Late last year, US troops descended on Mr Hakim's residential compound in
Baghdad and detained two Iranian officials. 

They were later released, but last week, five more were detained at the
Iranian liaison office in Irbil. They are still being held. 

US officials say they are linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which
they allege trains and arms Iraqi insurgents. 

Delicate balance 

Iran, which has demanded their immediate release, says they are diplomats
engaged in legitimate work. 

Iraq has sought to bring about a dialogue between the US, Iran and Syria, Mr
Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,
told the BBC. 

Any tension between Washington and Tehran might have adverse consequences
for Iraq, he said. 


 We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States,
which is the strongest ally to Iraq, but the Iraqi government has national
interests of its own 
Hoshyar Zebari 
Iraqi Foreign Minister  

"Regardless of the Iranian position we consider these actions as incorrect,"
Mr Hakim said. 

"They represent a kind of attack on Iraq's sovereignty and we hope such
things are not repeated." 

On Sunday, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that Iraq needed a
constructive relationship with Iran. 

"We can't change the geographical reality that Iran is our neighbour. This
is a delicate balance and we are treading a very thin line. 

"We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States,
which is the strongest ally to Iraq, but the Iraqi government has national
interests of its own," Mr Zebari said. Mr Hakim is said to be close to
President George W Bush and has backed his new plan for Iraq. 

Speaking after a lengthy meeting with Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, Mr Hakim
said that, under the plan, Iraqi security forces would be in charge for the
first time in four years, while the multinational troops provide support. 

"This came about at the request of the Iraqis. They met and decided to carry
out these operations and be fully responsible while the multinational forces
support them," said Mr Hakim. 


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6270957.st



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism