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

[<g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred wrote:

Gary is right.  We are converging.  Clearly the strategy of the surge is still 
in formation.

I agree here Fred, though I have a nagging feeling that we are both not 
factoring in sufficiently the disarray that Bush & Co are in. I agree though 
with the sentiments below:

Fred wrote:


>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.  

My thoughts: It is tempting and dangerous to think of Bush being an idiot.  You 
are quite right he is not.  Nevertheless he has led his own class into what is 
for them a very dangerous situation. As we debate what is about to happen, the 
overall fact seems to me that Bush's next move could lead to a colossal 
disaster for the American Ruling Class.

Most obviously that would be to attack Iran. Yet the divide between the Sunni 
and the Shia is now so great that I doubt if there would be a lot of sympathy 
from Sunnis if Iran came under attack. The Shiite collaborators in the Green 
Zone would also be in a bit of a pickle. Would Southern Iraq turn into an 
anti-American "swarm" as Stan Goff seems to believe? Perhaps and that 
possibility makes any attack on Iran extremely dangerous.

Here Goff is quite clear. For him there will be no attack on Iran and the surge 
is aimed at al-Sadr.

I think he is wrong on both counts.  But we shall see.

In the mean time the Americans hold on by the slimmest of threads. They have 
used Kurdish troops before in an assault on the Sadrists, and the Kurds might 
be up for an all out attack on the Sadrists while the Badr Militia attacks the 
Sunnis. But it is not in the interest of the Kurds to fight to the last man for 
the Americans.

There are signs such as Talabani's visit to Syria and his close ties with the 
Iranians, that there is something of an reluctance amongthe Kurds to go all the 
way with the USA

The entire region then is very volatile. No one can see the shape of a 
resolution of the Iraq conflict. Partition is still the most likely outcome I 
believe.

There are also very interesting parallels.  The Israelis are objecting to 
American plans to arm Dahlan's thugs. Specifically they do not want them to 
have body armour or armoured cars.

Al Maliki is complaining that his army - the Badr Militia does not have armour. 
 In both cases the Americans need  Abbas and Maliki to have armies which can 
win a civil war but  at the same time not be powerful enough to turn on the 
Israelis or on the Americans.

Above all it is becoming clearer that being an American puppet is not the soft 
option it once was.

regards

Gary

________________________________________________
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