Stoopid Stuff

Careful what you Wish For

I didn't watch the Bush speech last night. I never watch him speak. I can't. I find it utterly unbearable. But I always read the transcripts. I want to know what he's saying, I just can't listen to him lie.

Upon reading the transcripts of last night's speech, I was struck by two things. And no, the escalation of troop strength (the "surge") wasn't one of them. It certainly wasn't a surprise, and along with everyone else in the world, I've already weighed in on that. No, the surprise wasn't the escalation. It was the expansion. Bush made it clear last night that it was his goal to expand the war, not end it. So he went well beyond saber rattling, and made it clear that we will soon be in a much hotter, higher level conflict than we have become used to.

First, Bush went out of his way to explicitly threaten Iran. He made a point to say that we will attack them when we can find them in Iraq. And, of course, if they are providing "safe havens" for Shiite insurgents or death squads across the border, we will cross the border to kill them. Never mind that the Shi'a have been our ostensible allies in Iraq since 2004, and it is extremely unlikely that they are supporting the Sunni/NeoBaathist insurgency. Bush wants a war with Iran, and this is going to provide the excuse. It will be the "WMD" for this war, so to speak.

Then, coupled with statements made by Maliki, it has become clear that the truce is over, America is going to start a shooting war with the Mahdi Army. Now, in addition to many smaller players, there are two major Shi'a militias in Iraq. The Mahdi Army, loyal to Muqtada al Sadr, is a very strong nationalist social movement. They favor a strong, unified Iraq, are practically the only Shiites in the Maliki government calling for the Americans to end the occupation and are not particularly friendly with Iran despite their close affiliation with the Dawa party. Then there's the Badr Bridgades, the armed militia loyal to Abdul Aziz al Hakim's SCIRI, very friendly with Iran and closely supported by Tehran. Both militias have effectively infiltrated local government, police, Interior Ministry commandos, government ministries and both hold multiple cabinet posts. Both militias are operating death squads and kidnap/assasination teams against both Sunnis and each other. But one (Mahdi) has continually resisted American occupation and called for the Americans to leave Iraq, while the other (Badr) has happily allowed the Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them. So under pressure from American diplomats, military and political leaders, Maliki has agreed to allow the Americans to go to war against the Mahdi Army.

Now think about this. Most of the dificulties that the Americans have encountered in Iraq have come only from the Sunni insurgents and jihadis - we have, at least since the summer of 2004, been peaceful, if uneasy allies of the Shiites. And yet, the occupation goes badly, the cost goes up, the casualties mount. At best, fighting the Mahdi army will be disasterous, with large swaths of Baghdad flattened in the urban combat, many civilians dead and a large spike in American casualties. Now what will Iran do? Even if we haven't succeeded in starting a shooting war with Iran yet, they will certainly contribute weapons and funds to support al Sadr in the fight. And that could provide the catalyst for war with Iran. But even if it doesn't, what will al Hakim do? He is no friend of al Sadr, but they are also Shiites, and he may very well contribute fighters and support. Who knows, they may even be able to engineer a truce with the Sunnis and pull together to fight the Americans.

And if Bush and Cheney get their wish and start open warfare with Iran, Iran will certainly send thousands of combat troops across the border into Iraq to fight the Americans, and possibly the Sunnis too. In this chaotic spasm of large-scale conflict, will Turkey take the opportunity to roll into Kurdistan and clean up the PKK? If the Shiites begin to murder the Sunnis in large numbers, will the Saudis feel the need to get involved? There are many scenarios possible in this pending bloodbath, and they all have something in common - the are all very, very bad.

It is clear to almost everyone. The only rational, sane path from where we find ourselves is to immediately begin to draw down our forces in Iraq and begin a dialog with the regional players. Very slowly, we need to repair our tattered reputation and begin to be seen as a fair, honest broker in the region. That is the only way to make us safer, and after our arrogant actions of the last five years it will take a long time.

posted by mikey @ 12:30 PM