White Terrorist is “Gunman,” “Alleged Shooter,” no Mention of Wingnut ‘New World Order’ Beef

Posted on 11/03/2013 by Juan Cole

This Chicago Tribune story amalgamated from its sources and wire services on the LAX shooter is interesting for its language. Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, is charged with “murder” and called a “suspected shooter.” The article speaks of his desire to kill TSA employees, i.e. Federal personnel. That is, he conspired against the Federal government.

We know from other reports that Ciancia bought into a far rightwing conspiracy theory that US elites are delivering the country into a “New World Order” or world government. But this piece does not mention ideology. Nor is his ethnicity even brought up.

Ultimately, Ciancia is depicted as a quiet and troubled loner, probably mentally unbalanced, and his right wing political commitments and conspiracy theories are not even mentioned. That put-upon “whites” in an America becoming majority multi-ethnic and multi-cultural have developed an extremist ideology centering on their betrayal at the hands of a government subordinating itself to a world dominated by non-whites is not deemed worthy of being part of the analysis.

It is worth considering this language because we know how he would have been treated in the press had he been Arab or Muslim. His ideology and what he had faith in would have taken precedence over his being a conspiracy theorist or mentally unbalanced. Likely the word “terrorist” would have appeared in the article.

Even David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, was held for 8 hours by authorities in London for “terrorism” because he was transporting a flashdrive with evidence of government wrongdoing on it. “Terrorism” is acquiring a very narrow semantic field, dedicated to the Middle East on the one hand and whistleblowers on the other. Crazed white conspiracy theorists are exempted because taking them seriously would require changes in America’s bizarre gun laws (changes made effectively by Australia, e.g.). The gun manufacturing lobby, i.e., the NRA, would never allow that.

Conclusion: Arabs and Muslims who melt down are not in today’s America allowed to be just ‘quiet” or “troubled” individuals. They are always seen as emblematic of their ethnic group, and one or two of them are enough to make a conspiracy. (In some cases, a Muslim troubled loner who went postal has been enlisted in the conspiracy simply by pointing to radical magazines he read, whereas the wingnut literature Ciancia clearly hung out with is not being mentioned.)

I’ve talked about this before.

0 Retweet 3 Share 6 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Terrorism | Leave a Comment

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Kerry in Cairo

Posted on 11/03/2013 by Juan Cole

US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Cairo on Sunday in his first trip to Egypt since last spring, when Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammad Morsi was in power.

Interim Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy tried to take some of the sting out of the partial cut-off of US aid to Egypt by underlining continued American support for health initiatives, entrepreneurship, border security and anti-terrorist measures and by saying that US-Egyptian relations are founded on more than an aid relationship. (Egypt doesn’t much need the American aid anyway at the moment. It is getting $4 bn from Saudi Arabia, $4 bn from Kuwait, and $8 bn from the United Arab Emirates to shore up its economy and foreign currency reserves, and to improve food import and storage– things that might help the post-Muslim Brotherhood government flourish and become popular. The Gulf Oil monarchies see the Brotherhood as a revolutionary, republican organization that threatens the Middle East status quo and might lead to the unseating of their rule. In contrast, US aid is now 1 bn a year, and would take 16 years to match this year’s contributions from the Gulf).

Kerry said he was assured by interim Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy that Egypt was following a road map to new elections and a restoration of democracy. While this is true formalistically, the substance turns out to be rather less than meets the eye. Likely, new elections will be conducted under a constitution and an electoral law concocted by the unelected praetorian-civilian elite, which will exclude the Muslim Brotherhood from participation. Since it is an old and well-established political and religious movement, disenfranchising it will inevitably cause trouble, and could push its rightwing fringes to terrorism. Muhammad Morsi, the deposed Muslim Brotherhood president, goes on trial on Monday, an unfortunate conjuncture for Kerry’s visit, which may seem to put his imprimatur on the trial.

Moreover, the new constitution will probably make explicit and enshrine military prerogatives. Not exactly a road map to democracy.

When he was last in Egypt, Kerry admonished Morsi to rule in a more inclusive way and more democratically. Morsi, from the right wing of the Egyptian religious Right, governed from a thin sliver of hard liners within his own movement, alienating even many of the more liberal Muslim Brotherhood youth. He had rammed through a non-consensual constitution rejected by the liberals, leftists, Coptic Christians, women, and even religious centrists. He staged a takeover of his cabinet and most provincial governor positions by Muslim Brotherhood hardliners, and moved to begin packing the judiciary with true believers. Morsi completely disregarded Kerry’s advice.

As a result, millions of Egyptians came into the streets on June 30 in the largest demonstrations in the country’s history, leading to Morsi’s overthrow in an odd combination of mass youth street movement (aided by labor unions, city quarters, workers in declining industries like tourism, and even nationalist peasants) and military coup.

The military coup part put the United States in a difficult position. Morsi had been the legitimately elected president. US foreign policy is replete with administrations that made their peace with military rule (e.g. Pinochet’s Chile), but Congress had passed a law requiring that the US cut off aid to countries where a military coup takes place. This law has not always been applied (Musharraf’s Pakistan), and wasn’t initially applied in Egypt, either.

The US was presented with an awkward choice. Kerry had made clear he did not approve of how Morsi ruled. But he could hardly support the high-handed removal of an elected president by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Moreover, Washington largely feels that it has been a good thing for the Muslim religious Right in the Greater Middle East to be drawn into parliamentary politics rather than turning to terrorism. That experiment in Egypt had crashed and burned, with the Brotherhood abruptly recategorized from legitimate civil party to terrorist group.

So after several months, this fall, Washington cut $300 mn out of its $1.3 bn aid package to Egypt, presumably as a faint protest against the country’s turn to praetorian rule. (The loudest protests against this step came not from Cairo but from the Israel lobbies in the US, who see US aid as a sweetener to ensure correct relations between Egypt and Israel).

The US has therefore become unpopular in Egypt. Partisans of the revolution against Morsi are furious that the US seems to consider it merely a coup d’etat by a military junta (to be fair, millions of Egyptians were part of the movement). The Muslim Brotherhood on the other hand suspects that Gen. al-Sisi would not dared have move without a US green light (they are over-estimating Washington’s actual moxie, as is typical of conspiracy theories on the street.)

Egypt is strategically crucial to the United States. The powerful Israel lobbies on the Hill are unhappy about the current rocky relations, because they are afraid Egyptian foreign policy will become more independent of Washington and will endanger the peace and cooperation between Cairo and Tel Aviv. Likely, even a return to a limited democracy, with relatively transparent elections, will be enough to restore good relations– even if the new system is flawed in excluding the Brotherhood and in enshrining military prerogatives. Stay tuned for an update in March 2014, after a new government is elected in Egypt.

0 Retweet 0 Share 1 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Egypt | Leave a Comment

CIA Drone Kills Pakistan Taliban Leader on Eve of Peace talks with Islamabad

Posted on 11/02/2013 by Juan Cole

The CIA drone strike in North Waziristan yesterday killed 25 persons and targeted a high-level meeting of the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan or TTP). It finally killed TTP leader Hakimu’llah Mahsoud of the large and important Mahsoud tribe in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of northern Pakistan. Mahsoud’s death by drone has been repeatedly announced in the past but it was confirmed by the TTP this time. FATA is roughly analogous to US Native American reservations, and is not firmly under the control of the central government.

The deadly attack comes only weeks after Mahsoud said in an interview that he was ready for peace talks with newly elected Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif, over the objections of TTP hard liners. It also came after Sharif met in Washington with President Barack Obama, asking for an end to drone strikes and receiving from Obama a pledge to review the policy.

This context for the drone strike has to raise the question of whether John Brennan, head of the CIA, is deliberately attempting to forestall Pakistan-TTP peace talks and is determined to prevent Nawaz Sharif and Obama from cementing a strong relationship. Pakistani officials are talking about a ‘sabotaging’ of the talks. But they are resisting calls in the press for Pakistan to punish the US by halting NATO shipments of military equipment and other supplies from Karachi up to the Khyber Pass and thence into Afghanistan.

ITN reports:

The TTP will certainly launch reprisals inside Pakistan and against US troops and the Afghanistan National Army on the Afghanistan side of the border. The Pakistani public is bracing itself for attacks.

GeoTv interviewed veteran reporter Hamid Mir on the significance of the strike (Trans. USG Open Source Center):

“If the report is true and Hakimullah Mehsud has been killed, the dialogue process, which has not formally begun, will get affected //negatively//. The Taliban were already stating that some //drama// was being staged with them in the name of talks, and now their stance will get strengthened. There were three to four groups within TTP that were opposing the talks since day one, and now their stance will become strong. However, it is a matter to ponder upon that earlier Waliur Rehman, who was in favor of talks, was killed, and now Hakimullah Mehsud, who too wanted to hold talks with the government, has been killed. A question arises why the Taliban groups or the commanders who are not in favor of talks have not been targeted so far, and their stance will further get strengthened. Hakimullah Mehsud was already wanted to have talks. As for the //deadlock// for some days, Hakimullah Mehsud had sent a hand written piece of paper to the government representatives through his messenger wherein he had expressed his willingness for talks. The two sides had also agreed on names for talks, but later attempts were made to include some people in the negotiating team about whom Hakimullah Mehsud had objections, and that was why, there was deadlock. The government, however, was continuing its efforts to start the dialogue process. And as now the process was about to begin, Hakimullah Mehsud has been attacked. If the report of his killing is correct, the process will get jolted. The TTP groups that have been continuing their attacks and oppose talks will have justification to continue their activities.

(Memon) Mir, we would like to inform you and the viewers that Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has denied to confirm the report. Only a foreign news agency is claiming about the killing of Hakimullah Mehsud. As you have told us that the local people as well as the local reporters have also not yet confirmed that TTP Chief Hakimullah Mehsud has been killed in the attack.

(Anchor Mansoor Ali Khan) Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has paid a visit to the United States, and after that, two drone strikes have been carried out. What is the position of Pakistan now?

(Mir) … Tariq Fatemi, special assistance to the prime minister on foreign affairs, who was also present in the prime ministera’s meeting with President Obama had confidently stated a few days ago that Obama had assured Nawaz Sharif that the United States would //review// its policy of drone strikes. But this has not happened, and two consecutive strikes have taken place. This would certainly increase political worries for Nawaz Sharif. I am telling you that there were three to four strong groups within TTP that were not in favor of talks since day one, and Hakimullah Mehsud had been continuously persuading them for talks. You would have noticed that Hakimullah Mehsud had developed some flexibility in his stance for some days. However, the two sides were not reaching agreement on the names of the negotiating team for talks because some state institutions had tried to include some people of their own liking on whom Mehsud had objections. Despite that, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan was striving for beginning of the talks. The process had not yet begun, but efforts had been underway for a //structured dialogue//. Now the person who will have to face embarrassment the most is the prime minister.

(Khan) Thank you very much, Mir. (end live relay)

(Description of Source: Karachi Geo News TV in Urdu — 24-hour satellite news TV channel owned by Pakistan’s Jang publishing group. Known for providing quick and detailed reports of events. Geo’s focus on reports from India is seen as part of its policy of promoting people-to-people contact and friendly relations with India.) ”

0 Retweet 4 Share 7 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Drone, FATA, Pakistan, Pakistan Taliban | 23 Comments

“Disposition Matrix”: America’s Drone Wars and Civilian Casualties (Moyers)

Posted on 11/02/2013 by Juan Cole

Bill Moyers reports on America’s drone wars

The blurb:

“America’s Drone Wars
November 1, 2013

This week, members of Congress heard testimony for the first time from victims of drone attacks, including that of 13-year-old Zubair Rehman, from Pakistan, who spoke of a strike last year that killed his grandmother and wounded him and his little sister. “I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey… When the sky brightens, drones return and we live in fear,” Rehman told the five members of Congress who showed up for the testimony.

The use of drones has intensified under President Obama’s leadership as the number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas has been scaled back. But the drones often kill innocent civilians, including children. That is the subject of Robert Greenwald’s new documentary, Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars. Here, we look at clips from the film, which shares testimony, stories and alarming news on the fatal impact of our drone strategy.

Producer: Gina Kim. Associate Producer: Julia Conley Editor: Sikay Tang”

0 Retweet 6 Share 2 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Drone, Pakistan | 4 Comments

Al Gore on the Oil, Gas and Coal Bubble: Investors Beware! (Queally)

Posted on 11/02/2013 by Juan Cole

John Queally writes at Commondreams.org

Former U.S. Vice President turned climate campaigner Al Gore and his longtime business partner David Blood, a former Goldman Sachs executive, are out with a bit of financial advice for their wealthy comrades who remain in the habit of investing in the world's high-polluting carbon industry: Don't.

Saying the misguided dependence on the world's fossil fuel reserves is creating the "largest bubble ever" in the investment community, Gore and Blood are telling people to find ways to dump their "high-carbon assets" and start using their money to invest in the clean energy future that the Earth demands. As it turns out, they say, it's not only the morally correct and responsible thing to do in terms of battling climate change, it will ultimately serve their bottom lines.

Gore and Blood, as the Guardian's Fiona Harvey reports,

have brought forward a four-point plan that they say will protect future investors. They are calling on companies, investors and regulators to identify the carbon risks in their portfolios; to demand of company managers and boards that the risks should be publicly disclosed; to diversify their investment portfolios to include low-carbon infrastructure such as renewable energy and electric vehicles; and finally to take their money out of fossil fuels and other high-carbon assets, or turn them into low-carbon assets – for instance, by installing carbon capture and storage units on power stations.

Though critics of the powerful duo may voice concern over some of their underlying assumptions—the unproven and largely derided prospect of carbon storage technology, for instance, or the supremacy of the capitalist experiment in general—the idea that the fossil fuel paradigm is not only an ecological disaster, but a financial one, has steadily come to the center of the debate on climate change.

As Bill McKibben, co-founder of the climate action group 350.org, wrote earlier this, recognizing and dealing with the "carbon bubble" now cited by Gore and Blood is a vital part of turning off the (very profitable) oil and gas burners that are cooking the planet. As McKibben wrote:

The carbon bubble that looms over our world needs to be deflated soon. As with our fiscal crisis, failure to do so will cause enormous pain — pain, in fact, almost beyond imagining. After all, if you think banks are too big to fail, consider the climate as a whole and imagine the nature of the bailout that would face us when that bubble finally bursts.

Unfortunately, it won’t burst by itself — not in time, anyway. The fossil-fuel companies, with their heavily funded denialism and their record campaign contributions, have been able to keep at bay even the tamest efforts at reining in carbon emissions. With each passing day, they’re leveraging us deeper into an unpayable carbon debt — and with each passing day, they’re raking in unimaginable returns. ExxonMobil last week reported its 2011 profits at $41 billion, the second highest of all time. Do you wonder who owns the record? That would be ExxonMobil in 2008 at $45 billion.

Telling the truth about climate change would require pulling away the biggest punchbowl in history, right when the party is in full swing. That’s why the fight is so pitched.

It is this thinking that is driving 350.org's nationwide divestment campaign, which is trying to leverage the power of student voices in getting colleges and university endowments to divest their holdings from the world's biggest polluters. The campaign is also beginning to target pension funds, the portfolios of churches and municipalities in the U.S., and 350.org has just launched a similar drive in Europe.

As Gore told the Guardian: "This is potentially the largest bubble ever. If investors look in clear-eyed, traditional risk management way, they can be in time to avoid it."

And Harvey continues:

[Gore] said it was not feasible to wait for a global agreement on climate change, on the lines of the Kyoto protocol which he helped to forge in 1997, but that investors must take action sooner. He urged individual investors to demand that their pension companies or fund managers should seek to evaluate their exposure to carbon risk.

The highest carbon assets such as tar sands and dirty coal represent the highest immediate risk, but other infrastructure such as transport and construction is also involved.

If the risks associated with high-carbon assets are not taken into account, Gore warned, the consequences for other assets – in a decade or more – could be dire. Those assets include "real estate, agricultural land and infrastructure" that is all at risk from the effects of climate change, and the value of which could plummet as the effects are increasingly felt in the form of floods, droughts and storms.

In her most recent essay on the subject, author and journalist Naomi Klein, who also serves as an advisor to 350, makes it clear that the science and crisis of climate will force everyone—the rich and the poor, the commoners and the capitalists—to change the way they do business. Because, she writes:

…the truth is getting out anyway. The fact that the business-as-usual pursuit of profits and growth is destabilizing life on earth is no longer something we need to read about in scientific journals. The early signs are unfolding before our eyes. And increasing numbers of us are responding accordingly: blockading fracking activity in Balcombe; interfering with Arctic drilling preparations in Russian waters (at tremendous personal cost); taking tar sands operators to court for violating indigenous sovereignty; and countless other acts of resistance large and small.

At what pace the world's high-level investors participate in the fight to stop global warming remains to be seen, of course, but Gore and Blood's four-point plan to insulate investors from the perils of the fossil fuel industry dangerous "carbon bubble" is at least an acknowledgement that the reality of the threat is creeping up the ladder of privilege.

As Klein might say, "It’s not a revolution, but it’s a start."

______________________________________

——

Mirrored from Commondreams.org

0 Retweet 3 Share 4 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Energy, Environment | 2 Comments

Scrooge Republicans prefer Pentagon White Elephants to Food Stamps for Poor Children

Posted on 11/01/2013 by Juan Cole

As of today, Republican cuts in food stamp support present a challenged nearly 23 million American households in keeping their children from hunger. Some 76% of SNAP or food stamp-receiving households include children, the elderly or a disabled person, and 83% of all SNAP assistance goes to such challenged households. The image of a single male lying on a couch drinking beer bought with food stamps is just cheap Scrooge propaganda.

Note that these families are in dire straits not because they are lazy but because Republican lawmakers reduced regulation and oversight of Wall Street banks and investment companies, who promptly engaged in unwise or illegal practices that crashed the US economy in 2008 and after. There has been no recovery to speak of for the non-rich since. Americans who resort to food stamps have increased by 25% in the past four years. So these struggling American families are being punished by the GOP twice– many of them lost their jobs because of bad banking practices or because the Bush economic downturn. And now the minor amelioration of their condition offered by the US government has been cut back.

These are the actions of a Scrooge ruling class, of mean rich white people (though in fact the majority of recipients of food stamps are also white). The same GOP congressmen ran up huge budget deficits for the benefit of their constituencies in the Bush era, and wasted over a trillion dollars on wars of aggression abroad, but now all of a sudden are interested in balanced budgets and austerity.

17% of Republicans say that someone in their household has received food stamps. Recipients are disproportionately young, including children, and disproportionately women. Only 22% of Latinos say they have used them. While African-Americans are twice as likely to have resorted to them as whites, since they are only 12% of the population, they are still a small minority of recipients.

Here are some things that Congress could have cut instead of food for poor children:

Development of the F-35 fighter jet will cost over $9 billion this year and $395.7 billion over all. It is corporate welfare of the first water, an enormous White Elephant, completely unnecessary at a time when the US military has nothing approaching a peer in the world. It is years behind schedule and 70% over budget. Canceling it would allow you to put back the $5 billion for food stamps for at least 80 years and probably more, since there will be more cost over-runs.

Then there is the SSN-774 Virginia-Class Submarine. Nothing wrong in principle with this item, but they cost $4.3 billion apiece, just about the cost of the food stamps that have just been cut. Republican standard-bearer Mitt Romney just last year ran on producing 3 of these submarines a year rather than two. In other words, he wanted to increase the budget deficit by nearly $5 bn a year for the sake of one extra submarine annually. If the GOP is willing to buy an extra submarine (which we don’t actually need– which of our enemies rules the underwater realm?) a year for that much, then it is hard to see why they are so pressed to cut $5 bn in food stamps.

The United States is spiralling down into a basic indecency and callousness not seen since the age of the Robber Barons of the late 19th century. The Koch brothers and other mean rich white people are intent on rolling back all the gains of the Progressive era and the New Deal, returning us to the jungle.

The only good thing about it is that sooner or later the sleeping giant that is the American people will be awakened by the lashes of injustice and the selfishness of a small coterie of the super-rich. And then perhaps we’ll get a new and more robust progressivism that will change the nation and the world.

0 Retweet 9 Share 42 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in US politics | 32 Comments

Top Ten Reasons the US should Stay out of Iraq and put Conditions on Arms Sales

Posted on 10/31/2013 by Juan Cole

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq 2003-2011 threw that country into civil war and long-term guerrilla insurgency. Once an insurgency begins, it often lasts 15 years, so Iraq may well not settle down for another decade. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki came to Washington yesterday asking for a substantial increase in military aid, including nice big shiny new weapons and trainers. As usual when the increased violence in Iraq comes up, some journalists and politicians hinted around that maybe it was a mistake to withdraw in 2011 or even that maybe the US should go back in.

VOA reports on Maliki’s visit:

So here are the top ten reasons a) the US should stay out of Iraq and b) should put conditions on any arms sales it makes to Nouri al-Maliki:

1. The US caused the civil war and guerrilla war in the first place, and can’t fix it now. If both kinds of war could get started when the country was under US occupation, with as many as 160,000 troops in country, why would things be different? Under US rule, sometimes 3,000 Iraqi civilians were dying a month. why does anyone think a small force of US troops could make a difference at the moment? Moreover, the Iraqi parliament would never agree to any significant number of US troops on Iraqi soil, and nor would it offer them immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for war crimes. Therefore, Washington is not sending combat troops back in and Iraq would not accept them. Someone to train pilots in flying Black Hawks is a different matter.

2. The insurgency in Iraq is brutal and heart-breaking, but it isn’t unique in the world. Just last year, over 18,000 Mexicans died in their drug war through November 2012! It is estimated that so far in 2013 about 7,000 Iraqis have died in political violence. No one is suggesting that US troops should go into Mexico or that they would be effective if they did. Why this fixation on American intervention in the Middle East? (Mexico also has oil, so that isn’t the difference). Maybe it is just that Mexico is a relatively strong country with the world’s 14th largest gross domestic product and a population of 112 million. In contrast, Iraq is a small country of 32 million with the world’s 46th largest gdp, so maybe hawks in Washington think it can still be pushed around.

3. The US is still militarily occupying Afghanistan, and it had over 8,000 fatalities in 2012! (Iraq’s 2012 total civilian fatalities in political violence were about 4,500). If that is the best Washington can do when they are running the place, how likely is it they can be effective with a small force from the outside?

4. Washington doesn’t want to intervene in Syria, where there were over 41,000 casualties in 2012.

5. The US is de facto allied with the rebels in Syria against the Baath government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Those rebels are largely Sunni Arabs, and the majority of land not under regime control in northern Syria is now held by radical extremists. These same radical extremist Sunni forces are the ones blowing up Shiites in Iraq. In short, in Iraqi terms the US is part of the problem, not of the solution, and cannot be an honest broker.

6. Part of the reason for the continued Sunni guerrilla war in Iraq is that Sunni Arabs there aren’t informing against the radical extremists in their midst. They aren’t informing because they mostly hate the government of al-Maliki, which they see as Shiite chauvinist and allied to Iran. Al-Maliki has done nothing to change this perception. He charged Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a major Sunni figure with terrorism and forced him into exile.

7. The Republican senators who charge al-Maliki with leading the country to civil war, however, are being dishonest. Most of them led Iraq to civil war in 2006 in the first place, by bad policy-making after the fall of Saddam Hussein involving firing tens of thousands of Sunnis from their jobs and favoring Shiites and Kurds. They were the biggest screw-up in the history of American foreign policy and are not in a position to criticize anyone, including al-Maliki.

8. Journalists keep speculating that Iraq is headed back to civil war. It is not. The Civil War in 2006 was an ethnic cleansing of mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. That process is over. The neighborhoods have been altered, into being mostly Sunni or mostly Shiite. There is no one local left to fight. There are no Sunni brigades marching conventionally and trying to take territory against the largely Shiite military, which is relatively well-equipped with US weaponry and would easily defeat them. It isn’t a civil war this time but a low-intensity conflict, a guerrilla war, in which the weapon is shadowy bombings and sniping. Only 20% of insurgencies typically are defeated by military action, so the likelihood that the US can do anything about this one is very low.

9. If the US is going to give weapons to al-Maliki, it must put in place conditions and monitoring to ensure that they don’t end up going to al-Maliki’s de facto ally, the Syrian regime. The ability of Washington to undermine its own policies is mind-boggling.

10. Moreover, al-Maliki has to do more to reach out to the civilian Sunni leadership in Mosul and Ramadi and incorporate them as equals into the new Iraqi politics. He hasn’t done that and Iraq won’t settle down until he or his successor act in this way.

0 Retweet 7 Share 7 Google +1 1 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Iraq, US politics | 12 Comments

  • Juan Cole

    Juan Cole

    Welcome to Informed Comment, where I do my best to provide an independent and informed perspective on Middle Eastern and American politics.

    Thank you to all of my supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an independent press!

    Checks to Juan Cole, P. O. Box 4218, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-4218

    By Paypal or Credit Card:

  • Keep up with Informed Comment at:

  • Lijit Ads

  • Friends and Interlocutors:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Spam Blocked