DIVIDE, CONQUER, AND (HOPE TO) RULE IRAQ

....And the Brits cave in to...nothing! (See below: NOT THEIR WAR.)

secondroughdraft

The harmful idiots, while plugging holes, are pursuing the old colonial policy of divide-and-conquer, to rule Iraq.

DIVIDE-AND-RULE THE ARAB SHIA

The harmful idiots’ strategy among the Shia is to (effectively) side with Hakim of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) (for now) against Muqtadha as-Sadr of the Mahdi Army.

The recent assault on Diwaniyyah, still ongoing as I write this post, aims for elements of the Mahdi Army. Many among these had left Sadr City in Baghdad and had disappeared in southern Iraq, including Diwaniyyah.

Last November, in Diwaniyyah, Mahdi men had fought the Badr Brigade, Abdel Aziz Hakim’s militia, and defeated it. Since then they had controlled Diwaniyyah, including its police force.
Abdel Aziz Hakim, an arch-rival of Muqtadha as-Sadr, should certainly be thrilled that U.S. troops are routing Mahdi men. Revenge, at last! Only recently, four men were assassinated in the province of Qadissiyyah, including a representative of Abdel Aziz Hakim. Mahdi men were suspected of the killing. In essence, therefore, the U.S. in Diwaniyyah is coming to the aid of Hakim and his Badr Organization/Brigade.

It’s unclear where Maliki stands. His silence should put him squarely in the U.S.-Hakim (temporary) camp. Elements in the Mahdi Army have said as much. (Update: Just learned that the Iranian authorities didn't allow Maliki’s plane to fly over Iran on its way to Japan. Yep: they see him as siding with the harmful idiots to divide-and-rule the Shia.)

WILL THE ARAB SHIA DIVIDE AND ALLOW THE HARMFUL IDIOTS TO RULE?

Will the strategy of the harmful idiots work?

Unlikely-- highly.

Iran carries a lot of clout among all the Shia, Hakim included. A long time ago, this newsletter had carried a post titled "Double Agents No More" about SCIRI and Daawa. In essence, then, my thinking was that the U.S. may have succeeded in buying these two organizations off. That the money the U.S. had placed in the pockets of the SCIRI and Daawa leaders was of such amounts as to split them off Iran, once and for all. But events since have shown that SCIRI is unlikely to split from Iran. (Even the harmful idiots think so: Recall the arrest by the U.S. of Hakim’s son as he returned from Iran.) In other words, the harmful idiots’ money had always been welcome so long as the idiots worked to install a Shia regime in Iraq. Now that the idiots are catering to the Sunni, albeit with confused uncertainty, under pressure from the Saudis, all bets for the Shia are off. Even Hakim should know that in an American Iraq, he would have to play second fiddle to Iyad Allawi and accept a central government which would control the oil of the south. Why should he?

One should expect Iran to intervene and mend relations between SCIRI and Mahdi–to check their rivalry at each and every turn. Why? The Saudi-inspired policy of building up Sunni solidarity to contain the Arab Shia and Iran is by definition an anti-Shia policy. This policy has the total support of the harmful idiots who are nursing the illusion that they can erect an effective united front of Sunni regimes and Israel against Iran.

To cut to the chase: The anti-Shia policy of the Saudi geniuses, as approved and boosted by the harmful idiots, keeps the Shia out of the Arab camp. Disastrous, really. The Arab Shia, in response, should be aware that the Saudis and the idiots intend to reverse their rise, especially the Saudis. Blocked out of the Saudi-sponsored Sunni front, and the idiots-sponsored mirage of a front among Israel and the weak Arab Sunni regimes, the Shia will have no choice but to seek Iran’s help to protect their recent political gains. Iran, in turn , should reciprocate. Why? The Arab Shia are an Iranian line of defense against the harmful idiots–made more solid by their exclusion by the Saudis in the pan-Sunni front.

The Saudis could’ve opted for an Arab nationalist front to contain Iran. This front, by definition, would be Shia-inclusive. (This was the course recommended by this newsletter.) But that would’ve called for an Arab nationalist leadership in the Kingdom and a more self-respecting policy towards Israel, to force it to return all Arab lands--Palestinian and Syrian--that Israel had occupied on June 4/5, 1967. The harmful idiots wouldn’t stand for this. Therefore, be assured: it’s DEFEAT and FAILURE.

(Note to graduate students: an excellent dissertation topic would focus on the illusions as grounds for U.S. foreign policy. The case can be made that the Iraq affair has moved from one illusion to another. The only way to explain the dominance of illusions is to dig into the cultural egocentrism (and ethnocentrism) of the harmful idiots, heirs to the European colonial past. The disciplines of psychology, religious studies, and cultural anthropology therefore would be needed in reaching for an explanation.)

DIVIDE-AND-RULE THE SUNNI

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, and the harmful idiots have have been trying to divide the Arab Sunni camp:

(1) To divide al-Qaeda on the one hand from, on the other, the rest of the resistance groups: the Islamic Army, Ansar al-Sunnah, Army of the Mujaheedeen, the Phalanges of the Tishreen Revolution, Jaysh al-Rashideen, and so on. The chief method used here is to announce having met with this or that group, in Jordan, to cause a violent backlash by al-Qaeda against that group–and deepen distrust among the resistance groups.

(2) To divide Al-Qaeda on the one hand from, on the other, the clans. In this effort, the clans are encouraged to send their young men as recruits in the armed forces and the police of the puppet state. American and Saudi money probably is pumped into the clans.

WILL THE ARAB SUNNI DIVIDE AND ALLOW THE HARMFUL IDIOTS TO RULE?

To cut to the chase:

From an Arab perspective–and even an American--this policy is outrightly dangerous. Why? Reluctantly I will take a sectarian approach to this. Viewed from a sectarian angle, dividing the Arab Sunni should result in an intra-Arab-Sunni civil war, possibly full scale. That war in the end would see the Arab Sunni camp drained and exhausted. Saudi money and (empty) promises (by a country which has no effective troops) could never replace the solidarity that camp once had and, relatively, still possesses.

Almost certainly the U.S. will be out of Iraq as the American public, capitalist, can no longer bear the huge losses associated with its "investment" in Iraq. This "investment" has produced only negative returns. If anything, the American public’s now paying so much more for gasoline, instead of so much less. As the expenses ("investment") pile up and the returns remain in negative territory, the American public is bound to intensify the pressure to cut losses and save its money. Sooner or later, therefore, the U.S. will have to withdraw. Pressure will continue to build up so long as the losses--financial and other-- continue to mount. (Everything in an advanced and well-settled capitalist culture is measured by money. So even the wounded are factored in not only as human tragedy but, as importantly--if not more--as a "cost" and an "expense" for society for the length of their diability.)

Only a lame duck president is standing in the way of withdrawal.

When the U.S. leaves, you will have a strong Shia front, where differences are mediated by Iran, facing a drained Arab Sunni, where divisions are pushed along by Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Grant it, the Saudis have recruited the Kurdish Peshmerga to "protect" the Arab Sunni. In fact, Masoud Barazani has just offered the Palestinian refugees of Iraq a "home" in Kurdistan. He even offered to dispatch his Peshmerga to protect them in Baghdad. He said they were of "Ahl al-Bayt"–"People of the [Sunni] home"–having suddenly, under the influence of Saudi billions, re-discovered his Sunni roots! Mr. Barazani’s offer should be seen as a reflection of the new Saudi-championed policy of erecting a pan-Sunni front, and paying off Barazani and Talabani to join in. What a waste of billions!

But this policy should throw the Arab Sunni into the laps of the Iran-supported Arab Shia. The Arab Sunni, as the Arab Shia, are Iraqi nationalists first and foremost. As nationalists, they cannot bear the loss of Kirkuk to the de facto Kurdish state in the north. Iran would stand with them to regain Kirkuk, so long as they accept to kick the Americans out. So would Turkey. (Not for the same reason.) Are the Saudis less-than-Arab and therefore willing to let go of Kirkuk?
Wouldn't the ease with which they're willing to bargain away Iraqi Arab territory reason enough to cause a backlash among the Arab Sunni?

A recession in the United States, now a likely possibility, would drive oil prices down, and the Kingdom’s income. The four billion dollars the Saudis are giving the Kurds to make them Sunni again (I’m guessing wildly about the amount), should reduce to one billion, even less. What then? Not to forget that Iran should be all too aware of this Saudi policy and can send messages to the Arab Sunni resistance that it would stand with them and the Arab Shia to regain Kirkuk.

To put it differently, the pan-Sunni front in Iraq entails the loss of Kirkuk to the Kurdish secessionists. While these have now declared themselves Sunni first, Kurdish second, such should reverse fast--as soon as Saudi money runs out. No one but a fool would believe that Talabani and Barazani–and their public–would ever quit the idea of an independent Kurdistan, with Kirkuk as an essential part of it. Their people are mobilized accordingly. A compromise by them of this essential nature should see disgruntlement within the ranks of their followers and the rise of competition to their leadership.

(The PKK, now financed by the idiots to conduct operations inside Iran, could very well be that competition.)

Conclusion: It’s unclear whether the Arab Sunni would self-annihilate under the pressure of Saudi money and Jordanian meddling. While Iran will almost certainly work to keep the Shia united, the Arab puppets of the harmful idiots–and the harmful idiots themselves-- are shooting themselves in the foot by working to divide the Arab Sunni of Iraq.



************************************
NOT THEIR WAR

This blog has maintained in the past that the Brits cannot protect anyone. The performance of their fifteen sailors under Iranian "psychological pressure" proves the point. While Arab resistance fighters put up with some of the most gruesome and de-humanizing torture–physical, cultural, and psychological--at Abu Ghraib, and stood their ground, the fifteen sailors caved in to... nothing. Psychological pressure in such a relatively short duration?

How's the Arab public to see this when it compares it to the incredible resistance of its people at Abu Ghraib? Would that public be justified to detect cowardice on the part of the British sailors?
Can’t blame the sailors, in a way. This ain’t their war! Blame their Prime Minister, all mouth...

These guys and gals can’t protect anyone. Send them home and stop the charade.