Politics > Politics-Misc > Bush's state of dis-union, an incredible mess, and even preparing fora wider war, this time on parts of Pakistan
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-Misc |
| User: |
"B.T.World" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2008 09:00:54 PM |
| Object: |
Bush's state of dis-union, an incredible mess, and even preparing fora wider war, this time on parts of Pakistan |
1. The state of the (Iraqi) union
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA30Ak01.html
I say this to the evil Bush - leave my country.
We do not need you and your army of darkness.
We don't need your planes and tanks.
We don't need your policy and your interference.
We don't want your democracy and fake freedom.
Get out of our land.
- Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Shi'ite leader
The George W Bush-sponsored Iraqi "surge" is now one year old. The US
$11 billion-a-month (and counting) Iraqi/Afghan joint quagmire keeps
adding to the US government's staggering over $9 trillion debt (it was
"only" $5.6 trillion when Bush took power in early 2001).
On the ground in Iraq, the state of the union - Bush's legacy -
translates into a completely shattered nation with up to 70%
unemployment, a 70% inflation rate, less than six hours of electricity
a day and virtually no reconstruction, although White House-connected
multinationals have bagged more than $50 billion in competition-free
contracts so far. The gleaming reconstruction success stories of
course are the Vatican-sized US Embassy in Baghdad - the largest in
the world - and the scores of US military bases.
Facts on the ground also attest the "surge" achieved no "political
reconciliation" whatsoever in Iraq - regardless of a relentless US
corporate media propaganda drive, fed by the Pentagon, to proclaim it
a success. The new law to reverse de-Ba'athification - approved by a
half-empty Parliament and immediately condemned by Sunni and secular
parties as well as former Ba'athists themselves - will only exacerbate
sectarian hatred.
What the "surge" has facilitated instead is the total balkanization of
Baghdad - as well as the whole of Iraq. There are now at least 5
million Iraqis among refugees and the internally displaced - apart
from competing statistics numbering what certainly amounts to hundreds
of thousands of dead civilians. So of course there is less violence;
there's hardly any people left to be ethnically cleansed.
Everywhere in Iraq there are myriad signs of balkanization - not only
in blast wall/partitioned Baghdad. In the Shi'ite south, the big prize
is Basra, disputed by at least three militias. The Sadrists - the
voice of the streets - are against regional autonomy; the Supreme
Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC)- which controls security - wants Basra as
the key node of a southern Shi'iteistan; and the Fadhila party - which
control the governorate - wants an autonomous Basra.
In the north, the big prize is oil-rich Kirkuk province, disputed by
Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkmen; the referendum on Kirkuk has been
postponed indefinitely, as everyone knows it will unleash a bloodbath.
In al-Anbar province, Sunni Arab tribes bide their time collaborating
with the US and controlling the exits to Syria and Jordan while
preparing for the inevitable settling of scores with Shi'ites in
Baghdad.
Obama and Hillary vs Iraqis
Meanwhile, in the Democratic party presidential race, Hillary Clinton,
who voted for the war on Iraq, viciously battles Kennedy clan-
supported Barack Obama, who opposed the war, followed at a distance by
John "can a white man be president" Edwards, who apologized for his
initial support for the war. Obama, Edwards and Clinton basically
agree, with some nuance, the "surge" was a fluke.
They have all pledged to end the war if elected. But Edwards is the
only pre-candidate who has explicitly called for an immediate US troop
withdrawal - up to 50,000, with nearly all of the remaining out within
a maximum of 10 months. Edwards insisted Iraqi troops would be trained
"outside of Iraq" and no troops would be left to "guard US bases".
For their part, both Clinton and Obama believe substantial numbers of
troops must remain in Iraq to "protect US bases" and "to fight al-
Qaeda in Iraq". This essentially means the occupation grinding on.
Both never said exactly how many troops would be needed: they could be
as many as 75,000. Both have steadfastly refused to end the "mission"
before 2013.
It's hard to envision an "occupation out" Obama when among his chief
advisers one finds former president Jimmy Carter's national security
adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski - the "grand chessboard" ideologue who
always preached American domination of Eurasia - and former Middle
East negotiator Dennis Ross, who always fought for Israel's dominance
of the "mini-chessboard", the Middle East.
So far Obama has not given any signs he would try to counter the logic
of global US military hegemony conditioned by control of oil; that's
why the US is in Iraq and Africa, that's the reason for so much
hostility towards Venezuela, Iran and Russia. As for Clinton - with
the constant references to "vital national security interests" -
there's no evidence this twin-headed presidency would differ from Bush
in wanting to install a puppet, pliable, perennial, anti-Iranian,
peppered-with-US-military-bases regime in Iraq.
But more than US presidential candidates stumbling on how to position
themselves about Iraq, what really matters is what Iraqis themselves
think. According to Asia Times Online sources in Baghdad, apart from
the three provinces in Iraqi Kurdistan, more than 75% of Sunnis and
Shi'ites alike are certain Washington wants to set up permanent
military bases; this roughly equals the bulk of the population in
favor of continued attacks against US troops.
Furthermore, Sunni Arabs as a whole as well as the Sadrists are united
in infinite suspicion of the key Bush-mandated "benchmark": the
eventual approval by the Iraqi Parliament of a new oil law which would
in fact de-nationalize the Iraqi oil industry and open it to Big Oil.
Iraqi public opinion as a whole is also suspicious of what the Bush
administration wants to extract from the cornered, battered Nuri al-
Maliki government: full immunity from Iraqi law not only for US troops
but for US civilian contractors as well. The empire seems to be
oblivious to history: that was exactly one of ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini's most popular reasons to dethrone the Shah of Iran in 1979.
Too many fish in the sea
It's impossible to overestimate the widespread anger in Baghdad, among
Sunnis and Shi'ites alike, for what has essentially been the
balkanization of the city as negotiated by US commanders with a rash
of militias; the occupiers after all are only one more militia among
many, although better equipped. Now there are insistent rumors - again
- in Baghdad that the occupation, allied with the government-
sanctioned Badr Organization - is preparing an anti-Sadrist blitzkrieg
in oil-rich Basra.
The daily horror in Iraq has all but been erased from US corporate
media narrative. But in Baghdad, now virtually a Shi'ite city like
Shiraz, Salafi-jihadi suicide bombers continue to attack Shi'ite
markets or funerals - especially in mixed neighborhoods, even those
only across the Tigris from the Green Zone. Sectarian militias -
although theoretical allies of the occupation, paid in US dollars in
cash - continue to pursue their own ethnic cleansing agenda. And the
"surge" continues to privilege air strikes which inevitably produce
scores of civilian "collateral damage".
The Sunni Arab resistance continues to be the "fish" offered
protection by the "sea" of the civilian population. All during the
"surge", the Sunni Arab guerrillas always kept moving - from west
Baghdad to Diyala, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Kirkuk provinces and even
to the northern part of Babil province. After the collapse of fuel
imports from Turkey used to drive the Iraqi power grid, Baghdad and
other Iraqi major cities are most of the time mired in darkness. Fuel
shortages are the norm. In addition, the Sunni Arab resistance makes
sure sabotage of electricity towers and stations remains endemic.
Contrary to Iraqi government propaganda, only very few among the at
least 1 million Iraqis exiled in Syria since the beginning of the
"surge" - mostly white-collar middle class - have come back. They are
Sunni and Shi'ite alike. People - mostly Sunni - are still fleeing the
country. The Shi'ite urban middle class fears there will inevitably be
a push by the Sunni Arab resistance - supported and financed by the
ultra-wealthy Sunni Gulf monarchies - to "recapture" Baghdad. This
includes of course the hundreds of thousands of Baghdad Sunnis forced
to abandon their city because of the "surge".
As for the Sadrists, they are convinced the 80,000-strong Sunni Arab
"Awakening Councils" - al-Sahwah, in Arabic - gathered in Anbar
province are de facto militias biding their time and practicing for
the big push. It's fair to assume thousands still keep tight
connections with the Salafi-jihadis (including most of all al-Qaeda in
the Land of the Two Rivers) they are now supposedly fighting.
Considering the sectarian record of the US-backed Maliki government -
which, as well as the Sadrists, considers the Awakening Councils as US-
financed Sunni militias - there's no chance they will be incorporated
into the Iraqi army or police.
One of the Awakening Council leaders, Abu Marouf, a Saddam Hussein
"security officer" before the 2003 invasion and then a commander of
the influential Sunni Arab guerrilla group the 1920 Revolutionary
Brigades, all but admitted to The Independent's Patrick Cockburn the
consequences will be dire if they are not seen to be part of the so-
called "reconciliation" process. All this amounts to a certainty: a
new battle of Baghdad is all but inevitable, and could happen in 2008.
Occupied of the world, unite
As the occupation/quagmire slouches towards its fifth year, it's
obvious the US cannot possibly "win" the Iraqi war - either on a
military or political level - as Republican presidential pre-candidate
John McCain insists. Sources in Baghdad tell Asia Times Online if not
in 2008, by 2009 the post-"surge" Sunni Arab resistance is set to
unleash a new national, anti-sectarian, anti-religion-linked-to-
politics offensive bound to seal what an overwhelming majority of
Iraqis consider the "ideological and cultural" US defeat.
Already now a crucial Sunni-Shi'ite nationalist 12-party coalition is
emerging - oblivious to US designs and divorced from the US-backed
parties in power (the Shi'ite SIIC and Da'wa and the two main Kurdish
parties - the Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan
Democratic Party ). They have already established a consensus in three
key themes: no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry, either via the
new oil law or via dodgy deals signed by the Kurds; no breakup of Iraq
via a Kurdish state (which implies no Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk); and
an end to the civil war.
The 12-party coalition includes almost all Sunni parties, the
Sadrists, the Fadhila party, a dissidence of Da'awa and the
independents in the Iraqi Parliament. And they want as many factions
as possible of the Sunni Arab resistance on board - including the
crucial tribal leaders of Awakening.
The ultimate success of this coalition in great measure should be
attributed to negotiations led by Muqtada al-Sadr. The Sadrists are
betting on parliamentary elections in 2009, when they sense they may
reach a non-sectarian, nationalist-based majority to form a
government. This would definitely bury Iraq's Defense Minister Abdul
Qader Mohammed Jassim's recent estimate that a "significant" number of
US troops would have to remain in Iraq at least for another 10 years,
until 2018.
Even barring a possible Dr Strangelove-like attack on Iran, Bush is
set to leave to Obama or Clinton, apart from a nearly $10 trillion
black hole, a lost war in Afghanistan, total chaos in Pakistan, an
open wound in Gaza, a virtual civil war in Lebanon and the heart of
darkness of Iraq.
Both Obama - still unwilling to defend progressive ideas on
progressive grounds - and drowning-in-platitudes Clinton owe it to US
and world public opinion to start detailing, in "the fierce urgency of
now", how they realistically plan to confront such a state of
(dis)union.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is
Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at
pepeasia@yahoo.com.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. US homes in on militants in Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - Another piece of the United States' regional jigsaw is in
place with the completion of a military base in Afghanistan's Kunar
province, just three kilometers from Bajaur Agency in Pakistan's
Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
Pakistani intelligence quarters have confirmed to Asia Times Online
that the base, on a mountain top in Ghakhi Pass overlooking Pakistan,
is now operational. (This correspondent visited the area last July and
could clearly see construction underway. See A fight to the death on
Pakistan's border Asia Times Online, July 17, 2007.)
The new US base is expected to serve as the center of
clandestine special forces' operations in the border region. The
George W Bush administration is itching to take more positive action -
including inside Pakistan - against Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda
militants increasingly active in the area and bolstering the
insurgency in Afghanistan.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has officially rejected US
proposals to expand the US presence in Pakistan, either through
unilateral covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations or by
joint operations with Pakistani security forces, but this is not
necessarily the end of the matter, especially as the situation in
Afghanistan deteriorates. According to reports, Mike McConnell, the
director of US national intelligence, and CIA director General Michael
Hayden visited Pakistan this month to meet with Musharraf.
A senior Pakistani security official explained to Asia Times Online,
"American special forces have carried out clandestine operations in
the past, and Pakistan was not informed. The Taliban and al-Qaeda also
did not realize what was happening with the quick-as-a-wink hit-and-
run operations in the tribal areas. Pakistani intelligence only knew
of the operations after they happened. They included the killing of
high-value Taliban and al-Qaeda commanders and high-value arrests,"
the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"However, with the new Kunar base, American special forces will carry
out extended operations, which means a limited war against Taliban and
al-Qaeda assets in the tribal areas. These clandestine operations can
be done with or without Pakistan's consent."
In response, the initial militant action is expected to be the
relocation of its key leadership away from the immediate danger area.
Efforts to disrupt the vital supply lines of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO)from Pakistan into Afghanistan will be stepped up.
A further option is to increase terror operations inside Pakistan as a
warning that the militants should be left alone.
The Taliban leadership is aware of the danger posed by the new
American base. Several powerful attacks were mounted while it was
under construction, but they only managed to cause delays.
The pressing problem is to find a new safe haven for the high profile
al-Qaeda leadership. The area on both sides of the border - the
Chitral - is characterized by inhospitable jungles and mazes of
mountains and rivers, stretching from Noorestan and Kunar provinces in
Afghanistan to the Bajaur Valley. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is
known to have stayed in the area. It is now a question of finding a
safer location for him - if he is still in the area - and his
colleagues.
US intelligence spotted bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, twice
in Bajaur Agency and attacked the area with Predator drones. Zawahiri
was unscathed, but several militants and civilians were killed. Local
Taliban sources tell Asia Times Online that Zawahiri had been moving
in the area for more than 30 hours before he was spotted and targeted.
Apparently, he was to meet with bin Laden.
Going after NATO's arteries
When Pakistani militants occupied Pakistan's strategic tunnel, which
connects Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)
to the cantonment town of Kohat in NWFP, the aim was to attack
military convoys. These, the Taliban realized, were transporting
supplies to Kohat air base, from where they were being flown to the
American base in Khost in Afghanistan.
This move has effectively opened a new front in Kohat and Darra Adam
Khel - the biggest arms and ammunition-manufacturing area in the
region. There were four attacks last week.
Another senior security official told Asia Times Online, "Pakistan has
conceded to many of the [Pakistani] Taliban's demands for peace, such
as the release of fellow tribesmen. But if they demand something like
the closure of NATO's supply lines from Pakistan, it is beyond
Pakistan's orbit. The Americans sought Pakistan's cooperation [in the
"war on terror"] , in return they pledged billions of dollars in aid.
But they wanted steady supply lines for NATO forces in Afghanistan,"
the official said.
"Pakistan has stretched itself to the limit for the sake of peace in
the country, it has even struck deals with al-Qaeda for it to stop
attacking Pakistan. But if they [al-Qaeda and militants] don't
appreciate Pakistan's interests and compulsions, then, like [US
President George W] Bush said after 9/11, defeat is not an option.
This is 2008, and we have the world's most modern army and equipment.
This is not the time of British India, when only a regiment could
fight against tribals, and defeat them. We can spare far more force
and if we want to, we can destroy them," the official said.
Change in militants' tactics
Last week, militants used improvised explosive devices near Peshawar
to blow up a military convoy. This is the first such incident of its
kind near a city against the Pakistani army. Previously, such events
only happened in the tribal areas.
This indicates that while the tribesmen might be facing a modern army,
rather than the thin British force of years ago, the army now faces an
urban guerrilla battle, not one limited to remote mountains.
Clearly, the militants, linked to a particular branch of al-Qaeda
called the Tafkiris, are preparing for an Iraq-style guerrilla battle
against Pakistan. The Tafkiris - who class as infidels all non-
practicing Muslims - include Tahir Yuldashev, leader of the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan, Sheikh Essa, Pakistani Baitullah Mehsud and
some factions of banned Pakistani militant organizations.
The overriding objective of the Tafkiris goes beyond simple terror
attacks. They aim to force Islamabad to either follow their dictates
or become ensnared in the conflict against NATO. Better. Pakistan
would stand neutral in this regional war theater. (See Military brains
plot Pakistan's downfall Asia Times Online, September 26, 2007.)
Last Saturday, Pakistani security forces unearthed a militant cell
operating from the military city of Rawalpindi and recovered a huge
cache of weapons. It is believed militants were planning devastating
attacks on military installations. However, massive terrors operations
in the federal capital of Islamabad are the biggest fear. Some believe
these might be just round the corner.
But the real danger is the aim to drive a wedge between Islamabad and
the NATO-Washington nexus, which would leave Pakistan potentially
fatally exposed to the militants.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He
can be reached at
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
