On 11/16/06, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie writes:
> Baker, Gates, et al. are engaged in
> wishful thinking if Tehran or Damascus or anyone can do much in Iraq
> that is in Washington's interest (supposing that Washington knows what
> its best interests in Iraq are, which is far from clear either).
========================
I don't think the US expects that the Iranians and Syrians will act on the
basis of "Washington's interest." But the Americans are hoping that Tehran
and Damascus will see it as being in their own interests to a) normalize
political and economic relations with the US and its European allies and b)
stabilize the Iraq situation so the ethnic conflicts in that country don't
become generalized in the Middle East, possibly leading to wider conflicts
involving themselves, the Turks, Saudis, and others. Whether this is
"wishful thinking" remains to be seen. If the parties don't know this yet
because they haven't explored the possibilities, how can we be so sure?
It sure is in Tehran's and Damascus's interests to have normal
economic relations with the US and the EU and to have a stable Iraq as
their neighbor. I'd think that way, too, if I were running either
country's government, with the same political outlook as I have now.
What I question is the notion that anyone can stabilize Iraq,
especially while US troops (even after reductions) still remain in the
country. _That_ seems to me to be wishful thinking.
I'd also question the notion that stability in Iraq is in Washington's
interests, or at least the faction that favors the continuing special
relation between Israel and the US.
Moreover, it shouldn't be assumed that the forces within the Shia and Sunni
camps which are bent on ethnic cleansing and civil war are stronger than
those who want to avoid it. On the Shia side, al-Sadr is trying to head off
a civil war, as are the Baathists on the Sunni side who are probably more
influential than the sectarian fundamentalist insurgents.
Sadr has indeed made such efforts, but so far his efforts have yet to
bear any fruit, as far as I can see. He seems to be a decent man with
the right politics for Iraq, but his following is not national yet.
The problem is that the more the reprisal killings and population transfers
continue in the streets on a daily basis, the harder it becomes to reach an
accomodation from above. That is what some US politicians mean, whether they
are right or not, when they say they want to impose "deadlines" for a US
withdrawal to force the contending parties represented in the Iraqi
government to compromise on power-sharing and oil revenues before conditions
on the ground completely spiral out of control and engulf American troops.
Do the factions represented in the Iraqi government have any control
over the degree and kind of violence? That, too, is questionable.
The reason why Dawa, SCIRI, etc. have not come out for immediate US
withdrawal is that they have little hope of controlling Iraq on their
own, not being all that popular among Shi'is beyond their most
long-standing followings and not at all capable of fending off Sunni
guerrillas by themselves. As for the Sunni side, many Sunni fighters
-- especially the sort responsible for the Samarra mosque bombing and
the like -- probably do not have any representatives in the government
at all.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
