Dystopian Paradox

The financial crises and generally bad economic conditions have been hogging the news, but there is plenty going on in Iraq. Al Jazeera reports four bombings in Baghdad killing a least 32 and wounding dozens.

The surge strategy has been to clear an area in Baghdad and then hold that area with US and Iraq troops remaining in the cleared area. The old ineffectual strategy was to clear and area and then US troops would head back to the green area. That didn’t work because the insurgents would leave an area when the US and Iraqi troops came in, and then reoccupy when the troops left.

However, the surge by itself has not resulted in the level of success that Bush, McCain or the U.S. military would like us to believe. The U.S. has been paying Awakening councils, which are Sunni groups numbering 100,000 fighters who had allied with the U.S. troops to fight Al Qaeda.

Al Jazeera reports that the Maliki government on October 31 will begin paying 54,000 of the Awakening fighters and that will run around $15 million a month. The Al Jazeera article isn’t entirely clear, but apparently the U.S. will gradually turn over control of the remaining 46,000 Sunni fighters to the Maliki government.

The common enemy of the Sunni and Shiite at the moment is Al Qaeda, which is not the force in Iraq that it was because of the U.S paying the Sunnis to fight Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is neutralized, will there be any reason for Sunnis and Shiite to cooperate other than a continuing US force presence? If our presence is what will keep them from slaughtering each other, how long are we going to stay there?

Obama’s position is to end the war in Iraq soon. This stance is anathema to Bush, McCain and the neocons. Bush wants us there for as long as it takes to preserve his legacy, as if he had a positive one preserve. McCain wants us there as long as it takes to win. High echelon military have come under the control of executive branch which has embraced neocon objectives. They are all there to win.

Question is, what does “win” mean? That definition most likely varies depending on whether you’re talking to Bush, McCain, the neocons or the military. The term may have a different meaning for each of these parties six months from now.

If Obama takes office in January, hopefully he will not embrace the neocon agenda, which is to bully the non-democratic governments around the globe by threat or action of the U.S. military to become democratic. The neocon agenda got us into the Iraq mess. We’ve got enough problems at home and should not pursue the role of world crusader.