Real News: Is Iraq Ready To Explode?

(10 am – promoted by ek hornbeck)

July 29, 2008 – 3 min 10 sec – Scores killed by blasts in Baghdad and Kirkuk could be a forewarning as rival elites fight for power

Three female suicide bombers and a roadside bomb struck Shiite pilgrims taking part in a massive religious procession in Baghdad on Monday. Police said at least 32 people were killed and 102 wounded. The attacks occurred in quick succession in the early morning in the mainly Shiite Karradah district, as tens of thousands of Shiite worshippers streamed toward the pilgrimage site in Kazimiyah, northern Baghdad. Meanwhile at a Kurdish rally in the northern city of Kirkuk, A bomb blast killed at least 15 people and wounded 170 others. The attack occurred while demonstrators gathered to protest a provincial elections law being debated in Parliament. The law would limit the Kurds ability to control oil-rich Kirkuk which they consider to be part of their historical land. Last week Kurdish parties walked out of the Iraqi parliament in protest over the proposed law. Though the law was passed 127 to 13 it was later vetoed by President Jalal Talibani, who is also a Kurd. Though many reports claim violence in Iraq to be at its lowest point in three years, the political situation is still very volatile.


The Nation article by Robert Dreyfuss referred to in the video is Iraq on the Edge:

While everyone’s looking at Iraq’s effect on American politics — and whether or not John McCain and Barack Obama are converging on a policy that combines a flexible timetable with a vague, and long-lasting, residual force — let’s take a look instead at Iraqi politics. The picture isn’t pretty.

Despite the Optimism of the Neocons, which has pushed mainstream media coverage to be increasingly flowery about Iraq’s political progress, in fact the country is poised to explode. Even before the November election. And for McCain and Obama, the problem is that Iran has many of the cards in its hands. Depending on its choosing, between now and November Iran can help stabilize the war in Iraq — mostly by urging the Iraqi Shiites to behave themselves — or it can make things a lot more violent.

There are at least three flashpoints for an explosion, any or all of which could blow up over the next couple of months. (Way to go, Surgin’ Generals!) The first is the brewing crisis over Kirkuk, where the pushy Kurds are demanding control and Iraq’s Arabs are resisting. The second is in the west, and Anbar, where the US-backed Sons of Iraq sahwa (“Awakening”) movement is moving to take power against the Iraqi Islamic Party, a fundamentalist Sunni bloc. And third is the restive Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is chafing at gains made by its Iranian-backed rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).



So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain’s solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama’s solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I’m not sure either “plan” will work.

So the “solution” favored by both U.S. presidential candidates remains: long term occupation of a country that has been trying for five years to free itself from American “liberation”…

18 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Edger on July 29, 2008 at 17:02
      Author

    as McLiberators…. no?

    • banger on July 29, 2008 at 19:51

    So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control.

    Then which American candidate would Iran (which is not that united) favor?

    If I was an Iranian strategist I would favor McCain since he will have no chance of uniting the world against Iran and would have little political force in a divided gov’t, and maybe more importantly would inherit the sycophants that Bush has set up in senior positions of the government. Therefore Iran would have little to fear against an increasingly corrupt and incompetent American military which is more interested in enriching the various robber barons that fund the Republican Party. Besides they have the mainstream media which will declare victory at any and all stages of any conflict and then “forget” it ever said so–easy to do in the United States of Amnesia.  

    • robodd on July 29, 2008 at 20:09

    there is an inherent contradiction between saying the surge is a success (it was intended to stabilize, long term, Iraqi governance, allowing withdrawal) and Petraeus’ refusal to accept a timeline.  The surge is just another broken promise and Iraq has not been fixed.

  1. …so everything must be fine, cause they said so.  I listened to MSNBC yesterday or the day before, when the pundits were having their nightly McCain lovefest.  They were going on and on how McCain had been right about the surge & that Obama should “admit” that the surge “worked”.

    Oddly, too, they didn’t seem inclined to report, very much at all about the multiple bombings over the last few days, or of the unresolved sectarian divisions that were unleashed and continue to plague Iraq, following the US invasion.  

    I guess the pundits don’t want to do or say anything that might lead to McCain being grilled over his (and their) fantasy about how the surge “worked” so well.  

    • Edger on July 30, 2008 at 16:51
      Author

    and apparently the al-Sadr faction stands a good chance of taking control in Baghdad, in Al Kut, and Al Basra. If they do so, they will have not only a majority within the provincial parliament, but also will have decision making power over oil contracts and US military bases, with Basra being the center of the Iraqi oil industry.

    7 min 34 sec – What if Sadr wins Basra election?

    Transcript here

    Sabah al-Nasseri: Provinces critical because they can determine oil and military deals

    • Edger on July 30, 2008 at 16:52
      Author

Comments have been disabled.