Now recall that the Prime Minister of Iraq, Maliki, recently intervened and had US forces stand down from attacking the Shi'ite Mahdi army in November 2006:
"Maliki's decision exposed the growing divergence between the U.S. and Iraqi administrations on some of the most critical issues facing the country, especially the burgeoning strength of Shiite militias." [4]
This also exposed the tenuous and precarious nature of the US presence in Iraq. The US armed forces actually were forced to accept the wishes of Maliki, over their own generals.
"American soldiers rolled up their barbed-wire barricades and lifted a near siege of the largest Shiite Muslim enclave in Baghdad on Tuesday, heeding the orders of a Shiite-led Iraqi government whose assertion of sovereignty had Shiites celebrating in the streets." [5]
The questions this incident provokes are:
What would have happened if the US army didn't accept Maliki's orders?
And, what fraction of the population were "celebrating in the streets," about the US humiliation?
A solid majority of Shi'ites wants the US out of Iraq immediately:
"The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September [2006], found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%)." [6]
And that population comprises our "allies" who secure the supply lines for a continued presence there at all.
From one vantage point, an objective observer might conclude that 'the pieces are in place.'
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
1 | 2
