The Bush administration is actively working to set their puppet back into a position of power in the new Iraqi authority, as a leader of a 'security' branch that they just created out of the blue sky.
Yesterday, Reuters reported that a meeting was scheduled to take place at the Iraqi president's offices, during which, the 'elected leaders of Iraq would focus on finalizing an agreement to set up a 'National Security Council'. These weren't the negotiations on forming a 'unity' government that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was busy hitting them over the head for not completing yesterday. "I am the one who's saying, Khalilzad was quoted, 'The country is bleeding, you need to move'. Turns out, the Bush regime decided they'd go ahead and impose unity since the Iraqi ascendants wouldn't agree to come together on their own quickly enough for them.
Arab Times quoted several sources who said that Allawi is being positioned to lead the Council. "The job was created for him, " a senior political source said. "We have been discussing it for at least two months. "
It's no coincidence that the new agency's justification is contained in the name, 'National Security Council'. That's the same ploy the Bush regime uses here at home when they want to put a new subversion of democracy past us. They label their muckraking as vital to national security, stifling accountability by hiding everything behind a wall of manufactured secrecy. The Bush regime claims that their every exercise of our military and foreign policy is bolstered by the authorization Congress passed in response to the attacks on 9-11.
The defense of 'national security' is their standard justification for subverting the will of Congress. That's what the new Allawi post is designed to do. The Bush regime's plan is to subvert the Iraqi votes that this White House and all of their conservative cohorts so thoroughly celebrated.
This is Bush democracy, installed and backed up by the justification of our nation's military force. Allawi was right on message yesterday expressing concern about what he called a 'civil war' in Iraq. He can't claim to be defending the Iraqis in his new post if he doesn't first establish and highlight an enemy.
Allawi is supposed to put an end to all of the violence by the mere virtue of his position in the propped up ruling authority. But there was violence and unrest when Allawi was installed as 'prime minister' in the interim 'authority', and, there will be violence and unrest when he's re-installed as the head of this new, "parallel" authority. Allawi is intended to take charge of security, the economy, and other policy decisions which, if it goes down, is supposed to stifle the 'elected' Shia majority's influence.
This represents the first U.S. grab at overt influence in the new Iraqi regime since the 'elections'. Allawi is also the most visible U.S. ally to assume power in Iraq since the first junta with him at the head was established to replace our other installed puppet, Chalabi. Chalabi, the first usurper to benefit from Bush's invasion and occupation, won only 0.5% of the vote. Allawi managed only about 17%.
Interesting that the justification given for all of this political maneuvering is that Allawi will somehow represent the interests of the Sunnis and defuse the violence. I can't imagine that the Sunnis would choose the man who worked so hard to put their allies out of power in Iraq as their savior now, even though he hails as a former Batthist. Most Iraqis remember Allawi aligned with Bush in their bloody assault on Fallujah which killed scores of women and children under the guise of hunting terrorists.
I think there's almost zero chance the violence will abate just because this propped up regime decides to 'unify', behind anyone, unless it could be followed by our immediate exit. If the Iraqi citizens get a hold of this arrangement, there could actually be an escalation of violence. How can the Iraqis have any confidence in a ruling authority that openly subverts their will to bend to the wishes of the American occupiers?
Look at the outcome of our own election debacle that saw the Supreme Court stop the counting of ballots to assure the ascendancy of Bush. Look at what has happened to our country as he has ruled. The corruption that brought him into office has infected all of government. Sunnis need to stay committed, as all do, to the process they have been offered, if they are to wrest back control of their political destiny.
Our military has been engaged in 'anti-insurgency' campaigns along with the Shia-dominated army units. I regard these activities as suppression of Sunni factions. The Kurds have been no more tolerant. They've also been involved in skirmishes with these groups. All of this directed from a central authority propped up by our military. The natural instinct of the Sunni against the installed authority in the beginning kept them from a working measure of representation in the new authority and in the constitution. There was an agreement that allowed the Sunnis to offer amendments to the constitution. I hope those who were responsible for the original document allow the amendments to be adopted to allow the Sunnis to achieve a greater measure of control over their own territory and get an equal share of revenue and resources. That is not the case now, but the balance of power within the Iraqi government shouldn't be imposed from the outside, and certainly not by the invading occupiers.
Iraqis should assert their own will within this process, within all aspects of the political landscape that is developing. Going to the polls to vote was a brave act in such a turbulent, violent atmosphere. It is also a necessary act if, one day, they hope to have a chance to regain control over their own destiny without the heavy handed influence and interference of America and our military.
But, how can anyone who knows a wit about the workings and influences of government be sanguine about the specter of the U.S. destruction of a sovereign nation's country and government, and the same marauding military overseeing and shepherding it's replacement? Despite Bush's own blather about spreading democracy, we are witnessing imperialism at it's worse. Everything about our invasion and occupation of Iraq follows almost any definition of a rouge nation bent on oppression and domination. Why should any view of the events in Iraq, including the installation of puppets and the subsequent elections, be immune from concern and alarm about the immorality and poisoning corruption of this type of military expansionism?
We should celebrate the bravery of the individuals who hope to salvage their country out of the shards we have laid at their feet. Their efforts may, someday, bring the factions in Iraq together in a productive, working government. But, they won't achieve anything lasting or meaningful until Bush stops trying to impose his own imperious version of democracy on the Iraqis.