Their constitution states that they prefer federalism, events on the ground--mass internal and external exodus, ethnic cleansing, suggests that these Iraqi sects have to be separated, but now we see that "The U.S. Embassy, meanwhile, joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians - both Shiite and Sunni - in criticizing a nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines."
Sometimes children have to be forcibly separated for the good of all. The "Balkanization" process has worked before in areas where sectarian hatred threatened the area. Trying it again is better than seeing this bloodshed.
The article "U.S. Military Death Toll Down in Iraq" at
states "On Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told the AP that "dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."
Iraq's constitution lays down a federal system, allowing Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center and west of the country to set up regions with considerable autonomous powers.
Nevertheless, ethnic and sectarian turmoil have snarled hopes of negotiating such measures, especially given deep divisions on sharing the country's vast oil resources. Oil reserves and existing fields would fall mainly into the hands of Kurds and Shiites if such a division were to occur."
the daily for October 1 2007 Informed Comment noted that "One mystery about all the denunciations of the Senate vote is that the resolution the senators passed is just the plan of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a central member of the (Shiite) United Iraqi Alliance, which rules Iraq. Al-Hakim pushed through parliament (by a simple majority with barely a quorum) his plan for an 8-province Shiite confederacy last October. The only concession he had to give was to wait 18 months, (i.e. until next March) to proceed. Of course, the al-Hakim plan differs from that of Biden in not forcing the Sunni Arabs to form a regional government of their own.
(The Sunni Arabs don't like the idea of provincial confederacies, preferring strong central government rule a la France.)
The resemblance between the al-Hakim plan and that of Joe Biden is an embarrassment to ISCI, since the US is not popular in Iraq. Radio Sawa reports in Arabic that Ammar al-Hakim (the son and currently plenipotentiary of Abdul
Aziz, who is in Iran for cancer treatment) denied the similarity and expressed amazement that the US Senate should try to legislate on such a matter. His denials do not strike me as convincing-- and they lack any specifics."
How did the image of the stupid American get so engrained in people's minds throughout the world? al-Hakim can call it whatever he likes but we all know the Iraq parliament passed legislation which mirrors Biden's plan.
The article also states "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is driving the US toward a war against Iran, and authored the draft for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution passed overwhelmingly by the US senate."
W has determined that if he expands the war from Iraq to Iran then he can elongate the war as did "Tricky Dick" back in the war W evaded.
W doesn't think that the US populace will go for another "imminent threat" routine out of the Middle East-especially when the 2 countries have the same name except for the last letter. That is too similar for our apathetic red staters to comprehend.
If we got the next attack centering about the Revolutionary Guards in Iran then maybe big bro 43 can latch onto enough dullards to slip this war through as he's walking out the door. Pity the next president!
The Haaretz - Israel Newsarticle "U.S. said mulling 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guards in Iran" at
states "The New Yorker magazine reported Monday that the U.S. defense chiefs have drawn up new plans for a possible attack on Iran, shifting the focus from a broad bombing assault on suspected nuclear facilities, to "surgical" strikes on Revolutionary Guard bases in Tehran and elsewhere.
According to New Yorker correspondent Seymour Hersh, the shift reflects a Bush Administration redefinition of the war in Iraq, as a "strategic battle between the United States and Iran."
The report, which quotes unnamed former officials and government consultants, states that over the summer, the White House, "pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran."
The article gets to the point about this being a propaganda campaign as "The report cites three developments as responsible for the shift. "First, the
President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign.
The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq."
Just how stupid does W think we are?
Keith Olbermann had the above noted Seymour Hersh as a guest as the article "Hersh: Bush, Cheney 'really want' Iran war" at
details as "Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the "only thing" he's hearing from inside sources is how much President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "really want" to go to war with Iran, and the president's refusal to speak to Iran's leaders shows how little commitment he has to diplomacy.
"He has no interest in talking to anyone he doesn't like," Hersh said of the president appearing on MSNBC's Countdown Monday. "If he would talk to them, I could say to you that there's some reason we may not go to war, but the only thing you hear from inside is that these guys really want to" attack Iran."
They want to get their foot into the door, attack the Revolutionary Guard bases in Tehran and elsewhere and then, after there was a suitable amount of bloodshed
on both sides, escalate the war in Iran to go after their nuclear weapons, oil industry-whatever the dud duo wants.
Hersh said "You'd really think that every problem we have, every IED ... was given to the Iraqis by the Iranians, when in fact Iraq is a cesspool of weaponry, it has been forever," Hersh said.
W's goal of US hegemony without diplomacy is transparent as "The bottom line is, it's real easy, you hear the White House spokeswoman say, 'We're interested in a diplomatic track,'" Hersh said. "Well all he (Bush) has to do is start talking to them, and then you get diplomacy.
He's not talking to them."
Rove used to care about GOP partisan gain but "As the president's term draws to a close, Hersh said he was told that Bush's and Cheney's drive for war trumps their loyalty to their party and its future.
"Cheney and Bush don't give a rats ass about the future of the Republican Party," Hersh said, "when it comes to this."
The article that Olbermann was quizzing Hersh about "The Administration's plan for Iran." at
states "In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran.
"Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people," Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. "The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops." He then concluded, to applause, "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."
The President's position, and its corollary-that, if many of America's problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians-have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack
on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran's known
and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites.
Now the emphasis is on "surgical" strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."
What do the grownups in the administration think? They want to allow our military time to repair itself and want our troops ready for real military needs--not the adventures that W and Cheney have us on in Iraq presently and are planning to submerge us in with Iran.
The article "Joint Chiefs' voice" at
states "Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is troubled by the Iraq war. He thinks it has become such a consuming focus of U.S. attention that it may be overstretching the military and distracting the nation from other threats.
When he steps into his new office at the Pentagon today, replacing Marine Gen. Peter Pace as the senior military adviser to the president and the defense secretary, Mullen
already will be on record expressing his war worries with an unusual degree of candor....
"I understand the frustration over the war. I share it," he told his Senate confirmation hearing July 31. It weighs heavily on the minds of people in the United States, he said, and "it weighs heavily on mine.
I worry about the toll this pace of operations is taking on (the troops), our equipment and on our ability to respond to other crises and contingencies," Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He has made it clear that he agrees with a central tenet of the current U.S. strategy in Iraq - that establishing security is critical to giving the Iraqi government the "breathing space" it needs to find a power-sharing formula. But he also sees limits to how long the military can wait. Mullen's concerns about the impact of the prolonged war on troops and their families are in line with Gates'. Together, they might be expected to push for a quicker drawdown of U.S. troops in the second half of next year than Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, would like."
Besides the real military concern in Iraq is the outsourcing of military functions to mercenaries such as Blackwater. The article "Man Bush chose to lead Pentagon contracting probes left under fire to become Blackwater COO" at
describes another hidden agenda for big bro 43. Whenever there is a commission to made at the expense of our US soldiers or innocent Iraqis, W will have his hand out.
The hatred chokes away any attempts at reason. Iraqis need to kill each other and will continue to do so no matter what the US is doing in their country. W and Cheney play at keeping the military as the last option against Iran, but they are not fooling anyone. They snub Iran. How can that lead to a diplomatic solution? Iran is the winner of W's Arabian misadventure and W can't let that stay as is. 43 will say the words of a "compassionate conservative" while he's secretly planning to stick the knife in your back.