See the Kurds make up 20% of the Iraqis as do the Sunnis. Years from now someone might realize that when big bro 43 said he wouldn't favor one group over the other he could be accurate as if he allows the Shiites to commit methodical genocide against the Sunnis he is actually favoring 2 groups, the Shiite and Kurds, and he is favoring the 80% solution he has floated-the trick is he is using different numbers, wrong-headed equations, fuzzy math which results in bloodshed.
No one can comprehend the Rove gibberish as even as late as the evening of W's surge speech one contemporaneous article thinks Maliki will cooperate with the elimination of Sadr's militia and another is convinced Maliki won't.
"The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?" At
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10284 notes that the surge might result in regional-wide conflicts as "The reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the majority Shi'ites have not been part of the insurgency. The Shi'ites are attacking the Sunnis, who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shi'ite militias and death squads.
The US owes its presence in Iraq, just as the colonial powers always owed their presence in the Middle East, to the disunity of Arabs. Western domination of the
Muslim world succeeded by not picking a fight with all of the disunited Arabs at the same time.
Attacking the Shi'ite militias while fighting a Sunni insurgency would violate this rule. If Bush ignores US military commanders and expert opinion and accepts the surge option advanced by the delusional neocon allies of Israel's right-wing Likud Party, US troops will be engulfed in general insurgency. This is why
General John Abizaid resigned on January 5. He wants no part of the Republican
Party's sacrifice of US soldiers to sectarian conflict."
How insane is this-"When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the "surge option" of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official "admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." It is a clear sign of exasperation with
Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions."
A Couple of Polarizers at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901332_
pf.html looks at recent history and assumes that big bro 43's puppet, Maliki, will do what will benefit him stating "In refusing to do anything to curtail the anti-Sunni pogroms of Moqtada al-Sadr's legions, Maliki, after all, is just dancin' with the ones that brung him."
Only time will tell but this article's guess is that Maliki won't allow the surge to take out Sadr as "He owes his office to Sadr. More broadly, he is the governmental leader of the Shiites at the very moment they and the Sunnis have embarked on a ghastly civil war. He is nominally also Iraq's prime minister, but if there was even a scintilla of doubt about the true object of his loyalties, it was dispelled by his execution of Saddam Hussein. Maliki is the prime minister of Shiite rage, a position that offers a good deal more security than that of dispassionate prime minister of a nation at war with itself."
How can we understand this? Simple--"If any Americans could truly understand
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, George Bush and Karl Rove should. All three firmly believe that the successful politician must above all cultivate his base -- not that any of them can point to recent successes."
So W knows Maliki is a bad partner for this surge "Yet tonight, President Bush will announce that Maliki has changed. He will also announce that he is sending additional U.S. forces to Iraq, but he's done that before, in almost comparable numbers, to no good effect. What's different this time, we are to believe, is that the Iraqis will join us in trying to suppress the sectarian violence."
Maliki won't cooperate and big bro 43 knows he won't as "Why Bush believes the Iraqi prime minister will actually do this is anybody's guess. For Maliki to cordon off Sadr City is a little like Bush blockading Southern Baptist churches, or surrounding the headquarters of the National Rifle Association and telling everyone to come out with hands up. Bush expects Maliki to turn against his own -- a gambit nowhere to be found in Bush and Rove's own political playbook."
Senator Biden has been suggesting that all W wants to do is allow this fuzzy math-the 80% solution which discounts whom, combined with the surge, to play out until after the next US president is elected and the Middle East problems that W has made will fall onto his agenda.
Related articles:
The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation? At
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10284
A Couple of Polarizers at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901332_
pf.html
No one can comprehend the Rove gibberish as even as late as the evening of W's surge speech one contemporaneous article thinks Maliki will cooperate with the elimination of Sadr's militia and another is convinced Maliki won't.
"The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?" At
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10284 notes that the surge might result in regional-wide conflicts as "The reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the majority Shi'ites have not been part of the insurgency. The Shi'ites are attacking the Sunnis, who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shi'ite militias and death squads.
The US owes its presence in Iraq, just as the colonial powers always owed their presence in the Middle East, to the disunity of Arabs. Western domination of the
Muslim world succeeded by not picking a fight with all of the disunited Arabs at the same time.
Attacking the Shi'ite militias while fighting a Sunni insurgency would violate this rule. If Bush ignores US military commanders and expert opinion and accepts the surge option advanced by the delusional neocon allies of Israel's right-wing Likud Party, US troops will be engulfed in general insurgency. This is why
General John Abizaid resigned on January 5. He wants no part of the Republican
Party's sacrifice of US soldiers to sectarian conflict."
How insane is this-"When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the "surge option" of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official "admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." It is a clear sign of exasperation with
Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions."
A Couple of Polarizers at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901332_
pf.html looks at recent history and assumes that big bro 43's puppet, Maliki, will do what will benefit him stating "In refusing to do anything to curtail the anti-Sunni pogroms of Moqtada al-Sadr's legions, Maliki, after all, is just dancin' with the ones that brung him."
Only time will tell but this article's guess is that Maliki won't allow the surge to take out Sadr as "He owes his office to Sadr. More broadly, he is the governmental leader of the Shiites at the very moment they and the Sunnis have embarked on a ghastly civil war. He is nominally also Iraq's prime minister, but if there was even a scintilla of doubt about the true object of his loyalties, it was dispelled by his execution of Saddam Hussein. Maliki is the prime minister of Shiite rage, a position that offers a good deal more security than that of dispassionate prime minister of a nation at war with itself."
How can we understand this? Simple--"If any Americans could truly understand
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, George Bush and Karl Rove should. All three firmly believe that the successful politician must above all cultivate his base -- not that any of them can point to recent successes."
So W knows Maliki is a bad partner for this surge "Yet tonight, President Bush will announce that Maliki has changed. He will also announce that he is sending additional U.S. forces to Iraq, but he's done that before, in almost comparable numbers, to no good effect. What's different this time, we are to believe, is that the Iraqis will join us in trying to suppress the sectarian violence."
Maliki won't cooperate and big bro 43 knows he won't as "Why Bush believes the Iraqi prime minister will actually do this is anybody's guess. For Maliki to cordon off Sadr City is a little like Bush blockading Southern Baptist churches, or surrounding the headquarters of the National Rifle Association and telling everyone to come out with hands up. Bush expects Maliki to turn against his own -- a gambit nowhere to be found in Bush and Rove's own political playbook."
Senator Biden has been suggesting that all W wants to do is allow this fuzzy math-the 80% solution which discounts whom, combined with the surge, to play out until after the next US president is elected and the Middle East problems that W has made will fall onto his agenda.
Related articles:
The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation? At
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10284
A Couple of Polarizers at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901332_
pf.html
