Some interesting developments have occurred that seem just a little too coincidental. First we hear, via cnn.com of all places, two recent front page stories concerning Iraq. Then via ThinkProgress, we hear of a conservative lobbying group suddenly taking interest in "former" prime minister Allawi as a possible replacement for Maliki.
Haven't we been down this road before.
First the cnn.com reports. CNN has been bashed here (correctly, IMO) for leading its web news page with lightweight fare, even as far more significant developments in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, a Justice Dept. gone haywire, etc., languish well out of the "lead stories pages." If they receive coverage at all.
How strange then that there should suddenly be top billing for two Iraq stories in two consecutive days. First, we read about "U.S. Officials re-thinking democracy for Iraq." While hardly earth-shattering as a development, we suddenly see an alternate approach for stability in Iraq. Stability being a key condition set forth for troop withdrawal to begin.
Then today, we read, again as the lead story (as of noon EDT) that "Intelligence Officials Have Doubts" about Maliki. Specifically his ability to push forward a legislative agenda (Oil Law, anyone?). Even more disturbingly, we see references to Carl Levin and Hilary Clinton also expressing a desire for Maliki to be replaced.
Finally, via ThinkProgress a new development—one in which a powerful conservative lobbying firm, stacked with Bush loyalists, is actively arguing that Maliki should be replaced indeed, with Allawi. The article references specific circumstances of Allawi's collaborative tendencies.
Three development that, when taken together, recall the U.S.'s cold war history of replacing leaders we didn't like with dictators who would toe the U.S. Line, even while using whatever brutal means necessary to maintain order at home. Pinochet replacing the murdered Allende comes immediately to mind.
It's a sad but inevitable conclusion that none of us can rule out ANY action of our government, and I have no doubt that a coup-type event, engineered with U.S. cooperation would be considered an acceptable tactic by those desparate to run out the Bush clock on Iraq. Imagine the optimistic predictions of "turning the corner" after such a coup. After all, isn't new leadership just what the Democrats were calling for?
Even as we all gasp at Bush's statements about Vietnam and Iraq, I submit that the model of the Chile dictatorship might be gaining plausibility within the ranks of an out-of-control administration.
After all when you're grasping at straws--any straw will do.