Pat Buchanon has some interesting observations about recent events in Iraq that got barely a mention in the MSM:
Is America preparing to pull out without victory?....So it would seem. For it is difficult to draw any other conclusion from the just-completed Rumsfield mission. Standing beside our defence secretary in Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaffari called for the speedy withdrawl of U.S. forces. The top U.S. commander, Gen George Casey, also standing beside Rumsfield said "fairly substantial" withdrawls of...U.S. troops in Iraq could begin by spring.
Pat points out that Bushco might be planning to get out because of the war's increasing unpopularity, which is only likely to increase as American's realize they are fighting and dying to prop up a regime like the one in Iran.
More importantly, however, is Pat's point about the growing friendship between the new Iraqi government and Iran. He points out that while no American official has been allowed to meet with Sistani in person, Iran's foreign minister was recently invited to see him. At the same time, Jaafari and eight ministers just visited Iran. According to Juan Cole in a recent Salon piece, Iran offered everything but the kitchen sink to the new government. And we know that Jaafari wanted Iranian troops to come in to help with security and troop training, that deal only fell apart under immense American pressure. Juan said:
"The Bush Adminstration cannot have been filled with joy when Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari and eight high-powered ministers paid an extremely friendly visit to Tehran this week. The two governments went onto a tizzy of wheeling and and dealing...Oil pipelines, port access, pilgrimage, trade, security, military assistance, were all on the table in Terhan. All the sorts of contracts and deals the US Vice President Dick Cheney had imagined for Halliburtin, and that the Pentagon Neoconservatives had hoped for Isreal, were headed instead due east."
http://www.juancole/2005/07/advantage-iran-my-article-at-salon.html
So, back to Pat:
U.S. forces in Iraq are thus fighting in defence of a Shia-dominated regime that sees its future in close collaboration with an "axis of evil nation"...
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6812
Could Pat Blowhard be right? Maybe so, and here's why. He has a great point about the whole Iraq/Iran thing and the role of Sistani. Remember, Sistani greased our way in to over throw Saddam, but that does not mean he liked us, we were just a tool. His big fear? That we would get in, but would hand power back to the Sunni's minus Saddam, just as the British had done previously when the shit started hitting the fan in thier "protectorate". Our great fear was what is happening now, that we would go in only to see Iran reap the spoils. Remember, Bushco had no interest in "free elections", the original plan was to replace Saddam with Chalibi, and when that failed to set up McArthur style protectoriate for five years to "shepard" Iraq towards "Democracy"...ie... into becoming a reliable client state. Sistani played his cards masterfully though, he kept the Shia under control while insisting on "one man one vote". We have recently learned that Bushco did everything possible to rig the elections for our puppet Allawi, but to no avail, and now the longer we stay the more likely it is that Iran and Sistani will win the war as Juan Cole stated.
But what would we gain by leaving? My guess is that Bushco hopes that if America pulls the rug out from under the current government it will fall, and the Sunnis will take power again. Even though they would not be on "our" side, this would be a better outcome for us than an Iranian dominated Iraq. In otherwords, we will be better off with Saddam-lite.
I never would have believed that Bush and the Neocons would be influenced by facts on the ground, but it is beginning to appear that they might be afterall.
Another fact that leads me to believe this is something Pat missed, the dramtic move away from the "war on terror" retoric that occurred at the same time. Remember Gen Myers odd statement last week, that he never liked the WOT terminology because it leads people to think this struggle should be waged by guys "in uniform"? Wasn't that what Bush's "pre-emptive" policy was all about? That we would take action before being attacked in the future, primarily through military means, and not in the "whimpy" Clintonistic way of covert ops and diplomacy? Sounds like a complete about face to me.
Roundtable on This Week discussing this issue now!