"After the thousands of American lives lost and billions spent, it would be tragic if Iraq collapsed again into war or fell prey to Iran or other neighbors because of a security vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal. Officials say that the White House has not ruled out the negotiation of a follow-on military presence. But the administration’s position is that any such proposal must come from the Iraqi government." WashPost lead editorial.
--------------------
IMO, there will be no such proposal from the Maliki or any other conceivable Iraqi government. The de facto rump state of Iraq is now firmly in Iran's orbit and likely to stay there. We created that situation by following neocon jacobin policies that sought to, and succeeded in, reversing the social order in Iraq by empowering the Shia Arab majority. Now we must live with the inevitable result of that revolutionary change. Maliki's Iraq looks east to Iran, not to the distant and alien United States. To say that the Iranians do not want US forces in Iraq is to state the obvious. Shorn of effective control of the Kurdish north and facing a long term guerrilla war against disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, the Shia dominated government will have to concentrate on maintaining itself in power with tacit Iranian assistance.
Al-Qa'ida in Iraq? The Sunni partisans are likely to tolerate or even encourage their escalating levels of operations as part of their struggle with the government.
Chairman Rogers of the HPSCI does not think that Iran will be the dominant "player" in post US Iraq? He said that this morning on MTP. My. My. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-runs-out-in-iraq/2011/04/01/AFwwJGQC_story.html
Noble Charles,
Ah, you must be of a truly catholic order. May I inquire its name?
How envious.
Or is this possible b'coz you're in Acadia?
(Yours truly livin' in a country that denies bein' 3rd. world & havin' resided in another that pretends to be 1st.)
Ol' saw from the chinese: Familiarity breeds contempt.
Posted by: YT | 06 April 2011 at 07:48 AM