An interesting article here…
Bremer had to know that shutting down the newspaper and the arrest of Sadr’s aide would spark problems. If it was news to him he needs to be replaced quickly.
What purpose would it serve to purposely provoke the Shia?
Could it be political as the Op-ed states?
Maybe Bushco doesn’t want to turn over governing after all?
Maybe they were stupid and blind?
Perhaps they thought our troops would crush Sadr’s army in a direct confrontation?
Maybe Sadr is a dangerous person who needs to be dealt with at some point?
I find it an absolute tragedy that it appears that the US has no good options on Iraq. I just can’t fathom how anything thinks that this is a war we should have fought. But letting a dangerous person – as Sadr has indeed proved to be – gather power certainly wouldn’t have helped us withdraw any sooner.
I agree there are no good choices.
I believe that Bushco bought entirely into Chalabi’s “stories”. I think they honestly believed we would be welcomed as heroes and saviors.
And when that didn’t happen…well…We made a mistake is not in their vocabulary.
I don’t think that this chaos can be part of any US plan.
If the Administration wanted a bullshit excuse to hold more power after June 30, I’m sure they would want one that:
Maybe some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, but this one doesn’t make any sense.
Then why does Bush keep insisting that, despite these extreme circumstances, the scheduled handover of power to the interim Iraqi government on June 30 absolutely will not be delayed?
Even after the Iraqi government is given “power,” there still will be American troops all over Iraq for years to come. (How many years depends on whether Bush or Kerry wins the election in November – but, in either case, they will be there for years.) The latest Shi’ite uprisings, and the corpse desecrations by the mob in Fallujah, will not change any of that. I’m always ready to believe the worst of GWB, but in this particular instance, I can’t see how even more violence in Iraq furthers his administration’s agenda, thus I can’t see why he would want to provoke it.
It’s certainly interesting, even more so if one thinks this might actually be a pro-active US policy rather than what has become the reactive norm.
So, in essence, we’re fishing around for reasons why Bremer is pushing a vocal, somewhat radical and organised Shia group into a corner where it has to react . . .
How about divide and rule, break up the monolith and factionalsie Shiism. Then play one against the other for the ear of the Emperor – role model being, say, the British in India.
Given that moqtada al-Sadr has just recently made a bid for the spotlight, one might suppose he is trying to get himself a slice of the post-June action.
Maybe it’s all just so much posturing by Moqtada al-Sadr and Bremer in the lead up to June 30th, and not, as Ms Klien suggests, a sign that the so-called transfer has been cancelled . . .
Lip service.
It is, after all, only April 7.
Been following this closely and have seen US spokesmen basically saying that this theory is true - they are taking the opportunity provided by the extra troops with the rotation overlap to deal with the guy and his militia now.
paraphrasing Kimmit or some other general type on CNN - ‘we knew closing his newspaper would provoke a response, we had plans.’ Sorry - no cites but this theme comes over repeatedly in interviews.
And it does make a certain sense from a certain perspective- lancing the boil before the the nominal handover of sovereignty because they know the Iraqi security forces can’t/won’t be able to do it. And it fits with the continued coalition inability to admit the resistance is more than just saddam holdouts and ‘bad’ foreigners. Kill the rotten apples and everything will be fine, except of course that every innocent piece of ‘collateral damage’, inescapable when this sort of firepower is used in urban areas, creates more resistance.
It’ll probably work in the short term but in the long term it just stores up more hatred. The US and the UK have a tiger by the tail and they can’t let go.
Why go with conspiracy when incompetance is a much more obvious answer?
tagos, you and your sources are talking about something different entirely. The OP and his link refer to this current violence being part of a master plan to extend total control past June 30 - to keep the chaos and violence going for months at least.
Your sources discuss dealing with a problem ASAP - to suffer chaos and violence in the next few days or weeks so that it will be gone in the long term.
As Apos (not to mention Hanlon) has said: *Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. *
The Guardian is the anti-Faux News, spinning everything out of the Bush administration as malice. I would guess that it is more likely that Bremer and his team delayed acting against Sadr in the hopes he would be drowned out by reasonable discourse among the Shi’a and, when that did not happen, they overplayed their attempt to silence him.
I think there is less deep on the ground strategy at work, and more oppotunism.
Theres’ no doubt they picked the time deliberately.
Funny thing–the reinforcements they swore they’d never send, and which they can still deny in four months that they did send, materialize through the overlap of the experienced and the newbies, and now we need the experienced, for the duration, y’know, of the emergency.
I think these stupid sons of bitches set of a genuine iraqi national intifada just because they wanted political cover to raise the troop count and still have deniability
The LA times says Bush has healed 1300 years of sunny/shia hatred.
"Shiite and Sunni Muslims have more often been rivals for power in Iraq, but signs are emerging of links between al-Sadr and the Sunni Muslim insurgency in Fallujah and other towns. Al-Sadr has issued several statement praising the insurgents in Fallujah, while the insurgents have sent messages to al-Sadr, one was read over the loudspeaker at his mosque in a Baghdad ghetto saying: “From your brothers in Fallujah… We are with you under the banner of `God is greatest’ and the mantle of Islam.”
.Moderates in Retreat in Najaf as Fear Echoes Across the City
George Bush–not a divider, a uniter.
(For me to poop on…)
One line of thought is that an element of the neo-con plan for invading Iraq is that it ceases to be threat to the regional dominance of Israel, or a source of support to its enemies.
In this line of thought, a post invasion descent into chaos is a permissable, although not preferable option. It satisfies the requirement to disable Iraq. Hence the cursory effort at planning for now.
Supporting this view are the facts that: the Oil flow appears to be secured, whatever the security of the nation; the long term reconstruction contracts are likewise secured and; the invasion is a neo-con venture, for whom GWB is the front man.
Opposing this view is the likelihood that incompetence is the better explanation. Better even than negligence by design. It’s my own view too.
But how long can it continue to flow if a full-blown civil war breaks out?
It’s not “We made a mistake”, it’s “Mistakes were made”, get your terminology straight.
I bet they don’t “feel your pain”, either.
Besides, isn’t 6-30 withdrawal going to cause an all out civil war in Iraq? Yes, I know, “mistakes were made”, but should they continue “to be made” or should they stop “to be made”?
What’s that?
Oh, I see, the intent to may be not withdraw by 6-30 is may be a good thing (or neenah-neenah), but the obvious truth that they are lying about it is most certainly the absolutely worst thing that ever happened within White House walls. Got it.