coup coup kachoo ...

[welshTerrier2]

"You're not a real boy, Pinnochio." I mean, is there anything worse than an uppity puppet?

Who the hell does this Maliki character think he is? He has his instructions; why doesn't he just do as he's told?

Does he really believe the US invaded his country to help the Iraqis? Does he really believe he has any say over the government there? Maybe his strings are tangled. I mean, if we pull this one, he's supposed to move this way; if that one, then that way. All those lives and all that money and all the political fallout and now we find this damned puppet appears to be broken. Sheesh, if he thinks we're going to keep using him as the main character in our play, his head is truly made of wood.

What's really interesting is to see all the American children lining up at the puppet store window, their noses pressed firmly against the glass, to choose which puppet will succeed him. Hillary's already said the strings are way too tangled. Iraqi sovereignty? pshaw!!! bush said the Maliki puppet might be fixable. And a "private group of prominent GOP activists from Texas" thinks the Maliki puppet is totally defective and should be replaced.

Did you really think there was any possibility, even a teensy weensy little possibility, that the US would wind down operations in Iraq without getting those oil contracts signed, sealed and delivered? If you did, you don't understand who is running the US government, you don't understand what the war and occupation in Iraq have been all about, in short, you just don't understand. Do you believe there will be a difference on how Iraqi oil will be treated whether we elect a Democrat or a republican? Do you believe those bad guy republicans won't let the Iraqi people keep their own oil but the good guy Democrats will? This issue is a perfect microcosm for understanding the corporate stranglehold on both political parties.

Maliki will soon be gone - dead or alive. Either they'll find a way to install Allawi, their "boy", or Mr. Maliki will "meet with an accident." They'll probably blame the accident on Iranian-backed terrorists. They have really good script writers, don't they? Of course, waiting in the wings, the heir apparent with the real power in Iraq, is al Sadr. He just won't do at all. So, what's a puppet master to do? They know they're running out of time. Warner is putting the big squeeze on them. The Iraqi Parliament is nowhere to be seen and the oil law is still not approved. No, this just won't do at all.

Here's what Middle East expert Juan Cole has to say on the subject:

source: http://www.juancole.com/2007/08/military-coup-planned-for-iraq.html

Military Coup Planned for Iraq?

A rumor is circulating among well-connected and formerly high-level Iraqi bureaucrats in exile in places like Damascus that a military coup is being prepared for Iraq. I received the following from a reliable, knowledgeable contact. There is no certitude that this plan can or will be implemented. That it is being discussed at high levels seems highly likely.

"There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . (The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.)

The six-member board or commission would be composed on non-political former military personnel who are presently not part of the government OR the military establishment, such as it is in Iraq at the moment. It is said that the Americans are supporting this behind the scenes.

The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election which would not have lists, but real people running for real seats. The two year period would be designed to take control of security and restore infrastructure.

. . .t is another , but one which many many Iraqis will support, since they are sick of their country being pulled apart by the "imports" - Maliki, Allawi, Jaafari et al. The military group is composed of internals, people who have the goal of securing the country even at the risk of no democracy, so they say. "

[Cooley Hurd]

1. K&R - Professor Cole is likely right (he always is)...

...and what are the odds that the military dictatorship will be PRO-American?

Slim odds, I'd bet.:thumbsdown:

[Rhiannon12866]

2. K&R. Interesting article. Thanks! n/t

[Gregorian]

3. Time is forcing the administration to play their hand.

Very interesting post. I had all but forgotten about time. That thing they are rapidly running out of. And after all of THIS, they absolutely cannot get this close and not secure the petroleum restructurization and control.

This puts a perspective on our thinking that may very well help us predict their next moves. And as usual, I"m sure I'm way behind the rest of you. But I have to thank you for waking at least me up.

How will attacking Iran help them buy time? I don't see it. What I do see isn't legal. Like an extended version of the Bush administration. This doesn't seem likely to me. But it's one scenario that buys them more time. And I'm sorry to even entertain that kind of thinking. I'm quite conventional in my trust.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "How will attacking Iran help them buy time?"

well, that is a most excellent question!

i don't think attacking Iran is their first choice to get the Oil Law signed. clearly, they would have preferred some quiet diplomatic pressure on Maliki and on the Iraqi Parliament. in fact, I think the original script, this is after they lost Chalabi and Allawi and ended up with Maliki, was to use pressure from the World Bank under Wolfowitz. The pressure would have taken the form of debt forgiveness or some such bribery. It didn't work and Wolfy got tossed out.

then there was hope they could con the Parliament into staying in session and signing off on the Oil Law. did you know that the Oil Law was the only item of business on the Parliament's agenda before they adjourned? They walked without ever signing off on the bill. How would you like to be a member of Parliament with your name on that document? No thanks!!! Talk about signing your own death warrant.

so, now what? TIME is indeed a huge factor now because of the American elections, bush's low poll numbers and increasing American disgust with the occupation. right now, my read is that they have 3 strategies.

1. hope and pray they can "sell the surge" to buy themselves more time
2. if #1 fails, Maliki has to go. they'll replace him with people who agree in advance to the Oil Law. it will be a very, very visible anti-democratic action with the whole world watching. to soften the blow, they'll have to make it look like it was not scripted from the US.

which leads me to item #3.

3. if they choose to dump Maliki, they MIGHT try to pin the coup on the Iranians. I'll call that 3a.

3b is that, even given all of the above, they still MIGHT attack Iran because they would see that as taking the pressure off calls to withdraw from Iraq. they could argue that Iranian troops might try to seize control of Iraq and it would be unsafe to withdraw until the situation stabilized. Or, they might argue that Iraq gives us a strategic "forward position" to use for attacks on Iran. Politically, they would think it would be much, much tougher for Democrats to attack bush or his positions. You'll start to hear things like "our partisan differences end at the ocean's edge." You'll hear people arguing that when the country's at war, we have to stand together as one nation. bush would like nothing more than to have the Democrats stand together with him. A fresh new national wound, i.e. a new war, MIGHT just give him the opportunity he seeks.

The side story to all of this is that the "leading" Democrats seem to be leading us in the wrong direction on Iran. Calling for diplomacy is fine but the Democrats should be making two things eminently clear to Americans:

1. bush does NOT have Congressional approval to attack Iran and they will do all in their power to remove him from office if he launches an attack without NEW AND SPECIFIC Congressional authorization. they need to be saying this NOW !!!!! and

2. war with Iran will be devastating to this country and should be avoided unless there is absolutely no alternative left to us. the Democrats need to be emphasizing to Americans that we cannot really afford to attack Iran. instead, they've been emphasizing things like Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (10 years away) and things like Iranian intervention in Iraq (how about US intervention in Iraq?). Job one should be to try to avoid another war; not justify one. Most Democrats are coming up way short of where they need to be.

[smoogatz]

7. #3 makes no sense.

Their big complaint about Maliki is that he's too tight with the Iranians. The people involved in the coup would likely be mostly Sunni former Ba'athists, or ex-pat secularists like (drumroll please...) Chalabi. It'll be Cheney's coup, carried out Cheney's way. Which means it'll be an even worse clusterfuck than the current clusterfuck.

[welshTerrier2]

8. look at it this way

they won't "pin it on the Iranians" by saying the Iranians sent death squads into Iraq to assassinate Maliki. They'll just blow-up Maliki's convoy and "trace" the weapons back to Iran. They don't need to make a case that Maliki was targeted; only that the Iranians were responsible for his death.

[smoogatz]

5. Note to al Maliki: remember President Diem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Coup_and_assassination

[Uncle Joe]

6. Maybe, this is what Bush meant by comparing Iraq to Vietnam?

I forgot the name of the leader of South Vietnam who ended up dead early in the war.

[AtomicKitten]

9. I believe they intend to invade Iran

At some point I hope the Democrats realize the only way to stop or even slow down these bastards is IMPEACHMENT.

[Totally Committed]

10. Amen to that!

It's scary as hell out there.... :scared:

TC

[Greyhound]

11. Another K & R.

It is sometimes quite disheartening to hear the proclamations of "if only we (Democrats) controlled both houses and the executive, things would be so different...".

The sad fact is that you are exactly right, most do not understand the people or the forces that own and control "our" country and the world. We fail to understand our true place in the grand scheme, that is, we are less than nothing to those that matter. An inconvenience every other year, to be bought, scared, or cajoled into letting them maintain the illusion of government of, by, and for, the people. Then we are placed back on the shelf until they need us to reaffirm their "rightful place" in the seats of power.