Is it Baker and the Saudis vs Bush and the Shites?

[donsu]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/08/bush_isg_shiites/



Will Bush choose his new friends over his old?

The president's Shiite allies in Iraq really don't like some of James Baker's Sunni-friendly suggestions.


-snip-

The reality is that the president, via briefings, has probably long been aware of what the ISG report would say. In fact, when Bush met Iraq's two leading Shiite politicians in the week just prior to the report's release, he was almost certainly acquainting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq party chief Abdul Aziz al-Hakim with the ISG's key proposals.

It is also true, however, that there are parts of the report that run counter to Bush's own strategy in Iraq, and not just in terms of how long to stay. In a real sense, Bush has developed Iraqi constituencies and political allies. Bush has already picked his horses in Iraq, and they are Shiite. And that puts him at odds with the panelists of the ISG, most notably James Baker, the very Bush family loyalist whose efforts on his behalf in Florida six years ago helped land him in the White House.

-snip-

In reality, though some Washington insiders were pushing for a change behind the scenes, Bush claims he's not switching horses. At the conclusion of the summit, he publicly endorsed Maliki. "He's the right guy for Iraq and we're going to help him and it's in our interest to help him." The Shiite fundamentalist United Iraqi Alliance has come out on top in both of Iraq's parliamentary elections, and al-Maliki heads a key component of the UIA, the Islamic Call Party (al-Da'wa). He is in coalition with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which has also done well in the polls. Bush decided that since al-Da'wa and SCIRI were winners in Iraqi politics, he would have to develop good relations with them. Sources in Washington confirm to me that Bush thinks of the two Shiite leaders as "our guys," and he has entertained Da'wa and SCIRI officials at private White House functions.

-snip-

Maliki wants American troops out, and so does the ISG. The ISG wants most active combat troops out of Iraq by early 2008. Maliki wants them out faster.
--------------------

and I'd like to see them out faster then Maliki. smirk and Baker can dual while the troops are coming home.

[madrchsod]

1. interesting ......

bush backed the israelis last war on lebanon over the very public objections of the saudi king. i think the adults are afraid the child has gotten out of hand and is becoming dangerous to their interests.

[screembloodymurder]

9. If so, Cheney will go.

Expect a hunting accident.

[BeFree]

2. Shia vs. Shite?

Ok, as far as I know it's like the catholics vs. protestants.

M$M hasn't made the first attempt at describing the religious civil war between the Shia and Shite, maybe someone on DU can begin to edumacate us?

When the American people become aware that not only are we there for the oil but also to further the religious freedom of one group over another, we can declare victory and bring our troops home?

[mentalsolstice]

4. I'll try...I'm pretty limited in knowledge

Sunnis are the majority worldwide, but they're the minority in Iraq and Iran. Shia or Shi'ites, are the same thing, however, in Iraq there are different factions, with some being much more conservative than others. The Sunnis, although the minority, were in power under Saddam, as a result there are a lot of hard feelings between them and Shi'ites. Additionally, Iran is nearly all Shia.

So, in Iraq, you've got Shi'ites fighting one another, as well as fighting Sunnis. And you've got Iran cheering the Shi'ites on from the sidelines. This is why Bush doesn't want Iran involved in any talks, and he's afraid of Maliki's growing relationship with Ahmadinejad.

I'm sure there are others here that know way more than I do...

[BeFree]

5. Ok. Sunnis vs Shia's

Which is the more liberal? Which is the more fundamentalist?

Since we are in the middle of their war, isn't it wise to know just who is who?

[mentalsolstice]

6. That's where my knowledge ends

The difference goes all the way back to Muhammad, and the Shia reject three caliphs (historic heads of the Muslims) from that time.

I recently bought a special "Time" magazine about the Middle East (it goes all the way up to the Israel-Lebanon conflict of this year), and it has been kind of like reading the "Middle East for Dummies". Some would find it slanted one way or the other. However, I've found it to be a great primer...I didn't realize until now that there is so much history that came out of WWI. I knew WWII was important because of the establishment of Israel...but so much of it goes back to WWI. The magazine only hits everything on the tip of the head, and it's not laid out well at all graphically, but it will get you started. Since I started reading it, I've been able to delve a little deeper on the internet and I'm learning more every day.

[Wonk]

8. re: who is who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam

[leveymg]

3. The Houses of al-Saud and al-Sabah are toast

After the Turks intervene against the Kurds in North Iraq, and NATO is divided and neutralized, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are wide open for the taking. Without an assurance of US and UK backing, the Sunni oil sheikhs might as well just hop onto their Royal jets and set the controls for Monaco today, because tomorrow (soon) Saudi Arabia is going to be facing a Shi'a insurgency, when and if this whole thing blows up. If the Saudis go, so will the Kuwait and possibly the Emirates, along with it.

The only real winners will be the oil multinationals, other producing countries, Russia (which is both through its state-controlled companies) and, possibly, China, which stands to broker a new global order and buy up the pieces after the smoke settles.

Variations of this outcome, by the way, were foreseen in scenario planning that Shell, Exxon and the other multinationals ran in the late 1990s. Here's the chain of events that set up this outcome. Few people know that in 1998, Crown Prince Abdullah offered to sell off Saudi Arabia's upstream Aramco oil holdings to the U.S.-based companies for the then unacceptable price of $30/barrel. The U.S. company's thought that was to much, and after Abdullah's half-brothers objected (forcefully) the deal didn't go through, but it sparked some planning for what might happen if the Saudi Royal family were to fall. Sure enough, incensed by Abdullah's offer, the Saudi family split into warring factions, and 9/11 happened, and BushCo invaded Iraq . . .

Armageddon is just another day at the office.

[leftofthedial]

7. l'il george's agenda is not that sophisticated

his daddy just slapped his wrist (by proxy) for staying out past curfew and wrecking the family legacy. Having never been scolded before, l'il george is digging in his heels and throwing a tantrum. He doesn't give a shit about "friends" or Shiites or Saudis. He's a sociopath.