Iraq Alack

It's remarkable, really, when you think about it. A foreign government -- and not even a "sovereign" one, but a kind of Potemkin government set up by the United States -- dares to not only assert itself against American policy, but starts trying to influence American presidential elections. Turnabout is fair play, they say -- and in this case, we have the alleged government of Iraq biting the hand that feeds it, i.e. the Bush administation and its war machine. The anointed successor to Bush, namely McCain, has been left all alone and feeling blue by the love fest between Iraq and Obama, and -- hey -- even the U.S. military has extended to Obama the hand of welcome. He was not treated like a plague carrier the way the Israelis treated Jimmy Carter -- not at all! He was given a helicopter ride! Is this another case of our military hatching secret plans to bust Bush's chops? The interesting thing is that, whereas Obama's troop withdrawal deadline is 16 months, al-Maliki's is 2 1/2 years, or 30 months. Now who's being "realistic"? But notice, both proposed time frames are finite, unlike that of McCain, whose time frame for our occupation of Iraq is "forever". Of course, Iraq's proposal is tempered a bit by the notion that "advisers, some quick-reaction forces and air support forces" could stay behind. Well, I'm sure we can come up with a few hundred thousand troops who fit that description. But hey, words are still important. When they say they would like to have "all U.S. combat troops out of the country" in 30 months, is it stretching the point to assume they mean "everyone in uniform who carries a gun"? That would seem to be true by definition. Of course, "quick-reaction forces" carry guns as well, as do most "advisors". But essentially what the Iraqis are saying is that they want their country back -- even if it hasn't been totally "pacified" or turned into a "model democracy" or a "friend of Israel". Now, if it gets to the point where we say, well thanks anyway but we're staying, do they then appeal to the U.N.? And does the U.N. then send forces to Iraq to kick us out? And are American troops included in those forces? Sounds absurd? Well, how about the fact that Saddam fought us with weapons we had given him to fight the Iranians? Or the fact that al Queda is fighting us with weapons we gave them to fight the Russians? Or the fact that China fought us in Korea with weapons we had given Mao to fight Chiang? Don't underestimate the absurdity factor in American foreign policy, I always say.

In any case, the fact that the Iraqis are already lining up with Obama on this issue raises many questions. One is, are they that sure he will win? 'Cause if he doesn't, it's gonna be payback time. Al-Maliki might find himself on a slow boat to Switzerland on the day after Election Day. Or, are they siding with Obama in order to force concessions from Bush & Co., or even from McCain -- not that those would necessarily be honored once he got in. Are they hoping to actually influence the election by making it seem like electing Obama is the way out of this mess, whereas electing McCain isn't? Plus, how certain are they that Obama will deliver? Don't they realize that he is already sold out to Israel, and half sold out to the American defense establishment? Plus, do they assume that the American voter cares what they think, or want? I'm sure there are some portions of the electorate that would be very happy to vote _against_ anything the Iraqis wanted, just because they wanted it, the ingrates! And there are plenty of people who think our perpetual occupation of Iraq is a perfectly fine idea, because.... well, just because we're the best! So it's a very interesting game they're playing, and it will be interesting to see how it evolves over the next few months.