'Iraq After the Surge' – een uitstekende evaluatie van prof. Paul Rogers

One of the main themes of the Bush administration in recent months has been the strength of the al-Qaida movement in Iraq, an advantage of stressing this linkage being the manner in which it connects the Iraq War with responding to the original 9/11 attacks. In parallel with this has been the emphasis on Iranian involvement in the insurgency. Thus, two enemies are seen at the root of the problem facing US forces in Iraq – al-Qaida and Iran. Given the long-standing antagonisms between the United States and Iran, going right back to the fall of the Shah, the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, this means that the focus of the war in Iraq can be presented as dealing with what are seen in the eyes of the Bush administration as the two main enemies of the United States worldwide.

The reality on the ground in Iraq is that al-Qaida is not the dominant force in the insurgency since the main elements are Iraqi nationalist Sunni militias and separate Shi’a militias. Moreover, while there are links between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and some Shi’a militias, the most important of the latter is Moqtada al’Sadr’s Mehdi Army, which has relatively loose links with Tehran.

Nevertheless, this focus is being maintained by the Bush administration and is combined with strong statements to the effect that the surge is working sufficiently well for it to be utterly wrong to talk of wholesale withdrawal. President Bush has even made the connection between Iraq and Vietnam, seeming to suggest that the US withdrawal from Vietnam was premature and even implying that the Vietnam War could have been won if the United States had stayed the course. This is a view which is common enough in neoconservative circles and reinforces the very strongly held view that any talk of withdrawal from Iraq is hugely dangerous as well as deeply unpatriotic…

‘Iraq After the Surge’ – een uitstekende evaluatie van prof. Paul Rogers (Oxford Research Group)

Irak crisis

Iran crisis

Advertenties

4 thoughts on “'Iraq After the Surge' – een uitstekende evaluatie van prof. Paul Rogers

  1. If America could choose again, it would not step into a civil war in Mesopotamia. But there are worse reasons than preventing a bloodbath for a superpower to put its soldiers at risk. Having invaded Iraq in its own interest—to remove mass-killing weapons that turned out not to exist—America owes something to Iraq’s people, a slim majority of whom want it to stay. It is hard to know how Iraq can be mended. At some point it may become clear the country has sunk so low it is simply beyond saving. But it is not possible to be sure of that yet….http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9804115

  2. One of President Bush’s key arguments for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely is that al-Qaeda wants to "drive us out." But U.S. intelligence has intercepted an internal al-Qaeda communique that says almost the exact opposite.
    The letter written by senior al-Qaeda operative Atiyah Abd al-Rahman states that "prolonging the war is in our interest." Yet, President Bush is rarely challenged when he asserts the opposite, and few members of Congress seem aware of the Atiyah letter, which was translated and analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1868/t/1636/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12737

  3. Met de intellectuele analyses is weinig mis. Wat intellectuelen niet willen begrijpen is dat ordinaire machtspolitiek volstrekt maling heeft aan intellectualisme.
    FINKELSTEIN wijst daar in een recent interview (ZNET-website) ook op, waar hij stelt dat de top van wat ‘de pro-Israel-lobby’ wordt genoemd zich schuldig maakt aan maffiapraktijken.
    De machtsdenkers die Bush omringen zijn blind voor de irrationele praktijken van mensen die ze als vrienden beschouwen. Vooral Bush laat zich leiden door de irrationele drang alle mensen die hij zijn vriendschap geschonken heeft absoluut goed te noemen. Niet zo vreemd natuurlijk voor een man die zichzelf ‘een herboren christen’ noemt. Zulke mensen geloven echt alles…
    De hamvraag is nog altijd: hoe spelen we het klaar om redelijke en eerlijke mensen in Amerika aan de top van het politieke bedrijf te krijgen…
    Ik denk dat je moet beginnen met het belonen van eerlijke mensen en het bestraffen van de leugenaars, ook als de eerlijke mensen geen macht en status bezitten en de leugenaars wel.
    Alles is nu te koop. Maar dan ook ALLES!Reactie is geredigeerd

  4. Hierbij de link naar het vraagesprek met Finkelstein waarnaar Wim Duzijn verwijst:Israel critic Norman Finkelstein made national headlines after his tenure was denied by DePaul University . Finkelstein, an author of five books, had received outstanding reviews from his students and peers. His dismissal sparked student protests and sit-ins, and led top academics to rally to his defence. Many questioned whether campuses had fallen victim to powerful pressure groups.
    In this interview with George McLeod, Norman Finkelstein discusses the Israel lobby, his writings and what makes the Israel issue unusually sensitive in the US…
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=13796

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s