Rice warns Iraqis: 'Unite or you don't have a future'

I am always fairly amazed at the number of subtle ways that this Republican administration has sought to make the current situation in Iraq the fault of the Iraqis themselves.

As I have pointed out before, the first task of any invading army is to impose order. It is a prerequisite for establishing any form of functioning society. If one looks at the way the Roman and British empires operated one will see that establishing order was something that was done at all costs as they recognised that, without this, nothing else could be done.

Indeed, on page 261 of Woodward's "State of Denial" Colin Powell is quoted as telling Bush:

"This is all great, but there's only one issue," Powell told Bush on one occasion. "And if you solve this one, this is going to look like the greatest thing anyone's ever thought of. That's security. If you don't have security, none of this follows. Everything has to be focused on security, more so than oil or electricity or water or anything else."

"Yeah, " Bush said. "I understand."

"It's not going to happen if you don't get the security situation," Powell said.

Now we all know that the US has singularly failed to live up to this basic commitment and we have all watched as the violence has increased month by month as the US forces failed to establish any form of security for the Iraqi people.

Bush recently attempted to place the blame for this on the newly formed Iraqi government, by warning them that he did not have infinite "patience". As if, having invaded them, the task of clearing up Bush's mess was somehow the responsibility of the invaded rather than the moral duty of the invaders.

However, Condi Rice has now taken this outrage even further. She has decided that the blame for the mess in Iraq lies with the whole of Iraqi society:

Iraqis 'don't have a future' if they give in to the sectarian tensions that are tearing apart their society, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a visit to Vietnam yesterday in one of the starkest warnings on the present violent trajectory of the country.

The sectarian violence now tearing Iraq apart is the natural consequence of the US decision to carry out the de-Baathification of that country, and it's consequences were made clear to Rumsfeld by Jay Garner before the US even invaded Iraq. (See "State of Denial" pages 139-140)

One must never forget that Iraq was a British construct, a country of straight lines put together after the fall of the Ottoman Empire by a people who cared little for it's culture or it's ethnicity. That's why it contains such a mixture of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

Baathification was the glue that held this mixture together as a functioning secular society. The US forces, thanks to Paul Bremer, removed this glue and put nothing in it's place; leaving a dangerous vacuum in which various factions have fought for dominance ever since.

To attempt to blame this on the Iraqis themselves is, frankly, an obscenity.

However, what is more worrying about all this is that - by attempting to blame the Iraqis themselves - Condi is almost preparing us for the possibility of Iraq ceasing to exist. She wants us to know in advance who's fault this will be. Surely such talk would only be countenanced if the break-up of Iraq was considered a real possibility by the administration?

Even the Iranians, who have long opposed the invasion of Iraq, are expressing concern that the Bush administration may be preparing to "cut and run":

On Tuesday, Tehran's English-language news channel featured commentary from political scientist Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh calling for the United States to remain in Iraq until it has established a strong, stable central government capable of providing adequate security.

'The Americans can't simply withdraw from Iraq, leaving the mess as it is,' he said in a telephone interview from Tehran afterward. 'Who's going to look for the safety of the Iraqis there? The Iranians can't do it. The Turks can't do it...

'This is not a question of political rivalry between Iran and the West. It has to do with the fact that the society has to have a government structure in place.'

Though it is not clear how much support his comments have in hard-line circles, some analysts were interpreting them as expressing the desire for a withdrawal following a timetable, rather than the quick exit favoured by some Democrats.

I have long thought that there is little hope of preventing Iraq splitting into three separate states after a bloody civil war. However - and it may already be too late - the best hope for sorting this situation out is the James Baker plan, if indeed - when released - it follows the line of thinking that has so far been leaked.

Iran and Syria must be brought onboard. The consequences of Bush not agreeing to this will have wider implications than the collapse of Iraq.

America's most senior military officer in the Middle East, General John Abizaid has warned that if the world does not find a way to stem the rise of violent Islamic militancy, it will face a third world war.

Should this situation spiral further out of control there will be many places for blame to be assigned; however, the shoulders of Iraq's population is certainly not one of them.

Click title for full article.

tag: Iraq, Iraq war, "Stay the course", Bush, Bob, Woodward, State of Denial, James T Baker, Rice,