Our Third And Final Mistake In Iraq

[ihavenobias]

Our Third And Final Mistake In Iraq
by Cenk Uygur

Three strikes and we're out. Well, we should have been out a long time ago, but I believe we have quietly made our third huge mistake in Iraq. And this will be the final one.

And it's a shame because we had made significant progress in bringing down violence and restoring order in the last three to six months. We could have used that opportunity to press the Iraqi government for a comprehensive deal on reconciliation (instead of the fake "accomodation" we are settling for right now).

Instead, we struck a deal with the Maliki government that is incredibly short-sighted and will do tremendous harm to our interests and our troops in the long run. The deal we made about two weeks ago is a win-win for Bush and Maliki, bit it comes with a heavy price.

In the deal, Prime Minister Maliki gets the full backing of the United States government and armed forces against foreign and domestic enemies (the domestic part is what's important here). And President Bush gets what he has always wanted - permanent bases in Iraq. I'm sorry; I forgot to use the preferred euphemism - an "enduring" presence.

So, everyone is happy, right? Not exactly. This frustrates the will of the American people who say in poll after poll that they want to leave Iraq within the year (which they have been saying for well over a year now, which means we should have left already, theoretically). But much, much more importantly, it also frustrates the will of opposing parties, sects and militias inside Iraq.

The Iraqi reaction is more important because they are the ones likely to strike back with violence. Their dissatisfaction usually gets manifested in the form of bombs and bullets.

Some of these local groups in Iraq had worked with us for over a year now (the first campaign with the Sunni tribal leaders was started by Col. MacFarland in June, 2006 (before the so-called surge began by the way). But the understanding among the Sunnis and the Shiites who co-operated with us was that we would - at some point - leave.

How they were going to settle their own differences at that point was a different matter. But they stopped attacking us in part because they thought it was pointless. Why bother attacking an army that was going to leave anyway? And if they worked with us instead we would give them money and arms - which they could use later to assert control over Iraq (or at least the parts they were interested in).

But what happens when we announce we are not going to leave? That instead we will have an enduring presence? And we announce that we will be building American bases literally right on top of their oil fields? And we will be backing the Maliki government to the exclusion of all other domestic groups?

Well, I'll tell you what happens. We restart the Iraqi insurgency. What a terrible idea...

For the rest, click here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/our-third-and-final-mista_b_76027.html