| In Baghdad, meanwhile, some wonder why Washington is escalating its allegations of Iranian meddling. "They (the U.S.) want to put the blame on Iran . . . for what's happening in Iraq," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator," adding that the harsh rhetoric is hindering Iraq's efforts at stability. "Even Syria they don't talk much about these days." Othman also criticized his own government's Iran policy. While Iran espouses support for Iraq's Shiite-led government, Othman said, it also helps militias that act against the government. He criticized Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki for traveling to Baghdad when his own government is in crisis. |
M. le quasidéputé M. Osmán spends about twenty-six hours a day talking to the Green Zone hotel lobby journalists about the former Iraq, so how he can find any time to devote to amateur Crawfordology is a mystery. Do "they (the U.S.)" ever address themselves directly to Kurdish quasiparliamentarians at all, I wonder? If so, do they, the extremist Republicans, speak frankly about whom they'd like to pin the blame on this week? Neither proposition seems at all likely.
But take the wannabe international statesperson seriously, if possible. "[T]he harsh rhetoric is hindering Iraq's efforts at stability." Exactly how does that work? Are there many tribes and sects of Peaceful Freedumbia so devoted to the Qommie cause that they'll undermine poor M. al-Málikí's neorégime in defense of its honour? What kind of sense would that make? The real underminers at the moment seem to be (1) all the TwentyPercenters without exception, and (2) the rootless cosmopolitans under the banner of Dr. ’Ayád ‘Alláwí. Do either of those shifty destabilizing crews have anything good to say about the Islamic Republic? Badmouthing Syria might provoke some of the former crew, though by no means all, but surely everybody could get together with Crockerius and Petrolaeus for a weekly Hate Iran Hour.
Perhaps the quasideputy means that the harsh rhetoric of the militant GOP is underminin' poor M. al-Málikí directly? That makes not much more sense. For one thing, he then goes straight on to bash his own quasipremier, or rather the neo-Iraqis' quasipremier, although I suppose he may take the view that M. le Président du Conseil is himself "hindering Iraq's efforts at stability," perhaps not just by making state visits to dubious foreign states but more broadly. [1] Still, that is rather to put words into his mouth.
However the really fun part of M. Mahmúd Osmán's remarks is that he himself believes that the evil Qommies "also help militias that act against the government." Presumably that means that they back the fiend Muqtadá (for who else could it be?) with something more than just "harsh rhetoric." Observe that M.O. does not himself rhetoricize harshly, he only says "they also help militias that act against the government." He does not suggest, for instance, that there might be anything wrong with helping militias that act against the government, or that this process might be "hindering Iraq's efforts at stability." He is certainly not so rude as "to put the blame on Iran . . . for what's happening in Iraq" -- perish the thought of that! [2]
To the extent that such a muddle can be parsed or construed at all, it seems to imply that ignoring the alleged Safavid subversion will make it go away. But God knows best.
==
Equally murky is McClatchy's second specimen:
| Waleed al Hilli, a leading member of Maliki's Dawa party, said Iraq is trying to "build a bridge" between the U.S. and Iran. "We refuse any involvement from any side about our relations with Iran or any other country," he said. "We've worked hard to avoid making Iraqi a base to attack Iran. We won't accept such a thing." Even so, Hilli said, American accusations against Iran for supporting militiamen that attack U.S. troops are valid.[3] "These bombs kill their soldiers, and they have the right to defend," Hilli said. |
Maybe that is not quite contradictio in adjecto, but it comes pretty close, does it not? Once evil Qommies and effulgent Cheneyites are thoroughly engaged in "just defendin' themselves" on the soil of the former Iraq, however, perhaps M. al-Hillí will reconsider and decide that being a base for attack, though of course not ideal, is still a bit preferable to being the cockpit of clashism? [4]
It's a pity that M. al-Hillí was not pressed to gloss "they have the right to defend" in some detail. Do Castle Cheney and Château Kennebunkport and Rancho Crawford possess a "right to defend" along the lines mentioned in the Washington part of the McClatchy article?
| The presumed target of an attack would be camps in Iran where officials believe the Iranians are teaching Iraqi Shiite fighters how to fashion bombs that can destroy American armored vehicles. |
Naturally the Party perps are extremely unlikely to consult with M. al-Hillí, or any of their other subjects in the former Iraq, about the strategy or logistics or legality or morality of such an exercise in Preëmptive Retaliation as that would be. After it happens, if it does happen, one will be interested to watch how M. al-Hillí declines to accept it, should he decide concretely that "We won't accept such a thing." The man talks rather as if he were a member of the King Canute Fan Club, I'm afraid.
____
[1] Is anybody really interested in efforts at stabilizing the former Iraq other than M. Mahmúd Osmán and the Free Kurds, then?
That sounds rather exaggerrated, perhaps, yet a lot of tribes and sects and tribelets and sectettes do seem to take the view that stability would break out instantly if only they got everything their own way.
[2] Like most of the indigenous statespersons, M. Osmán must have a very long list of persons to blame for the present happiness of Peaceful Freedumbia, and no doubt the Persians are nowhere near the top of it. The Crawfordites must be higher up his list, indeed, since he criticizes their harsh rhetoric but pulls his punches with the evil Qommies and the renegade firebrand cleric.
[3] Does M. al-Hillí altogether agree with M. Osmán about what the evil Qommies are up to? It's far from clear. The former says "supporting militiamen that attack U.S. troops," the latter, "helps militias that act against the government." Now in theory, at least, armed GOP operatives are not the government of the former Iraq, so the two gentlemen could be talking about entirely separate theories. On the other, Crawford is also in some sense an ally of brave New Baghdád, so perhaps to act directly against the one is an oblique attack on the other.
I incline to suspect, admittedly with no distinct textual foundation, that M. al-Hillí mostly means Arab Sunni "militiamen," whereas M. Osmán can only be referring to the Mahdí Army. The mad mullahs have of course been accused by Crawfordites of aiding and abetting both. BGKB.
[4] Militarily speaking, M. al-Hillí's fears are groundless. If and when the extremist GOP assails the Islamic Republic with Uncle Sam's hyperpower, the base won't be Peaceful Freedumbia, it will be assorted aircraft carriers in and around the Gulf of Petroleum. The main threat to P.F. in that event will be that the evil Qommies might decide to surge into it in quest of revenge, assuming that the place is still overrun with armed Party operatives. As usual, various views will be entertained as to whether that sort of behavior is defensive or offensive or both or neither. Also as usual, the controversy will probably not much matter to those actually under the harrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment