SADR'S GAZA

 We now know what Israeli turn-over of Gaza and American democratization of Baghdad mean: pour concrete on them all and when it dries shoot from the air whatever still moves.

Gareth Porter-- my personal nemesis supporting Hanoi back in the Vietnam War days-- has proven to be one of the most astute analysts of the Iraq situation in Wash DC (perhaps I should reconsider Vietnam too). In a recent analysis he reads Maliki's attack on Basra as a last minute attempt to preempt an American assault on the city, pre-planned since last June as part of the surge. Porter is spot-on, as oil companies execs will testify. 

To ease the high cost of gasoline suffered by Americans before he leave office Bush wants to at least secure the Basra fields, where 80% of Iraq's known oil reserves are located, and the port of exit, Basra City. He believes that cheap oil will make the Iraq War worth it to Americans and all his incompetence and indecisiveness would be forgiven. It should be remembered that the first priority of the Iraq invasion of 2003 was not to allow Saddam to, in defeat, set fire to the oil wells as he had done in Kuwait. So, while in 2003 every building and person in Baghdad was pillaged, plundered and molested by roving gangs, American soldiers stood by watching-- a crime by international law, for safety and order are the responsibility of the occupying power-- the oil fields were safe and sound.

With oil now at twice the price back when Bush sought to make Iraq America's own oil gusher, Bush would like to leave office with "mission [partially] accomplished" at least: Basra safe for imperial plunder by Western oil companies so that Iraq's oil can drown OPEC's quotas.

PM Maliki is still resisting the oil privatization law-- allowing Western investment in and domination of the oil fields-- that the US tried to shove down his throat. Maliki knows well that if the US seizes Basra, who masters the fields becomes moot. To date, with the British having abandoned the imperial program early, the oil has been flowing through the hands of everything from religious militias to criminal gangs on to the global black market. For five years now, so fearful of the explosive insecurity, American oil giants have shied away from commitment to seizing Iraq's oil. In that sense, one can say that the insurgency has-- so far-- been successful.

But suddenly, after Hunt made a totally illegal deal with the Kurds, bypassing the Iraqi government, for the smaller fields in the North of Iraq, Maliki, having denounced and rejected the deal, noted that American oil companies were lining up to sign on for the Basra fields in the South. So, to head off Bush's plans for Basra oil, Maliki moved to seize Basra first and forced the US to provide logistic and air support by placing before Petraeus a fait accompli. To deny support would violate Iraq's sovereignty and Malki could demand that the US leave immediately. Already he faced down the US last year claiming that if the US stops supporting him he can find other friends elsewhere. First the British complied and then Petraeus had no choice.

But there is a further absurdity in all this. PM Maiki-- who came to power thanks to Sadr's political support-- has now focused his forces on Sadr's Mahdi Militia, insisting that they disarm and disband and that Sadr himself abandon all political aspirations. To mount his offensive, Maliki aligned with Hakim's Iran run and created Badr forces for the Basra offensive. The Iran created ISCI that Hakim heads wants to make a separate autonomous federal unit of Iraq's nine Southern provinces, where 80% of the proven oil reserves lie. So, using the Iran-proxy for troops, the Brits and US for air support and logistics, Maliki hoped to destroy the Shi'ite Sadr Tendency Movement before the US does.

Unlike Hakim, Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist who does not allow the similar Shia confessional bond with Iran to eclipse the fact that Iraqis are Arabs, not Persians. He sought a Shia-Sunni Iraqi alliance to  expel the US with ceremonial thank yous for removing Saddam and bands playing all the way to the door: it's time to go home, Yankee!

Maliki is also an Iraqi nationalist who does not want Iranian domination. But he realizes that, just as Bush is on his way out of the White House, the US is on its way out of Iraq. He must, therefore, come up with a counter-force to the Sunni neighboring states that have been feeding the insurgency all along (Saudis provided suicide volunteers and technology while Kuwait provided the money and Gulf states serve as bankers with transferred Saddam's billions for the insurgency). Maliki's solution was a temporary alliance with ISCI (whose Badr forces were killing Iraqis for Iran during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War). By working with this creature of Tehran-- whom Bush Administration schemers saw as the best ally in order to stop Iranian involvement in the war-- Maliki felt confident that Iran would support his regime while he brings the Sunnis in line after the Americans leave. Prior to the invasion, Hakim was in on all the CIA guided and funded exiles' councils in London of the Iraqi National Council, led by Ahmed Chalabi, another proven Iranian spy. Back then it didn't matter because Bush was planning a one-two regime change two-step: Iraq-->Iran. But with no regime change possible in Iran to date, Bush had to grumble and watch helpless while all Shia factions maneuvered for Iranian backing.

All this is clever by half. As Americans, given our original oily motives, let us ask ourselves what does it cost in blood, time and money to kill one insurgent and how many must we kill in order to secure the oil fields for ourselves?

Making the multiplication, the price seems almost as great as the technological revolution that would make the US independent of Mideast oil. Yet, we rather copy the storm trooper tactics which the Israelis in turn copied from the English, Germans, Soviets and South Africans in order to suppress any objection to our imperial designs on Iraqi oil; we are thus losing irreplaceable *VOLUNTEER* soldiers (none of the neocon chicken-hawks are stepping up to replace them!) and creating orphans and widows just because we can't admit that we were defeated by our own military's criminal incompetence. How much top-down low-brain-powered arrogance will it take before America realizes that it has been morally, globally and economically exsanguinated?

The Arab survivors of our war crimes, as the Israelis learned the hard way, will for generation afterward never forget and never forgive. In that sense (and also given that we invited use of airliners as suicide guided missiles by leaving ALL pilot's cabin doors wide open) we are at fault for 9/11 by providing generations of victims of our violent oil grabs reason to hate us and want to kill us as they kill themselves in revenge for generations to come. On might say that Reverend Wright-- who served his country as a Marine, unlike Bill Clinton who evaded the Draft and demonstrated against America in Moscow Square-- might have a point: avarice and hubris make us our own worst enemy.

Daniel E. Teodoru