This whole "surge" in Iraq story seems like a crock of shit. Yeah, i know there is no real "surge," that it's just another shuffling of deployment rotations, keeping some troops due to come home there longer, and speeding up the departure of ones in the States. However, there is something odd going on. When i get up in the morning, the sky is filled with contrails of military planes. There is something amiss. Between the increase in contrails and the attack in Somalia, it feels like something else is up... just what is up, i don't have the depth to understand.
However, i have this ugly feeling that this whole "surge" ploy is not about Iraq at all, but Iran.
After reading Glenn Greenwald this morning, i feel less self-conscious in confessing my suspicions online. The old rumor was that it was supposed to happen in October, before the American elections, but when that didn't happen, the doomsayers amended their predictions to the strike on Iran being at the end of January. I fear that it's really coming this time.
Yep. I read the Juan Cole post too, which breaks down where the troops are being deployed:
Bush could not help taking swipes at Iran and Syria. But the geography of his deployments gives the lie to his singling them out as mischief makers. Why send 4,000 extra troops to al-Anbar province? Why ignore Diyala Province near Iran, which is in flames, or Babel Province southwest of Baghdad? Diyala borders Iran, so isn't that the threat? But wait. Where is al-Anbar? Between Jordan and Baghdad. In other words, al-Anbar opens out into the vast Sunni Arab hinterland that supports the guerrilla movement with money and volunteers, coming in from Jordan. If Syria was the big problem, you would put the extra 4,000 troops up north along the border. If Iran was the big problem, you'd occupy Diyala. But little Jordan is an ally of the US, and Bush would not want to insult it by admitting that it is a major infiltration root for jihadis heading to Iraq.
The clear and hold strategy is not going to work in al-Anbar. Almost everyone there hates the Americans and wants them out. To clear and hold you need a sympathetic or potentially sympathetic civilian population that is being held hostage by militants, and which you can turn by offering them protection from the militants. I don't believe there are very many Iraqi Sunnis who can any longer be turned in that way. The opinion polling suggests that they overwhelmingly support violence against the US.
Juan Cole is the Middle East expert, but I don't think deciphering the logic of actual deployment of troops has anything to do with what is happening. It would seem perfectly in character for this administration to try "shock and awe" all over again in Iran, all flashy airstrikes. Despite Somalia actually having an Al-Qaeda presence, the strike there just seemed like more saber rattling towards Iran to me, with no real substance.
Ugh.