"The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials." Wright
The WAPO correctly "paired" these two articles on its website. They are examples of the closely integrated fabric of goofiness that characterizes the administration’s policy in the Middle East.
The Zellikow notion of "sponsoring" Shia and Kurdish subjugation of the Sunni Arabs is breathtaking. It is so grotesque that it is virtually certain to be the policy choice of the moment. Is this the Bush/Maliki deal? The idea seems to be that we would concentrate on arming the already mostly Shia army and police while participating with them in an attempt to completely subjugate the Sunni Arabs.
1- This proves that the neocons are still in charge of this administration’s policy. An effort to hand Iraq over to the Shia lay at the heart of neocon ambitions in Iraq. Evidently, it still does.
2- Does the Zellikow plan take into account what the reaction of the Sunni countries will be to an American/Shia alliance against their co-religionists? Obeid, the Saudi government adviser, warned last week in the WAPO that if the United States abandoned Iraq’s Sunnis, then the Sunni countries would feel it necessary to increase assistance to the Sunni Arabs of Iraq (read insurgents). Gasoline on the fire, that is what the Zellikow plan amount to.
Answer me this: Why is it that Shia "opposition" in Lebanon is a bad thing but the Shia government in Iraq is a good thing. Why is that? pl
"The official purpose of the third annual session of the U.S.-backed Forum for the Future was to promote democracy around the world. But there were no plans for a joint statement on universal freedoms, since efforts to compose such a missive at last year’s forum meeting dissolved into bickering." Kessler
Let’s see how this was supposed to "go down." First we get the governments to the meeting, then we get them to sign some sort of "universal" declaration on human rights, then in a year or so we declare them to be in "violation" of their own undertakings about "democracy," and therefore rightly subject to sanctions or worse as "law breakers" of some sort.
Does this sound familiar? pl