The killing of Anbar Province's Sunni sheikh beloved by Bush for reportedly opposing Al Qaeda(1) is an important signal regarding the war in Iraq. "Sheik Sattar Abu Reesha was head of the Anbar Awakening Council."(1) Bush met the sheik just last week.
It has to be admitted that by talking about Anbar all the time, the united $tates pretty much asked for that assassination, which has the effect of questioning to what degree Amerikan military men know the situation on the ground in Iraq. The killing of the sheikh also comes amidst internal fighting over an oil revenue law in Iraq.(2) Lackey Kurds are doing business with Western oil companies without the rest of Iraq being involved.
A conciliatory move to cut U.$. troops lower than pre-surge levels and not bragging about Anbar all the time would have been the wiser course had the united $tates wanted to calm down the conflict in Iraq. That's just not Bush though.
The imperialists are attempting to show the Iranians and Iraqis that they can negotiate by speeding up matters with northern Korea. At the same time, there are high-level maneuvers by England and the united $tates to end the Iraq War, not all of which MIM has mentioned.
These maneuvers may deserve some interpretation.
The imperialists make no bones about having two lines on Iraq and two lines toward Iran and Pakistan. Democrats may want a speedier withdrawal from Iraq, but may pose in a more friendly manner towards Iran and a more unfriendly manner towards Pakistan. In turn, Iran now has two lines toward the united $tates evident in its officials. The Bush administration also allows two faces in the executive branch.
The Bush camp's traditional ties to the Saudis and Bush's stance on Iran are something of a geopolitical carrot. So Bush may have some reason to believe that his faction of imperialists has a better answer for Iraq than the other faction of imperialists. Yet it seems that Osama Bin Laden has made it clear that Bush, Rumsfeld etc. are now dubbed "war criminals." They need to be tried and give reparations.
The difficulty of the Bush camp has been that it appeared to have no dovish potential of its own till this year. In Indiana September 11th, a newspaper has a writer suggesting that Cheney resign to be replaced by Senator Lugar, who in turn would replace Bush when he resigned.(3) The entire reason for this would be how Bush is perceived to have botched foreign policy by large portions of the bourgeoisie. Senator Lugar is among those in Congress calling for a surge in diplomacy. The Iraqi people placed Bush in a dire situation in which his prospects for diplomacy have improved. Since rivers of blood have flown though, there is no guarantee that Bush has any prospect from an Iraqi point of view of being the peace-maker. Sadly, even if the Democrats figured that out, they might not do anything to oust Bush till November 2008. That is an unknown. They might very well leave their troops in harm's way knowing full well that Bush would not be accepted as a peace-maker in Iraq. Impeachment would send a global signal for peace, whether deserved or not by the remaining imperialists, but there is simply no guarantee that Congress would have the courage. That's also a reason the international proletariat usually asks for a war crimes trial, not "impeachment" of an imperialist by other imperialists. Nonetheless, the interpretation is not up to MIM, but in this case is more a matter of the Iraqi people. Over 50 years ago, the Koreans died in their millions in the Korean War. Today, it is the Iraqis suffering the main brunt of U.$. imperialism's attack. MIM will stand by the decision of Iraqis on whether to allow Bush to claim a potential peace.
From the proletariat's point of view, a deal with Bush is no worse than a deal with Lugar. Lugar voted for the war. He and people like Obama are simply more wily imperialists than Bush. On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents may well find advantages in defeating U.$. imperialism over the long haul instead of letting Bush have the peace.
Beyond Lugar, are Republican Senators Warner and Specter. It is not unusual to find the most senior senators the most clued in and most willing to attempt to lead the labor aristocracy instead of blowing with the winds of public opinion. This can be interpreted two ways, one as an option for the Republicans to clear the deck themselves and two, pressure on Bush to do what he might not otherwise do.
Bush's survival strategy is now linked to the State Department. The Bush ideologues are gone and career service people have moved back in, a simultaneous victory for the CIA.
The imperialists may be unsure whether Al Qaeda interpreted its signals correctly. MIM would point out that Osama Bin Laden's first September statement contained no overt threats. It also contained a signficant ideological point that the imperialists may have missed regarding Osama Bin Laden's concern for U.$. troops. Nonetheless, Al Qaeda also took the position that failing to try war criminals in the past allowed them to come back after the Vietnam War and try the same thing in other countries. This does not bode well for Bush. Even if the united $tates could have a role in Iraq in the view of some Iraqis, there would be those who would say, "not with Bush leading." At the same time, Osama Bin Laden recognized that the Democrats are also a problem, so he asked for a movement for peace in the united $tates. Most countries would react no differently than Osama Bin Laden if invaded by the united $tates: prospects for peace would be improved by trying the perpetrators as war criminals.
There was a Reuters article today about how direct negotiations with Al Qaeda may be necessary.(4) Even those imperialists discussing this possibility are hampered by an idealist understanding of politics including jihad. They believe there is such a thing as an eternal religion for eternal struggle and that humyn relations do not influence the course of events.
Such negotiations are an unknown, partly because of candidate Giuliani if nothing else. As yet, no one suggests that the EU or united $tates negotiate with Al Qaeda. For its part, the u.$. imperialists are uncertain if there is an Al Qaeda discipline that would be followed.(4)
The oppressed usually must march to victory. Rarely can the oppressed offer the oppressor something that the oppressor would recognize as "equivalent" exchange. In Iraq, various organizations contend for the future, but despite divisions and maneuvers, it is possible that matters are too late for Bush. He may be deemed too guilty by parties involved in Iraq to generate a peace.
Notes:
1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZVHIkHTnUEE&refer=home
2. "Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq seems to be collapsing," http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
3. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070911/OPINION01/709110351/-1/LOCAL17
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1183375220070913?src=091307_1115_TOPSTORY_iraqi_ally_killed