February 14, 2005 -- What a surprise! Washington�s party of choice has won the election in Iraq with a whopping 48% of the vote. The United Iraqi Alliance (UAI) prevailed in the final vote count assuring that they will control at least 140 of the 275 seats in the new Iraqi National Assembly. Their vision of Iraq�s future will factor heavily in the shaping of the nation�s new constitution.

The UAI is the coalition of Shi�ite groups endorsed by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Their platform includes widely popular planks, such as a definite timetable for withdrawal of American troops and broad

expansion of the public sector.

Think that will happen while �free market� Bush is in office? Don�t bet on it. But, how will Bush undermine the aspirations of a Shi�ite majority now that they�ve been legally elected?

Well, in truth, he won�t have to. The UAI is headed by the pro-American Iraqi Finance Minister, Adel Abd al-Mahdi. As Naomi Klein aptly notes in her recent article in The Nation (�Getting the Purple Finger�) al-Mahdi is Bush�s �Trojan Horse�; a trusted ally who has already promised to privatize the oil sector and not to press the administration for the withdrawal of

American troops. As Klein says, �It was al-Mahdi himself who oversaw the signing of a flurry of deals with Shell, BP and Chevron-Texaco in the weeks before the elections, and it is he who negotiated the recent austerity deal with the IMF.� With al-Mahdi at the helm, we can rest assured that the neoliberal regimen initiated by Paul Bremer will go forward, ignoring the

obvious intentions of the Iraqi people. As anyone in the Bush administration will tell you; it�s always worthwhile having the right quisling in place.

Is it possible that the Grand Ayatollah knows that there is traitor like al-Mahdi in his midst who has sold out both his people and their resources to the Americans?

It�s possible, but unlikely. Al-Sistani is insulated from the critical issues related to Iraq�s future. Apparently, those are being manipulated by his subordinates, whose wheeling-and-dealing is going on behind Sistani�s back. As Iraq�s foremost spiritual leader he�s more attentive to the concerns of individual morality and public conduct, leaving the political and economic running of the state to others. Al Mahdi�s backroom deals with the administration suggest that Al Sistani has been duped by the very man who may replace Allawi as Prime Minister. Sistani is bound to be shocked by the level of deception. Unwittingly, he has endorsed the continuation of the occupation and the hand-over of Iraq�s oil to American energy giants.

Elections Redux

The western media have already begun to celebrate the �great democratic triumph� in Iraq. The final vote count is perceived as a stunning victory for Bush�s gun-barrel liberation. It has translated into a 5-point jump in the polls for Bush�s sagging popularity, a paltry increase given the extent of the media hype. This shows that only a small percentage of the American

public have been hoodwinked by Bush�s attempt to market martial law as democracy. Apparently, there are limits to the noxious affects of state propaganda.

One of the interesting anomalies emerging from the elections is that the Shi�ites only received 48% of the vote. Since the Sunnis boycotted the elections that suggests that only 55% to 60% of the eligible Shi�ites voted at all. This is astonishing given that they were threatened with having their (food) ration cards revoked, and were exhorted to participate by the Grand Ayatollah himself. The lower-than-expected Shi�ite turnout is a demonstration of solidarity with their Sunni countryman; a sign of the

growing nationalism that threatens the perpetuation of the occupation. It isan indication that cohesion and camaraderie have surpassed sectarian differences and are unifying the country with a common purpose.

Another intriguing fact is that fewer than 2% of Sunnis participated in the elections. This suggests that the insurgency has broad public support among Iraq�s 5 million Sunnis and that abhorrence to the occupation is nearly universal. It also tells us a great deal about the devastation of Fallujah, and how that single act of barbarism alienated the entire population. Historians will certainly regard the destruction of Fallujah as the turning-point in the Iraq war; a miscalculation that eliminated any hope

of American success.

Although the establishment media continues to champion the outcome of the Iraqi elections, the facts on the ground are hardly encouraging. The incidents of violence have increased considerably since Election Day. The character of the attacks has changed, too, with more and more of the violence directed at Shi�ite civilians. As New York Times James Glanz notes,

�suicide bombers and gunmen have left at least 104 people dead in attacks at a Shi�ite mosque, a hospital, police facilities, a bakery in a Shi�ite neighborhood and in front of Iraqi houses as the insurgency continued to intensify�. As always, the New York Times obliges the reader by creating a narrative that explains the new trend in the violence: �The elections isolated the rebels by showing them as the enemies of a democratic process�Having failed to stop people from going to the polls, they are trying to create the impression of civil war.�

Despite the illogical assumptions of the New York Times, the insurgents are not responsible for this deadly campaign against civilians. Such strategies would only anger potential allies and undermine their chances of expelling the Americans. Rather, the growing hostilities are the work of covert operations intended to foment civil war and divert attention from American soldiers. The only group that really benefits from this new wave of attacks is the US Military. It�s clear that the plan originated at the top rungs of the Pentagon, another clever tactic to weaken the escalating nationalism. This is entirely consistent with a strategy produced for the military by the Rand Corp., a conservative think tank commissioned to analyze the deteriorating

situation in Iraq. What they came up with was �U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11: A framework to identify major ideological orientations within Islam, examines critical cleavages between Muslim groups.� The goal of the paper is to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests. The conclusions of the document are enlightening. Rand suggests that the US �Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.�

What we see unfolding in Iraq, is the actualization of this policy. The Bush administration has decided to elevate the Shi�ites and crush the Sunnis. They intend to accomplish this by turning Iraqi against Iraqi and withdrawing their own men to the perimeters as much as possible, where they can conduct fly-overs safely from a distance. To achieve this objective, they must incite civil war by a clandestine terror campaign carried out by Rumsfeld�s paramilitaries. It will require plenty of civilian carnage and a compliant media to spin a story of frustrated insurgents gone wild.

This new strategy confirms that the Bush administration has foreclosed on the idea of maintaining Iraq�s territorial integrity. It is an admission that they cannot defeat the insurgency and, so, they will break up Iraq into smaller and more manageable pieces. Within the year, Iraq will be divided.

We could be entering the darkest phase of the war. The administration�s desperation is bound to generate oceans of innocent blood, but there�s no sign that they�ll give up.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. His articles have appeared in Counterpunch, Buzzflash, and Aljazeera, among others. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

� Copyright 2005 by AxisofLogic.com