Welcome worn out.

Amazing thing happened this past week: the Iraqi government appears to have actually represented one of the main concerns of the nation it purports to represent - namely that the occupying army of the United States start making definite plans for withdrawal... that is, total withdrawal from their country. One spokesperson for al-Maliki actually talked about a timetable for pulling out. Now, this is the government the Bush administration is so very adamant about protecting. The mere mention of a timetable on this side of the ocean is an invitation to be denounced as a "surrender monkey". Those who've advanced the idea are roundly accused of undermining the Baghdad government, whose stability has been bought by the blood of our soldiers, etc. And yet, this is the opinion of the vast majority of Iraqis, so it's little wonder Maliki would bring it up a) while status of forces agreement talks are going on, and b) when there are elections coming up. Maliki's party has a slight problem with being seen as an indigenous political movement (i.e. Dawa and SCIRI were exile parties, SCIRI formed in Iran with help from the dreaded Revolutionary Guard). This is their version of a gas tax holiday, I suppose.

Either way, it seems we've been asked to leave. That can only mean one thing, if history is any guide: time for a new Iraqi government. This issue is a bit more complicated than it used to be, of course. Even though there are some paleolithic imperialists in the Bush orbit, I doubt they have the bottle to pull an outright coup d'etat, like we used to in the good old bad old days. Iran's Mossadeq, Guatemala's Arbenz, Chile's Allende... even a longtime asset like South Vietnam's Diem was dispatched with little thought to what would follow. In Vietnam, it was one desperate general after another, until they settled on the reliably fanatical Nguyen Van Thieu, who seemed more than content to preside over the utter destruction of his country under relentless and unprecedented American firepower. His predecessors were ejected most often because they were caught seeking some kind of rapprochement with the NLF. Not what Washington wanted then... or wants now.

Different war, different time, right? True enough. But the principle still applies. Suppose for a moment everything goes swimmingly in Iraq, from the Iraqi perspective. Suppose there's a serious and deep reconciliation among the various sectarian and ethnic groupings, and that they all agree on one thing - that they want us to go home. Would we leave? I doubt it. As I've said here before, we didn't invade Iraq to leave it; we came to stay, maybe as long as 100 years, as McCain suggested. (The oil would certainly be tapped out by then.) The administration and its allies have become very frank about wanting a military presence there to secure access to the second largest oil reserves in the world (and among the most profitable, as well). We're building permanent bases and trying to push a status of forces agreement on a nation we basically destroyed over the course of the last 18 years. In the current atmosphere of rising gas prices, I'm sure our politicians believe that Americans will tolerate such a long-term commitment if they believe affordable gas may be a result. That remains to be seen... but will Iraqis tolerate it?

My guess is no. And though this hasn't been an ultimatum, we may well be feeling that door hitting us in the ass quite soon.

luv u,

jp