The future of Iraq

[SocialistMilitant]

Can't they forsee a Shiite majority in Iraq that would rule and become friends with Iran? And most likely establish religious state like Iran? And having two anti-US Shiite countries controlling the majority of the world's oil?

Is it me or am I just not getting it?

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant@October 28, 2007 03:03 am
Can't they forsee a Shiite majority in Iraq that would rule and become friends with Iran? And most likely establish religious state like Iran? And having two anti-US Shiite countries controlling the majority of the world's oil?

Is it me or am I just not getting it?

The US is planning a "regime change" in Iran as well, something they are pushing for more and more lately. It has all been part of they're larger plan of imperial expansion in the mid-east.

[Faux Real]

By listening to these supposed strictly Shia vs Sunni conflicts in Iraq you're giving way to the illusion that there's no unity between the religious and secular parties in the country. Before the invasion most Iraqis weren't divided between religious lines and intermarried between sects. They have begun to unite under a banner to drive out the coalition and al-Quaeda supporters; they will need to in order to have a small sense of stability in their country.

[LSD]

Can't they forsee a Shiite majority in Iraq that would rule and become friends with Iran? And most likely establish religious state like Iran? And having two anti-US Shiite countries controlling the majority of the world's oil?

Short answer? No.

There's nothing to "get" here, there's no master plan or secret agenda. The United States government just miscalculated. Plain and simple.

Leftists have a tendency to inflate the enemy into something more than human, but the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state are composed of flesh-and-blood human beings who are just as prone to err as anyone else.

Afghanistan, Iraq, probably Iran, etc... it was all no doubt well-planned and organized to fit some comphrensive programme to secure American interests, but it fucked up.

That's what happens in the real world, plans fuck up. And now they're stuck with a war they can't win and a population that's getting ansy at the thought of the money, resources, and lives being pumped into this effort.

I'm sure there are elements that imagine that they can fix the whole problem by going into Iran and securing the whole area, but my bet is that it isn't going to happen.

The support for that kind of "national building" or "regime chaning" or whatever new buzzword they come up for it, it just isn't there anymore.

Bush is out in a year and it's highly unlikely he's going to be replaced by another Republican; more than likely it's going to be a conservative democratic who will spend the next ten years slowly extricating the US from the mess its thrown itself into. ...only to come up with a new "better" plan for world market domination, of course, since that's what imperialists do.