Some guy named Rossmiller has a piece up at the American Prospect analyzing the highly symbolic -- and completely overlooked -- arms deal between Iraq and China announced last week. The author sounds like your standard loser Very Serious Person (fellow at a think tank, former intel officer -- obviously just masquerading as a real progressive), but the article isn't half bad (if I may say). It discusses the $100 million agreement for China to supply Iraq with weapons, saying that the move is basically a big middle finger from Iraqi government leadership to the U.S., a nonverbal message disapproving of our political and military strategy there:
This small assertion of independence -- involving the only nation with an economy and military to rival the United States, no less -- reflects increasing Iraqi dissatisfaction with U.S. policy. The Shia-dominated Maliki government is profoundly concerned about the recent U.S. strategy of arming Sunnis, ostensibly against al-Qaeda, in Iraq's western, Sunni-controlled Anbar province. Shia leaders have warned against this program, complaining that arming and training "former" insurgents serves to arm a dissatisfied and rebellious anti-government force . . .It continues to baffle me that analysts focus on micro military questions. Body counts. Territory. The "surge." The issues that will change the direction of the country are political, and we really need to start looking at (and thinking about) it in that context.
Perversely, as the United States is triumphant about Sunni efforts against jihadists, Maliki and his allies recognize that al-Qaeda is a far less potent threat to the central government than Iraqi Sunnis. This dissatisfaction remained below the surface for some time, but no longer . . . The UIA demanded a halt to the outreach, and it is clear that the Shia are gravely concerned about the possibility that the United States may seek to expand the Anbar plan to Baghdad.
Anyway, the whole thing is worth a look. Go check it out.
