Is Najaf just a neocon passion play?

[stickdog]

The latest news has me thinking as much:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/9417285.htm?1c

When I think neocons, I think "bad Republican screenwriters." It usually fits. In this case the screenplay goes like this:

1) Provoke al-Sadr into fighting, then surround him and the Najaf shrine with overwhelming force.

2) Send in a negotiating team to see what kind of deal al-Sadr will cut.

3) Come to a working agreement.

4) Suddenly pull out the negotiating team and cut off all negotiations.

5) Create a bullshit disturbance at the bullshit Baghdad "Democracy Forum" while flexing your military muscles around the shrine.

6) Tell everyone, "This is democracy in action!" Rinse and repeat.

7) Send a "last minute" negotiating team -- "forced by the Iraqis' nascent democracy and freedom" -- and put the already agreed upon offer back on the table.

Hooray for Operation Iraqi puppet Legitimacy!

I realize that this plan calls for something the neocons have yet to demonstrate -- namely, competence. But I'm pretty certain that this is what they are trying for. Now it's just a case of seeing if they can control their own hubris enough to pull it off.

[BayouBengal07]

1. I dunno

That sounds too complicated. They have pretty one track minds, i.e.

1.) Invade Iraq

2.) Be welcomed as liberators with flowers and kisses

3.) Remake the entire Middle East as "domino democracy" flourishes


You know what? Reading what I've just written, I wonder why it didn't hit me earlier. We've tried this strategy before, proping up the Shah in Iran, supporting Democratic Israel, and supporting anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan. So how come those didn't bring a wave of Democracy?

[stickdog]

2. Please explain to me how I'm wrong.

It seems like a pure neocon to me.

Set the bar so low that the mere avoidance of blowing the holiest Shi'ite shrine to kingdom come is a laudable diplomatic "triumph" to be crowed about during the entire NYC Repukathon!