I read with interest recent MSM reports on the situation in Iraq and in particular how the US Government is shifting its policies in the changing winds. I cite a recent AP article , with choice quotes:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice comments, “The security situation is not one to be tolerated, and is not one that is helped by political inaction,” calling for him to bring all the Iraqi factions together to stop the killings in Iraq. She wonders why the US is bankrolling US$300 billion to police intercenine fighting half a world away and that its continuing support for the Maliki government is not a one-sided bargain. She further comments that “Iraq can count on our partnership, as long as the new government continues to make hard decisions necessary to advance a unified, democratic and peaceful Iraq.” Iraq can count on our partnership, as long as the new government continues to make hard decisions necessary to advance a unified, democratic and peaceful Iraq.
The wording and choice of words clearly point towards a rationalisation of a possible exit strategy. Words like “partnership”, “intercenine fighting” expose the US Government’s inclination to create a separation between the US and the Iraqi situation and statements are shaping the US-created situation to a situation that the US is assisting in.
Control of the media is a political strategy the US is late but quickly picking up from the PAP, beginning with the banning of protests in Washington DC. As the US continues to policy itself into quagmire after quagmire (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea) over the past 5 years, the PAP Government continues to follow blindly. While the PAP’s commentary on the NK situation is ambivalent at best, acceeding to to UN votes, it has in the past followed the US like a lapdog, largely due to economic reasons. Perhaps MM Lee’s tribute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre is the US’s belated reward for his vast teachings in iron-hand governance and manipulating public perception.
