Iran Supported al-Maliki against Militias: OSC;
Is the Baker Plan Back?
Did Iran Expel Muqtada?
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney initially rejected the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, which advised that Iraq could not be solved militarily and that regional diplomacy and engagement would be necessary.
Bush chose instead to pursue an escalation of the war, which he euphemistically called a 'surge.' This tactic backfired when Bush inadvertently allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad, turning the capital into a playground for the Shiite Mahdi Army. As a result of the Shiitization of Baghdad, violence in the city thereafter declined, since there were fewer Sunnis around to kill (many were cowering in Damascus). The US achieved a ceasefire with the Mahdi Army (and why not, since the US military was disarming its enemies and allowing it to then chase them off to Syria?)
Moreover, Baghdad was only one hot spot in a very complicated country, and security continued to deteriorate in the Kurdish north along the Turkish border and in the southern Shiite oil port of Basra, as I argue in an op-ed today in the Boston Globe.
Even the temporary reduction in violence was more modest than the US press tended to assume. And the death rate may have reached its nadir and begun climbing back up now that the extra troops are being withdrawn. As David Fiderer pointed out, that outcome is precisely what the ISG report predicted.
So now it turns out that recently General David Petraeus has been doing regional diplomacy in an attempt to get local regimes to cooperate in cutting the flow of foreign fighters, money and arms to Iraq.
In other words, the military escalation, which is now getting to be over with, did not do the trick. So the only alternative is to go back to the Baker Hamilton Commission recommendations.
Question: How far ahead of the game would we be if this regional diplomacy had started in December of 2006 instead of being dismissed by Bush and Cheney in favor of a set of purely military tactics?
Another question: Why not also talk to Iran?
Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran. Fiderer points out that the ISG report had already diagnosed this syndrome. The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence. In fact, the violence came as a response to violations of the cease fire by the US and the Iraqi government, which took advantage of it to arrest Mahdi Army commanders (that's a ceasefire?)
The key role of Iran in backing the Badr Corps (which Ryan Crocker and Gen Petraeus pointedly did not condemn, and Senator Lindsay Graham actually defended!) is demonstrated by the following:
' Al-Sharqiyah, Al-Iraqiyah Roundup: Political Blocs Express Support for Government
Iraq -- OSC Summary
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Dubai Al-Sharqiyah Television in Arabic . . carries between 1400 GMT and 2000 GMT on 10 April the following . . :
-- "The Badr Corps Command took a series of quick measures to protect itself from any possible military campaign against all militias in Iraq. A high-ranking official at the Interior Ministry, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the Badr Corps withdrew its key commanders to Iran in the past few days after it entered a new batch of fighters, around 1500 it total, into the Interior Ministry services. '
The Ministry of Interior in Iraq is a security ministry, and its special police commanders have long been dominated by the Badr Corps militia, which as you can see is very close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the ayatollahs in Tehran, but which is also allied with Bush.
Iran admitted on Saturday that it had negotiated a ceasefire by the Mahdi Army when approached by Iraqi parliamentarians (who were from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da'wa Party, al-Maliki's backers). In other words, while Bushco blames Iran for Iraq's instability, in fact the Iranians have tried to and often succeeded in calming the situation down.
Ma`d Fayyad of al-Sharq Al-Awsat even says, writing in Arabic, that the Iranians were annoyed with Muqtada al-Sadr over his militia activities and have more or less expelled him from Iran (though Iranian authorities denied he was ever there). The OSC translation of the money graf from Fayyad's article (Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Internet Version-WWW)Saturday, April 12, 2008) is:
' The Iraqi sources in Qom and Al-Najaf asserted that the Iranian authorities informed Al-Sadr of the need to leave their territories because of the security problems he had caused in Iraq following the armed clashes between the pro-Al-Sadr "Al-Mahdi Army" militia and Iraqi forces in Basra, Baghdad, Al-Diwaniyah, Karbala, and Al-Kut. They added that moderate officials in Iran denounced Al-Sadr's presence in their territories saying that this was causing problems with the Iraqi Government and that "affects the course of relations between Tehran and Baghdad." Iraqi sources in Al-Najaf said Al-Sadr "arrived from Qom the night before yesterday and stayed at the house of one of his aides, where his supporters were banned from reaching him, after being forced to stay for six months in an isolated house on the outskirts of the Iranian city of Qom."'
The transparently false US charges against Iran, of being behind most disturbances in the Shiite south, are apparently propaganda intended to prepare the way by Dick Cheney for a US attack on Iran. Cheney wants to do regime change in Tehran before he kicks the bucket.
Despite incorrect Bushco claims that the Mahdi Army is a tool of Iran (that is like calling the Minutemen vigilantes in Arizona tools of the Mexican government), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says Muqtada is not considered an enemy of the US if he sticks to politics. What? His politics consists of pushing the US out of Iraq!
As for the Bush charges that Iran backed rogue militiamen against the al-Maliki government, it is contradicted by the US intelligence community. The USG Open Source Center did a report on the Iranian stance toward the recent fighting between al-Maliki's forces and those of Mahdi Army and other militias. It found that the Iranian press (hint: it is not independent of the Iranian government) backed al-Maliki! In other words, Bush and Iran are on the same side:
'OSC Report: Tehran Supportive of Iraqi Government Operations Against Militias
Iran -- OSC Report
Thursday, April 10, 2008 . . .
Iran-Iraq -- Tehran Supportive of Maliki Government Operations Against Militias Iran has praised Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Security Force's (ISF) operations against militant groups in Basra and has portrayed them as being necessary to establishing peace and stability in Iraq. As such, the Islamic Republic has dismissed allegations that it is supplying weapons to Shiite militias and has echoed its long-standing call for US forces to withdraw from Iraq.
Tehran has publicly been supportive of Nuri al-Maliki and the ISF's recent performance against militant groups in Basra, and is careful to differentiate such groups from "legitimate" political parties like the Sadr Trend. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki meeting in Baghdad (President.ir, 3 March)
Presenters on Iran's state-run television described Prime Minister Maliki's Basra offensive as being against "illegal armed groups," and Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hoseyni warned Iraqi political parties against falling "into the trap of the lawless militias." He added: "There is a difference between the illegal armed groups that commit crimes and the political parties that are active in politics and present in the Iraqi government and parliament. The move by Mr Maliki should receive all-out support. This way, both the interests of the Iraqi nation and government and the interests of Iraqi neighboring countries will be served" (IRINN, 7 April).
Similarly, on 8 April, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) described al-Maliki's response against "illegal armed groups" as being "rightful," and various Iranian news agencies quoted the prime minister's statements in which he detailed the ISF's "successes" in ridding Basra of "lawbreakers, armed groups, and criminal gangs" (Mehr News Agency; Fars News Agency, 3 April).
On 4 April, Iran's Mehr News Agency published an interview it had conducted with Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council's Mohsen Hakim in which he claimed that Iran had "played a positive role" in ending the violence in Basra. Three days later, Mohammad-Ali Hoseyni acknowledged that Iran had recently hosted an Iraqi "delegation" and that it had "called on the parties involved to exercise self-restraint" (IRNA, 7 April).
As such, the Islamic Republic has predictably dismissed allegations that it is supplying weapons to Iraqi militias and has attempted to distance itself from Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr -- despite Western claims that al-Sadr is currently in Iran.
In an interview with Aftab News, Mohammad-Ali Mohtadi of the Iranian Foreign Ministry's International Relations faculty dismissed claims that Iran was providing weapons to the Mahdi Army, saying: "To Iran, any clash in Iraq will not be to the interest of any clashing party. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran has done its best to stop the clashes. In fact, if anything, Iran played as a mediator in Iraq" (6 April).
On 5 April, Iranian Government spokesman Gholamhoseyn Elham dismissed reports that Muqtada al-Sadr was in Iran as being "released by the occupation forces to blame the current insecurity in Iraq on other sides" (IRNA).
The conservative Tabnak website dismissed Muqtada al-Sadr's claim in a 30 March interview with Al-Jazirah that he told Iran's Supreme Leader last year that he disagreed with Iran's "political and military objectives in Iraq" and that Iran should stop its "intervention." The website, which is affiliated with former IRGC Commander Mohsen Reza'i, described al-Sadr's remarks as "rude," and said that such claims were made at a time when "America's worst accusation against Iran" is that it is arming al-Sadr's group and that he is residing in Iran. Tabnak asserted that Iran, "a serious ally of Iraq's popular government," always has opposed such actions by "hard-line clans" that "only weaken the government and people of Iraq and give a pretext to its occupiers" (31 March).
Instead, Iranian officials and media have directed blame at the United States for the insecurity in Iraq, and have echoed their long-standing call for US forces to withdraw.
During his 10 April meeting with Iraq's former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Ja'fari, Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki urged the United States to "stop provoking crisis in the Middle East" and called for the US to "set a fixed timeline to withdraw its troops from Iraq" (Fars News Agency).
An editorial in the prominent conservative daily, Jomhuri-ye Eslami, declared that Iraq's "occupation is the root of all problems" in the country and claimed that "as long as these forces remain in Iraq, bloodshed would continue" (3 April).
On 30 March, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hoseyni called upon Iraqi Government forces and militias to end their fighting in order to remove any "pretext" for US troops to stay in Iraq" (Fars News Agency). '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/13/2008 12:42:00 AM
|
Facebook
24 Comments:
Do you see, as I do, a military strike against Iran as inevitable given the machinations of Cheney and Bush?
There is no end to the lies the Bush administration will tell, and apparently no end to the willingness of the 6-year-olds in our media to repeat them. Every "adult" they bring in to convince us they're finally going to play straight (Mukasey, Gates) turns out to be as bad or worse as than the guy he replaced. At this point, everything from impeachment hearings to a million-man march on Washington to encircle the White House and stay there until Jan. 20 is called for -- whatever it takes to paralyze this administration and make it impossible for them to "govern" any further.
With the US and Iran backing the same faction in Iraq, the only explanation that makes sense is that all the saber-rattling is just a kabuki play to create the perception of instability and thus the price of oil high. Iran may be part of an "axis of evil" -- not with Iraq, Syria, and North Korea, but with Exxon, BP, and Shell.
Here are some clues as to why the USA supports Badr, Iran's ally:
1) Hakim, and the rest, criticize and curse all the Arab countries ad infinitum.
2) They never criticize Israel
3) They attack the Palestinians in Iraq, killing a huge number of them and turning the rest into refugees in the desert.
3) They, like all the Iraqi exiles who collaborated with the USA have ties to the AEI, going back many years.
4) They pretend that they have enormous influence in Iran, in particular in the oil-rich Gulf region (on the Iranian side) with its majority, oppressed, Arabs.
Question: Is Bush's definition of victory a compliant puppet government he can control? I mean, his backing of Chalabbi, his hosting of al-Maliki and Hakim ... doesn't this display a preference for guys who's loyalty can be bought as opposed to an independent like al-Sadr?
I also think it an odd bit of propaganda that they lately speak of engaging al-Sadr politically while keeping his forces under siege
I am really frightened about what further destruction the American/Isralie alliance will do until bush/cheney leave office. I am truly scared. They are desperate people and desperate people do desperate things.
"Another question: Why not also talk to Iran?"
The key to the answer to this question can be found in the pockets of those who still harbour animosity against Iran for what happened during the fall of the Shah and the rise of the Ayatollahs. We need not forget that EVERYTHING that has happened in the region has everything to do with what has been considered unsettled disputes with not only Saddam Hussein but with the leaders of the Iranian Revolution of the late 1970ies. Hussein, as we are caused to remember, was the one who was supposedly behind the thwarted attack on Younger George's daddy, although no one seemed to recall that Elder George was the one who was behind the attacks on Hussein, factually, rightly or wrongly. The Iranis have been problematic - save for the marionette martinet Shah - in what the Angaloids and their psychophants (seen in the Clintons and Bushes) have viewed as their entitlement to the resources of and in the region.
To talk to Iran or to al-Sadr or any of the regional principals would be regressive instead of revanchist, perhaps heroic instead of timourous. This 'talk' is, in itself, contrary to the guiding principles of the Buschists and their NeoCon axes. Hoping to really make of Iraq anything that resembles a 'West'-approved 'democratic' state is also contradicted by the policies and polities of polarisation promulgated and proclaimed by the 'leaders' of the 'Western' world. Introduction of features and characteristics of any social or political initiatives that remain unsuited and incongruous to the indigenous are predestined, doomed to failure. Taking a strictly tribal society and assuming that everything can be peaceably homogenised to the point of parity and equality is ridiculous in practice. Assuming that the policy-makers ever intended that such a homogeneity would be successful is ludicrous. Their 'success' depends upon the continued fractured factionality of the region and country, making use of the convenient conflation of Iranis and Sadrists, Al-Qaedans and insurgents, Sunnis and extremists, all of which can be seen and heard in 'Songbird' McCain's shallow words, in print and in person.
Harbouring hatreds of the past is not unlike maintaining idealised nostalgic loves. They both depend upon the imagined badness or goodness of the situations and the characters without benefit of objectifying the conditions. Thoughts divorced from reality are always more attractive and inspirational, ofttimes luring unsuspecting accomplices into darkened worlds, unfamiliar except to those whose nightmarish dreams dominate.**
Just as there were some notions of how well the Americans and their allies did in the 1990-91 efforts to destabilise and destroy Iraq, fantasies of a repeat performance abounded in 2002 into 2003. Of course, the realities hit with the refusal of many Europeans as well as the Turks and the Arabs to join in the fun. As poorly, the Americans had been sucked into a box canyon called 'Iraq,' what with the one entry and exit point now conveniently controlled by Basra and the Sadrists. Now, with the ungraceful exit of the Angaloids, once again for what? the third time in a century?, the Americans have been forced into the Southern part of the country to ensure that established logistical avenues are not blocked.
At the same time, any 'talk' with Iran is on the belligerent end of the scale, perhaps warning the Iranophiles in Iraq of the consequences of becoming too close to the Buscists' and NeoCons' rival and enemy, the real (and not pretend) 'Aryans' becoming another and later chapter in the World's long-sought and -established cast of villains.
We have to wonder the degree to which idées fixes are not only governing but controlling those in whom they reside to the point of laser vision, that condition beyond the more benign tunnel sort. The only constant in Life is Change. It seems that there are quite a number of people who are by nature viscous and consequently viscious, resisting flow and becoming overheated by the resulting personal friction. Anyone who can justify any sort of conflict based upon personal grievances or grudges, like Younger George or the various groups who see Nazis in every shadow (opportunistically missing those whose penubral images are cast in indistinct darkness), any and all of these people are dangerous to the welfare of not only humankind but of all living creatures. Sucking whole populations into their little pettinesses has no short- or long-term benefit or advantage other than perpetuating feuds and wars on all sides, just as we are seeing in Iraq and the region as a whole.
The Americans had a chance to talk to Iran early in the period of the Revolution, something that Jimmuh Cahtuh then RayGun Ronnie chose not to do. Whether it was some concern over hostages or the desire to rearm the United States, the prospect of dealing with the Ayatollahs was too far removed from the prevailing limited thought processes of the times. Once more, the opportunity for the United States to be an impartial arbiter in the procession of global politics and affairs was missed, resulting in isolation and intensifying the reluctance of adversaries, their becoming nothing else but enemies. This we saw in the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980ies.
It's just much easier to carry on outdated family traditions than to be unique and original, even if the traditions are themselves anomalous and fanciful.
* Saddam tried to kill my dad, says Bush
September 27 2002
http://tinyurl.com/2v6hpq
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734315453.html
** http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/04/11.html
BUSH, LIKE HITLER, IS AN EMOTIONAL CRIPPLE
instead of viewing the americans and the iranians as being on the "same side", i'd argue that it's more accurate to view them as being rival suitors for the same bride. what each wants is a faithful mistress who spurns the competition. unfortunately the americans seem to be going about their seduction with all the finesse and tact of a bluto chasing an olive oyl who has already clearly made her choice.
"Bush chose instead to pursue an escalation of the war, which he euphemistically called a 'surge.' This tactic backfired when Bush inadvertently allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad..."
Dr. Cole,
I have a hard time understanding why you give Bush this much credit. There was no "tactic." The only reason for the surge was to find an excuse to keep the war going. Bush could care less about ethnic cleansing. He did not "inadvertantly" allow ethnic cleansing. If anyone even raised the possibility of ethnic cleansing to him, which I doubt, he would have probably fired them before he listened to them.
The Globe op/ed was a good overview of the situation; too bad you couldn't use some of that space to refute the fundamental basis of BushCo's Iran propaganda.
Juan, here's a moneygraf, if there ever was one:
"President George W. Bush on Thursday lumped Iran with the Al-Qaeda terrorist group as "two of the greatest threats to America in this new century" and said both hoped for a US defeat in Iraq.
He accuses Tehran of backing Iraqi militias hostile to US forces and in his speech defending the war there, warned he would not hesitate to use force if the Islamic republic targets US interests in Iraq.
Iran "has a choice to make," either to live in peace with its neighbor or "continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran," Bush said.
"If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.""
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8655
Does any sense of Deja Vu come to mind? Remember how Bush insisted on linking Saddam and Al Queda, as absurd as that was (ie. equally absurd to his current attempts to link Iran and Al Queda, rhetorically)? Remember how he basically said to Iraq "stop doing what we already know you're not doing or we will attack you?" See how he's now doing the exact same thing to Iran?
The writing is on the wall. Here's the latest on the ongoing military buildup against Iran:
"
The military planning as well as the buildup directed against Iran has taken place over a period of more than four years.
In recent developments, which are of significance in assessing US sponsored war plans directed Iran, Israel has been hosting a NATO naval exercise, involving six NATO frigates, which arrived in Haifa on March 31st for a joint drill with Israeli Navy missile boats.
"During the visit, a demonstration of naval capabilities took place, as well as an exchange of information on a range of topics," the Israeli military said in a statement. Israel has been shoring up ties recently with NATO as part of preparations for any future showdown with Iran.""
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8537
I think one also might ask quite appropriately why Bush is so eager to keep the troop buildup in Iraq high (and who knows - they may even be increasing the mercenary contingent) - possibly for a ground invasion of Iran? I know most pundits have been dismissing that possibility, but in the light of the very strange determination in the White House to keep Iraq troop levels high DESPITE public opinion both in Iraq and in the US, in an election year, I suggest that the possibility of a ground invasion into Iran needs to be re-evaluated - put back on the table, so to speak.
And why is it that we have to look to the tin pot dictator of Russia for words of commonsense in this crazy world, and what does that say about the general level of sanity amongst the world's leaders today? He said at the NATO summit that 'there is no credible threat to the US from Iran.'
Seems like it's been true from the beginning of time that when the Russian leaders are the sane ones, global war is right around the corner.
Professor Cole, keen perpspective on the US-Iraq-Iran relationship. Thanks.
Juan Cole makes the case that the Bush administration is falsely accusing Iran and that really Bush and Iran are on the same side. This is true. But the conclusion that the administration is foolish in its public denunciations of Iraq does not follow.
It seems the Bush strategy is to defeat Iraqi nationalists, whether Sunni or Shiite. They seem to have done that with the Sunnis in Anbar who have now sided with the Americans. Now they are turning their guns on the Sadr leadership and militia. So of course they are happy when Iran supports the Badr corps and Maliki unhappy when it supports the Sadirist militias. The obvious Bush strategy is to accuse and threaten Iran so that it supports only the Maliki government. There is nothing irrational or self-defeating in this posture. The only question is whether this ruthless neocolonial divide and rule strategy will succeed. I think Professor Cole should turn his attention to this question.
ref : “The Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran... iow, the [al-Maliki ‘IRAQ’] government side [is] the pro-Iranian side... The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence.”
(for the benefit of overseas readers) The professor's statement is profound because so few Americans realize that this BADR:SADR dynamic is how things really are in IRAQ. That the U.S. media have yet to report, in such a "just the facts, sir" way, this truth ~ is or is not a mystery depending upon your level of cynicism regarding our mainstream media. . .
. . .but what is truly curious (to many of us) is why the American Democratic opposition Party has to date been unable or unwilling to articulate this message to the American people.
That many of your mainstream, international media are doing so is helpful ~ but very few Americans purposefully seek out, or have (non-internet) public access to your reportage of our Occupation Forces' situations in Afghanistan and IRAQ : So what the Professor is saying is quite literally "news" to many of us.
Apparently, it is this pervasive level of our ignorance, and to some extent our persistent gullibility, that enables Mr. Bush and many of our general staff Officer Corps leaders to continue to "fix the ‘facts-not’ to their policy" in such a blatantly mis-leading way. And fwiw, those few of us who are relatively well-informed continue our struggle to understand just what is "their policy", and their intent ~ manifested by their campaign to deceive the American public (and indeed, our own troops).
ie., to conclude that The Administration's goal is "to damage = diminish the political viability of Mr. al-Sadr," or even "to attack = go to war against IRAN," does not answer the question : why? or, How do either of these scenarios serve American interests? For many of us, Mr. Bush's foreign policy is "indecipherable".
And so you, the international reader will likely see here on Informed Comment and elsewhere on the ‘net a lively and varied discussion of not only: Where are we being led, or fwiw mis-led; but also, Just what the hell are the facts, is the reality in our Occupied Territories?
Juan Cole seems to be a defeatist who can't admit he was wrong about the "surge". With the emergence of Iraqi public opinion strongly against the militia's, while the "Awakening Councils" have become the most respected institution in Iraq, the "surge" has clearly been a success. The Iraqi people clearly want more public security, they want the militia's crushed and they want the freedom to live where they want. The Iraqi security forces are going to be ordered to implement what public opinion calls for.
Iran has apparently misread Iraqi public opinion if they believe the Iraqi people are going to tolerate the Mahdi Army, because they clearly won't. Popular support for the militia's is now around 20% and that has plummeted over the last year, even among the Shiites. The Iraqi government now seems to better understand they have to deliver what the people want - whether Juan Cole calls it a "civil war" or not.
Iraqi public opinion is strongly in favor of displaced property owners regaining possession of the property, and you don't need an Iraqi Study Group report to figure out that is going to happen. Further the "Awakening Councils" are now the most popular institution in Iraq, and you don't need the Iraq Study Report to figure out the Awakening Councils are going to be expanded and gain the support from the Iraqi government they deserve.
The Kurds have been flaunting their independence by cutting oil deals that they shouldn't have. Iraqi public opinion doesn't like it and eventually if that continues you don't need the Iraqi Study Group report to figure out the Iraqi army will move on the Kurds - with the likely assistance of Iran, Syria and Turkey.
The intent to dismember and provincialize Iraq is almost accomplished.
The American people expect the forces to stay in Iraq, but want to argue about the numbers. In any case, no-one expects a full withdrawal any time soon.
Israel has moved its aim to Iran, as has the White House. Openly.
So, frankly, what are the options for not 'decapitating' Iran?
Where is any effective domestic opposition? It used to be in the military itself. But that seems past.
For the record, given the reality of contemporary American government, and the different accomplishments of the two administrations over the past decade, it's odd to hear Putin called a tin pot dictator.
Chris,
The surge worked? The official goal of the Bush escalation was to grant the 'breathing room' that the Iraqi government would need in order to achieve political reconciliation. Clearly this has not happened. In fact, Maliki is now attacking a political rival militarily. This is not reconciliation.
"the "Awakening Councils" are now the most popular institution in Iraq, and you don't need the Iraq Study Report to figure out the Awakening Councils are going to be expanded and gain the support from the Iraqi government they deserve."
Is that a joke? These Sunni warlords that are being paid off by the US occupiers are not loyal to Maliki and his puppet government. What makes you think Maliki would give them any support? Has he shown any indication of doing so? No. None. Zilch. This is not reconciliation.
"The Iraqi people clearly want more public security, they want the militia's crushed and they want the freedom to live where they want."
Well, Maliki seems interested in crushing only ONE militia, that of his political rival. The militia of al-Hakim is not on Maliki's radar. Why is this? Heh, you are right, I don't need an Iraqi Study Group to figure it out.
This is not reconciliation.
Anonymous said...
Do you see, as I do, a military strike against Iran as inevitable given the machinations of Cheney and Bush?
- - - - - - - -
No I don't see it as inevitable at all. In fact I see just the opposite -- there is no way the United States is going to overtly attack Iran, at least through the end of the w.bush administration. You read that at juancole.com first.
The USA and israel are going to continue to bluster, and threaten, and rattle their sabres, and stamp their feet and wail but there will be no military attack on Iran in the traditional sense. The Iranians hold all the cards in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the USA knows it. Most importantly, the Iranians know the USA knows it.
The United States government and military services have much of their credibility invested in maintaining the public pretense that the situation has greatly improved inside Iraq and (they claim) it continues to improve. If the United States attacks Iran via air strikes, which is the only option the USA military has, that would permit the Iranians to dispense with any minor covert operations they're running now and make a full commitment to openly accelerating the mischief and violence in Iraq on the ground. The patina of "surge" success thus goes out the window. At present the media meme about the "success" of the surge is generally keeping the heat off of the w. bush administration. The administration is not anxious to throw that political cover away. An attack on Iran would result in intensified operations by Iranian military or paramilitary forces inside Iraq. Everybody, even the Establishment media can then wave bye-bye to the "success of the surge."
If the Americans are not prepared to conquer and occupy Iran, and they're not, then the Iranians, who are world class chess players can maneuver for a stalemate and maintain a guerrilla war of attrition with the Americans for -- John McCain would appreciate this -- 100 years. Iran is a large country with a large population. The tired and bruised US military doesn't want to grab hold of that tiger. So they're gonna talk tuff and threaten, but that's as serious as it's going to get.
As Joe Cirincione said, "If you like the Iraq war, you'll love war with Iran." There is an appreciation of that sentiment amongst most field grade officers in the U.S. military and enough apparatchiks at the State Dept. to keep a rein on w.bush/cheney through the end of the current administration.
Monsieur Gonzo :
. . .but what is truly curious (to many of us) is why the American Democratic opposition Party has to date been unable or unwilling to articulate this message to the American people.
Ahem... that is or is not a mystery depending upon your level of cynicism regarding our Demoblican party...
The Administration's goal is "to damage = diminish the political viability of Mr. al-Sadr," or even "to attack = go to war against IRAN," does not answer the question : How do either of these scenarios serve American interests?
You're getting warmer...
Just what the hell are the facts, is the reality in our Occupied Territories?
Bingo!
Mark Konrad :
I hope you're right, but your argument depends on two things I think are lacking:
1) That the Neocons are applying logical analysis along the same lines you do. They are logical, but the desired end state is what seems "good" for the far-right wing in Israel and the US, not what is good for Israel and the US.
2) That the people likely to be in charge after Bush, Clinton/McCain/Obama, have a logic of their own that differes from the Neocons'. They, too, are owned by the same interests who own the Neocons.
As I say, I hope I'm wrong and that you are right.
Obviously, all the big players are alarmed at Sadr's growing (and growing) influence. And so all the big players are gambling against the blowback of doing something as opposed to doing nothing in the face of their eroding influence. So witness a grand alliance of the U.S., Iranian, Maliki, Badr, Dialogue, and Accord Front in a joint international effort to isolate king of the dispossessed, Muqtada al-Sadr.
Wow, its about time they found the courage, to move on the long awaited reconciliation benchmark.
anna missed
workshop, "the tin pot dictator of Russia" was ELECTED unlike USA prez, and he is POPULAR, so please, spare me such a nice example of USA supermacism. One could think that USAmecricans should know they have NOTHING to brag about, esp. NOW
Gonzo -- To expect our media to report the subtleties of intra-Shi'ite rivalries in Iraq, when they can't begin to understand themselves and know the American public, by and large, has even less interest than they do, is asking a bit much. Much easier to report things in the black-white terms of the Bush administration, no matter how self-contradictory. Most people won't think it through that far. No matter how unpopular Bush has become, he still represents our country quite well -- "I thought they were all Muslims."
Chris -- Could you send me some packets of Kool-Aid? I'm running low.
Fully agree with Monsieur Gonzo that this conflation of ideologically separate (of course, levered further apart by the US presence in the region) groups in Iraq and Iran to the loss of a more nuanced analysis of the loyalties and commitments of groups and governments is only, as Gonzo says, possible, because the American people are so ignorant about the religious, political, national linkages between the various players. It also betrays a profound racism on the part of Richard B. Cheney and all the warmongers to lump all the groups into one in the hopes that the masses will not care enough to tease out differences.
I've said it before, but ultimately, I think the weakness of the American educational system is going to be the ultimate undoing of this country. It has happened to such a great extent already. If people really were well-educated or could at least think critically, there is no way they would accept that the claims of Saddam's rearming was imminent or that, indeed, everyone over there just "hates us". By and large, folks everywhere just want to be healthy, safe, well-fed, have some security for their families. To suggest otherwise is to attribute less than honest levels of decency to billions in places which Americans just can't find on a map.
John Francis Lee :
Points well taken. However I still don't believe w. bush and cheney have the nerve to pull the trigger.
Both strike me as punks and opportunists. They're the high school wise guy types who only pick on skinny kids with glasses. Iraq looked like a starved, whipped puppy they could kick. The invasion was supposed to be a quick conquest with champagne and slaps on the back all around. Instead of rolling over though the Iraqis continued to fight and they got better at it. The two wise guys bought themselves a five year war instead of the ninety day walkover they thought it would be.
The invasion of Iraq has turned into a catastrophic blunder that shall define the w.bush/cheney administration. Despite all the bravado I think they're both genuinely shocked at how badly the war has gone. Because of that I don't believe they're prepared to start a new war with Iran, a much larger, much better armed and much more potentially dangerous adversary. There is the very real possibility that the Americans can lose their army in the Middle East if they become deeply involved fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and against Iran simultaneously.
w. bush and cheney lack the intestinal fortitude to throw a punch at a country that is absolutely guaranteed to punch back. The Iranians have many, many options in response if the Americans do attack them. w. bush and cheney understand that, and they're unsure of what and where that response might be. For that reason I'm convinced they're not going to provoke Iran.
Post a Comment
<< Home