Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mr. natural · 05:11 PM

...the winner is Iran.

In case anyone is interested, it now seems clear that Iraq is spiraling toward sectarian civil war.

The "insurgents" (comprised of the minority Sunni Iraqis of the deposed Baathist regime) and suicide bombers (a lot of them Saudi Arabians) are targeting their avowed enemy, the majority Shiites, as in the gas tanker attack next to a Shiite mosque, and moderate Sunnis as well, as in the double slaying in broad daylight of two Sunnis who were partaking in the Constitutional drafting process.

The Shiite leadership has for the most part called on their followers to refrain from counter-attacking, but there are numerous and growing retaliatory killings of Sunnis, mostly by the Badr Brigade or shi'a death squads in police uniforms.

The Bush administration likes to tout how we are doing in building an Iraqi military force that will take over from US forces and tosses figures about meant to sound impressive, such as "the Iraqi forces had been given 306 million rounds of ammunition, roughly 12 bullets for each of Iraq's 25 million people. But when one senior American officer involved was asked whether the Americans might end up arming the Iraqis for a civil war, he paused for a moment, then nodded. 'Maybe.' he said." (emphasis mine, link above.)

Furthermore, the best trained units of the Iraqi military are comprised mainly of para-military wings of Shiites and Kurds, both of whom have no abiding love for the Sunnis, nor the Sunnis for such government military/police forces.

Baghdad is paralysed, and the "US army and Iraqi government positions in Baghdad are surrounded by ramparts of enormous cement blocks that snake through the city. Manufactured in different sizes, each is named after an American state, such as Arkansas and Wisconsin. These concrete megaliths are strangling the city by closing off many streets."

(think of the "brick" smilie here)

As for the "reconstruction" charade, people are executed for no known reason by patrolling military commandos, members of government don't leave the Green Zone, and what little central government there is "make bizarre efforts to pretend that there are signs of normality. Last week a pro-government newspaper had an article on the reconstruction of Baghdad. Above the article was a picture of a crane at a building site. But there are no cranes at work in Baghdad, so the paper was compelled to use a photograph of a crane that had been rusting for more than two years and was abandoned at the site of a giant mosque Saddam Hussein was constructing."

Despite the efforts of the US to quash the insurgency, and counter to all the propaganda that it is in its last throes, they just keep getting stronger.

The reality in Iraq is that Bush has unleashed an Iraqi Pandora's box, and his illusionary Peace, Freedom and Democracy crusade is toast. Worse, there is no clean and safe exit strategy. That we will one day, sooner than later, start removing troops is certain. What is less certain is what sort of mess we leave behind.

From John Burns' NYTimes article (1st link above):
Some senior officers have said privately that there is a chance that the pullback will be ordered regardless of what is happening in the war, and that the rationale will be that Iraq - its politicians and its warriors - will ultimately have to find ways of overcoming their divides on their own.
America, these officers seem to be saying, can do only so much, and if Iraqis are hellbent on settling matters violently - at the worst, by civil war - that, in the end, would be their sovereign choice.

As to a winner in this tragedy of choice where Iraq is concerned, I think both Peter W. Galbraith, in this article, and Juan Coles in this one spell it out pretty well. The winner in this US made catastrophe is Iran.

From Galbraith's article:
Through its spies, infiltrators, and sympathizers, Iran has a presence in Iraq's security forces and military. It is virtually certain that Iran has access to any intelligence that the Iraqis have... When I asked an Iraqi with major intelligence responsibilities about foreign infiltration into Iraq, he dismissed the influx from Syria (the focus of the Bush administration's attention) and said the real problem was from Iran. When I asked how the infiltration took place, he said simply, "But Iran is already in Baghdad."

Which makes the following, if at all true, all the more frightening:

From the most recent American Conservative magazine (only in print):
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.

Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing -- that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack -- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Millennium · Jul 25, 2005, 06:01 PM

This, on the same day that Sunni leaders finally came back to the bargaining table for drafting a constitution?

The situation in Iraq could be described in many ways, some positive, some not. But a quagmire, it most certainly isn't.

vmarks · Jul 25, 2005, 06:35 PM

the Jaun Cole you mention, he's the same Juan Cole of MESA, who actually knows so little about Iraq's history that he had to be corrected by Iraqi bloggers, and his best excuse for revising his blog (and attempting to correct his incorrect history, history which is supposedly his field of expertise) is 'I post late at night' ?

Yeah. That guy.

spacefreak · Jul 25, 2005, 07:39 PM

Bwahahahaha! That's hilarious.

mr. natural · Jul 26, 2005, 12:13 AM

Let's see, that's one 'look on the bright side' reply, one 'disparage a messenger' reply, and one 'faux comedy' reply.

Substantial replies one and all.

Your opinions are duly noted. Enjoy, if you can, the rest of this horror show.

budster101 · Jul 26, 2005, 01:49 AM

Quagmire... more talking points from the left-anti-Bush people.

This "Quagmire" term eminates from a book written about the Vietnam War and is being used in order to associate the war in Iraq with the same dilemna. It's a rather pathetic attempt, but if they pound it into yoru head enough, you just might think it's true. (That's their logic anyway)

How can Iran be lined up for an "unprovoked" attack? Nuclear or otherwise? They have continually disobeyed the rules that were laid out for them. Why on earth would they need to be Nuclear anyway? They would benefit by far with SOLAR power with their location, or am I just thinking too clearly with this?

They are definately attempting to build Nuclear Weapons and Russia is clearly helping them without, mind you, even giving it a decent try at hiding it.

We are fighting a War with Iran inside of Iraq. This is true. Most insurgents are coming across the border from Syria and Iran. The War in Iraq is over, it's now just starting to become the War with Syria and Iran within the borders of Iraq. How can you or anyone fail to see that? They (Syria / Iran) would suffer the most if Iraq were to gain a legitimate and self-sustaining Democracy.

Regarding Pandora's box, I once new a girl named Pandora, but never got near her box: (Shameless quote from Knotting Hill.)

von Wrangell · Jul 26, 2005, 04:52 AM