|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 25, 2006 9:33:46 GMT -5
Trying to convert an autocratic society into a democratic one overnight has not worked. No exiting gracefully from this one me thinks. I don't think it will be a case of withdrawing that it will be "running." U.S.-led Iraq invasion a 'pure failure': Hans Blix Updated Wed. Oct. 25 2006 9:51 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a "pure failure" that has left the country in a worse state than it was in under Saddam Hussein, says Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector.
Now, Blix told a Danish newspaper, there are no good options left open to the U.S.
The Swedish diplomat said pulling out of Iraq now would put the country at risk of descending into civil war.
"Iraq is a pure failure," Blix told the newspaper, Politiken.
But staying won't necessarily help the country either, Blix said.
"It doesn't seem that the United States can help to stabilize the situation by staying there," he said.
Blix's comments come at the end of the deadliest month yet this year for the U.S. military in Iraq. October has seen at least 83 U.S. soldiers killed.
Violence has been on the rise across the country in recent months, with sectarian and insurgent violence claiming dozens of Iraqi lives daily.
Blix led the team that scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction ahead of the invasion in 2003.
At the time, he urged the U.S. to hold off on the invasion and to allow the team to keep looking for weapons.
The U.S. criticized Blix for his position and went ahead with the invasion. No WMDs have ever been found.
Blix's comments on Wednesday came as the U.S. made some bold new claims, suggesting Iraqi forces should be able to take command of the country's security within the next 12 to 18 months.
The U.S. military commander in Iraq made the comments on Tuesday. However, he said that could mean initially deploying more American troops to the region.
"I very strongly believe that we need to continue to reduce our forces as the Iraqis continue to improve because we need to get out of their way," Gen. George Casey said Tuesday at a rare joint conference with the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad.
"The Iraqis are getting better, their leaders are feeling more responsible for the security in Iraq, and they want to take the reins.
But Casey said he would not hesitate to ask for more troops if he felt they were necessary to improve the basic necessities for Iraqis living in Baghdad. Some of those troops could come from outside the country.
"Now, do we need more troops to do that? Maybe. And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis," said Casey.
About 144,000 U.S. forces are currently operating in Iraq.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters that Iraqi leaders have agreed by the end of the year to develop a timeline of steps to reduce insurgent violence that is compounded by sectarian killing.
"Iraq leaders have agreed to a timeline for making the hard decisions needed to resolve these issues," said Khalilzad, who was an enthusiastic advocate of the Iraq war.
"Iraqi leaders must step up to achieve key political and security milestones on which they've agreed."
Details of the milestones were not spelled out, but Khalilzad mentioned several areas in which progress would be measured, including devising a system to share the country's oil wealth among all religious and ethnic groups.
Casey and Khalilzad reproached Iran and Syria, Iraq's neighbors east and west, for trying to undermine the American effort to stabilize the country, with Casey saying both countries had been "decidedly unhelpful."
The U.S. ambassador also said the United States was in contact with insurgent leaders, to persuade them to lay down their weapons and join the political process.
The joint news conference came as Washington reassesses its strategy in Iraq.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that American government and military officials were working with Iraq to set time frames for when Iraqis can take command of 16 provinces from American troops.
The Iraqis have taken over two southern provinces but have been slow to do the same in others, particularly those around Baghdad and in the volatile regions north and west of the capital city.
As the violence rages in Iraq two weeks before key U.S. mid-term congressional elections, the White House on Monday said that its policy for the war "has never been a stay-the-course strategy."
Iraq's deputy prime minister Barham Saleh urged the international community not "to cut and run" as he visited with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London, Reuters reported.
Meanwhile in Iraq on Tuesday, a U.S. military spokesman said there was no word on the fate of a U.S. Army soldier reported missing in Baghdad on Monday.
With files from The Associated Press CTV Reports
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 25, 2006 18:20:53 GMT -5
In hockey I like to say that when many of us on here could see a problem coming, that a GM should've been able to see it coming too.
When in international politics there's a reasonable consensus on here about something, in this case about how the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, I think we can hold leaders equally responsible.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 26, 2006 3:37:23 GMT -5
CNN has posted some recent emails they've received about the war, some in favour and some against. There is suprisingly (or perhaps not suprisingly) little mention of the tens (quite possibly hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi's killed so far. (To be fair, people were asked "if the ongoing threat to the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq has changed their views of the war") Keep the military zone off U.S. soil, fight terrorism at its inception, rather than react to it after the fact. This is an actual quote (and a common theme among the emails in favour). Try as I might, I just can't understand how anyone can think that the current war is preventing terrorists from striking in the US. As though all the terrorists in the world have been distracted by Iraq and forgotten about America.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 26, 2006 5:03:50 GMT -5
Try as I might, I just can't understand how anyone can think that the current war is preventing terrorists from striking in the US. As though all the terrorists in the world have been distracted by Iraq and forgotten about America. Following the first Gulf War the US established several military bases in Saudia Arabia, a move that angered quite a number of Saudis. Fast forward 10 years, and 15 Saudis hijack and crash several US planes, on US soil, killing a little over 2500 Americans. Their spiritual and financial backer, Osama bin Laden, claims it is in response to the infidels presence on holy (i.e. Saudi) soil. I've been saying it all along - the deaths of Iraqi civilians, even the deaths of Iraqi insurgents, is a disaster in the making. For every Iraqi you kill, you leave behind a good 10-20 people who loved said Iraqi, and who now have a rather vested interest in exacting some revenge. Throw in some extreme poverty from which their is no hope of escape, an abundance of weapons, and a few clerics promising eternal salvaltion, and the conclusion is inevitable. The orphaned 10 year olds of this war are the terrorists of tomorrow. Wait. The worst is yet to come.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 26, 2006 6:30:36 GMT -5
The orphaned 10 year olds of this war are the terrorists of tomorrow. Wait. The worst is yet to come. That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. Not saying I agree with it ... but the world expects the US to be the international police force. Now the US went out and basically took this role upon themselves: Cuba, Cold War, Afghanistan #1, Vietnam, Korea ... and now Iraq, Afghanistan#2, and North Korea. The only country capable of stopping anyone is the United States. If we expect them to protect us, then we have to live with their methods. If we do not want or need their protection then we have to live with social injustice in North Korea, China, Iraq, and keep our mouths shut. I know the arguement is that these wars have more to do with oil than social injustice ... again we need oil too. I wonder where we'd be if the US turned a blind eye?
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 26, 2006 7:37:33 GMT -5
That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. Unfortunately, it's the only way this war can be fought. Sure, they can nuke Iraq back into pre-historic times, but even Americans wouldn't stand for that. Right from the beginning of this war, I said that it couldn't be won, for this very reason. They can't fight it the way they have to fight it. Not saying I agree with it ... but the world expects the US to be the international police force. Now the US went out and basically took this role upon themselves: Cuba, Cold War, Afghanistan #1, Vietnam, Korea ... and now Iraq, Afghanistan#2, and North Korea. The only country capable of stopping anyone is the United States. If we expect them to protect us, then we have to live with their methods. True. But only to a point. The US missed a glorious opportunity in Afghanistan following 9/11, when they had the entire international community on their side, not only militarily (not needed, but politically very nice), and economically (very much needed). Rather than following through, rather keeping Afghanistan on the front burner, forcing countries to honor the military and economic committments they had already made they let it slide, and Afghanistan is once again a failed state. What if they had 150,000 international troops there now, and $50 billion in aid projects? Not only would Afghanistan be a much better place, but when things like Lebanon subsequently come up, the US can rally the world behind a"we did it in Afghanistan, lets do it here" cry. The US can lead, but what's the point if nobody follows? If we do not want or need their protection then we have to live with social injustice in North Korea, China, Iraq, and keep our mouths shut. Or Dafur, or Saudi Arabia, or Ethiopia, or Burundi, or Rwanda, or Indonesia, or Pakistan, or... We live, quite contently, with social injustices all over the world. I know the arguement is that these wars have more to do with oil than social injustice ... again we need oil too. I wonder where we'd be if the US turned a blind eye? How much oil are we getting from Iraq these days? Has Western society collapsed because none is flowing? Seems we're doing quite okay without it.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 26, 2006 7:42:11 GMT -5
Democracy is great when it works.
"Le meilleur gouvernement est une tyrannie bienveillante trempé par un assassinat occasionnel." - Voltaire
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2006 11:29:12 GMT -5
That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. Unfortunately, it's the only way this war can be fought. Sure, they can nuke Iraq back into pre-historic times, but even Americans wouldn't stand for that. Right from the beginning of this war, I said that it couldn't be won, for this very reason. They can't fight it the way they have to fight it. Yes and no guys. Bombing any country into glass is not a viable option regardless what excuses reasons you provide for having a nuclear arsenal. However, a ground war remains unwinnable so long as support from the host country remains limited. Specifically, the Afghan government has been advised by the coalition to cordon off their border with Pakistan. This is to prevent the Taliban from replenishing their numbers and munitions on a daily basis. The Afghans countered with, "... Pakistan is one of our major trading partners and closing this border would be hurt our economy." Right then! Consider these factors as well: * While there are Afghan forces and police dying along with coalition soldiers, Canadian troops and their peers constantly see ordinary Afghans going about their daily routines in the major cities as if no war was in progress. It's as if they could care less. * As I was saying above, we're talking about an autocratic society. Supposedly there was a democratic election a few years back. However, ask any common Afghan who President Hamid Karzai is and he'll tell you that, "he's the mayor of Kabul." Oh, I see ... * Everyone is talking about how much more education Afghan women have the opportunity for nowadays. However, there are media columns that cite how very little things have changed in that regard. It may be true in Kabul, but even in the 'liberated provinces,' women's rights have not flinched one bit depending who the provincial head is. It's well known that those who retained their positions of power in the immediate post-9/11 timeframe, have retained that and the system of values the Taliban left with them. Or failed war. They went from being obsessed about getting Bin Laden to "not thinking about him all that much." The mission went from ousting the Taliban and getting Bin Laden, to .... fighting the Taliban and eradicating poppies We've discussed this before, but 150,000 (or whatever the amount) troops takes the cooperation of a lot of countries. And while there are 27 countries committed to the Afghan mission there are only 4 or 5 countries actually doing the fighting. Also, another problem with having a substantial force like that in one region is the direct impact it has on the country. While 150,000 troops are spending money on the local economy, what happens to that economy when the majority of those troops finally pack up and leave? Cyprus was similar in this way. The UN poured troops into the island and many of those countries had commitments in excess of 20 years. Heck some of those original countries are still there. However, it almost became predictable that an "international incident" would occur every 3 or 4 months or so, just to make sure the new contingent of peacekeepers (and their money) would arrive in the country. I'm not making this up. My first night on the island saw the entire RCHA, including myself, on the road in Blue Beret Camp (Nicosia) in three ranks and loaded to the max. Some Turk shot a Greek and there was some concern that the RCHA would even be on the planes home next week. And incidents like this occured ever so often as I was saying. Coming full circle on you, the war is unwinnable for several reasons. However, the most significant one is the lack of support in Afghanistan. The majority of ordinary Afghans love to see others doing their fighting for them. But, so long as the "mayor of Kabul" remains, ahem, democratically appointed elected by a handful of educated, well-selected Afghans and the Taliban mindset remains in-tact, the common Afghan could care less. That's another fight altogether. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 26, 2006 11:46:53 GMT -5
I didn't even mean nukes.
If you could cordon off all traffic to and from the country. Nothign gets in, nothign gets out ... and get international sanctions against the country. Then you let them rot. The US is the only country capable of such a feat. Surround the country, and cut off its bloodlines.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 26, 2006 12:34:13 GMT -5
I didn't even mean nukes. If you could cordon off all traffic to and from the country. Nothign gets in, nothign gets out ... and get international sanctions against the country. Then you let them rot. The US is the only country capable of such a feat. Surround the country, and cut off its bloodlines. That ought achieve the original "mission" of establishing democracy in Iraq. Though I agree, the US has proven itself quite capable of letting countries rot after they unilaterally tried to impose their will.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2006 13:00:28 GMT -5
I didn't even mean nukes. If you could cordon off all traffic to and from the country. Nothign gets in, nothign gets out ... and get international sanctions against the country. Then you let them rot. The US is the only country capable of such a feat. Surround the country, and cut off its bloodlines. I guess that would only work with sheer numbers, Skilly. I think BC was pretty accurate when he suggested that the USA missed to boat at the beginning of the 9/11 reaction. However, I also think the USA missed the boat by not concentrating all of their efforts in Afghanistan in the first place. This is where Bin Laden was, this is where the al-Qeada terrorists were being harboured, et al. Instead of doing that, they took the chance at a different kind of warfare by relying mostly on special forces types of tactics. Yet, it took them a month just to get into Afghanistan and this delay allowed the main culprits to plan their attacks and, of course, their escape routes as well. Fast forward to today. Even though there were special forces operations involving Canadian JTF2 personnel as well (see below), the Canadian contingent has been bearing the brunt of the fighting in Kanadahar. And now they are bringing their main battle tanks out of war storage so to provide cover for the supply convoys that are constantly being ambused. So, from special forces to combat groups, to utilizing tanks, to .... But, why the USA-led coalition didn't bulk up their forces in the first place? I mean, originally there were more police officers in NYC than there were US soldiers in Afghanistan. Honestly, I believe the US administration were considering other agendas as well. cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 26, 2006 13:23:53 GMT -5
I hate mixing politics and the army, but here it goes.
First there hasn't been a war since WWII. There has been peacekeeping missions, Police actions but no war.
How can one fight a war when they are worried about civilians? During WWII, many cities were bombed, there was a blanten disregard for civilian lives. In fact the more innocent people killed the better. Countries wanted to end a War as soon as possible, and destroying cities and killing moral were the quickest ways.
Ever since the Korean war(which for a long time was consider a Police Action not a war), governments discovered that they could actually make money fighting, the longer they drew it out the more money they made.
If the US was serious about defeating Iraq they would have won by now, I'm sure that by bombing the cities, someone would have either handed Bin laden on a silver platter to them or would have at least told them were to find him.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2006 14:14:15 GMT -5
I hate mixing politics and the army, but here it goes. Well, the military has always been a political extention of the government. First there hasn't been a war since WWII. There has been peacekeeping missions, Police actions but no war. How can one fight a war when they are worried about civilians? During WWII, many cities were bombed, there was a blanten disregard for civilian lives. In fact the more innocent people killed the better. Countries wanted to end a War as soon as possible, and destroying cities and killing moral were the quickest ways. Ever since the Korean war(which for a long time was consider a Police Action not a war), governments discovered that they could actually make money fighting, the longer they drew it out the more money they made.[/quote] Money is always an issue. Oliver Stone did a pretty good job surmmizing which companies stood to profit by prolonging the Vietnam War. Whether he was correct in his assumptions or not is a matter for debate. Well, some journalists will cite that there never was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden. Some will say otherwise. To a large majority of countries, bombing large cities to destroy the will of the people is not an option any longer. If they had used this method chances are we would have seen coalition national flags flying all over Iraq. Not on. I believe this process would have alienated the coalition from the rest of the region more than it is now. However, the original mandate was to "disarm" the Iraqi military of it's WMD and, again, not to destroy the country and it's people. Unfortunately for George W. his military couldn't find one blessed WMD. And somewhere in that mission, Bush determined that Hussein posed a real threat to his country and the region. Well, not only they fail in the WMD case, but they also failed to make Iraq a safer country. Iraqis are dying by the droves on a daily basis. And the US lost 80-odd soldiers last month. Safer my butt! The fact is, whether the coalition wants to admit to it or not, Hussein, as crooked as he was, actually was a stabilizing factor in the region. Specifically, pulling out now will not only admit defeat, but will also leave Iraq in a brutal civil war that will weaken the country to point where it will be ripe for invasion; presumably from Iran. A civil war will also destroy what shred of democracy was imposed on Iraq to the point where an autocratic state and dictatorial saviour will be welcome options, so long as the people's basic needs are met. As an aside, I was originally supportive of the war. However as time went on I felt I had been mislead. I actually applaud the Canadian government at the time for not getting involved in Iraq. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 26, 2006 14:25:55 GMT -5
I agree Dis, however, I feel if you go in half assed, you get a half assed result. I'm not quite sure what the US was hoping to accomplish by attacking Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2006 15:53:20 GMT -5
I agree Dis, however, I feel if you go in half assed, you get a half assed result. I'm not quite sure what the US was hoping to accomplish by attacking Iraq. Originally it was to disarm Iraq, polarice. The Bush administration also cited removing a brutal dictator in Hussein. However, we've already talked about the WMD issue. And one has to ask why remove this dictator and why then when there are so many other oppressive regimes out there. China still has a miserable track record WRT human rights. Syria harbours just about every terrorist organization known. The list goes on and on but you get the gist. Also, the coalition didn't go into Iraq half-assed. They went in, in force and they're now bogged down by terrorist groups who are arriving from all parts of the Middle East. They did go into Afghanistan misreading what was required to route the Taliban out. Half-assed is a good term I suppose. No one thought that conflict would drag on as long as it has either. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 26, 2006 17:48:37 GMT -5
First there hasn't been a war since WWII. There has been peacekeeping missions, Police actions but no war. Candians fought in the Vietnam War. The "urban myth" is that Canada is the only country to never lose a war. But we had people in Vietnam. The government tried its best to remain neutral, but over 30,000 Canadians fought in the Vietnam War .... do we have 30,000 troops now? Dis? Canada also sold equipment to the US and supplies for the war. Diplomatically we were neutral, but we supported the US 100%. In more ways than one.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2006 18:08:21 GMT -5
Can Bush and Company be so stupid as not to see who's hand is behind the secterian violance? There is ONE and only ONE country that will benefit the most from Iraq breaking up and it will give them influence, if not access over a quarter of the world easily recoverable oil reserves. Iran has been saying to ANYONE who wants to listen that they are on the brink of another "Persian Empire". I have translations from one of my customers employees of speeches made by scores of Iranian Mullahs/politicians. She is Iranian and her brother is part of the Iranian "elite", actually a Mullah of some influence. Make no mistake about it, Iran has a hand in this and they are playing and countering every American move. By the way, she HATES her brother. So much for family love!
There is NO turning back at this point. If the US leaves Iraq as it stands now, the entire region will distabilize and nothing good will come of it. Saudis do not have the ability to project power or stability. China/Soviets want as much influence, nee, they want favorable puppet governments in the region. Most of the Arab states do NOT want the US to leave the region and are funding the Iraq war. Iran has repeatedly told the Emirates and smaller countries that they are illegitimate states. The entire region is a quagmire and every action has short and long term butterfly effect of reactions.
As it stands, the biggest losers are the Iraqi people. As much as I supported the war ORIGINALLY, in time, and as late as six months ago, I thought he was a buffoon. Since June, after I had lunch and subsequent discussions with my Iranian people, I have come to realize that there is so much "chaotic force" in the region and it is so easy to set off that it will take a generation to resolve. I no longer think that Bush and company are idiots but neither do I believe that they have the will to do what is necessary. The key to the region is Iran. Either they need to engage it or mire it in war. If they do that, they might as well deal with Pakistan. The best thing that can happen for the Americans is for Pakistan to get into it with India. Then they can isolate Iran. Once Iran is isolated and contained, then there is a chance that the region will go through a few decades of relative quiet.
If anyone can figure the permutation and consequences of every event in that region, then they are beyond Einsteins. In a span of ten years, there may be so much upheavel in the region that we probably can't even guess at it now.
My nightmare.....
Unfortunatly, I am almost certain that this is where the next nuke will go off....within ten years.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 26, 2006 21:22:56 GMT -5
Well, some journalists will cite that there never was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden. Some will say otherwise. Well, I think the US Senate Committee which looked at it in depth came to a very simple conclusion: no link, whatsoever, between Al Queada and Iraq. None. Well, that's the reason he was put there by the CIA in the first place, and why he was left there by Bush Senior - because overall he was a secular leader who kept his country together, which is what is needed to stability. That he was bloody and murderous is a major downside, but I think it's clear that bloodshed in the area was inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2006 21:45:36 GMT -5
Candians fought in the Vietnam War. Indeed we did Skilly. Peter Lemon is one of 54 known Canadian recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the USA's highest decoration for valour. Lemon won his in Vietnam. Not troops per se, Skilly. Actual fighting troops is approximately 15,000, but I'm not sure as to how many of them are actual combat arms troops and how many are support troops. To give you an idea of the amount of support that goes into a batallion of communications specialists, my signals "regiment" consisted of 615 soldiers. However, the actual number of communications specialists is 245. The rest are support trades; cooks, mechanics, transport, clerical staff, medics, et al. cheers
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2006 21:56:23 GMT -5
Well, that's the reason he was put there by the CIA in the first place, and why he was left there by Bush Senior - because overall he was a secular leader who kept his country together, which is what is needed to stability. That he was bloody and murderous is a major downside, but I think it's clear that bloodshed in the area was inevitable. Speaking of stability, who is going to replace Bush Jr? I've talked with an American friend about this and he has a major concern with who will replace Bush. He went on to tell me that he and many of his friends feel frustrated at gradually losing their superpower status that was once the envy of many countries. I honestly don't know who will replace Bush as president. But, hopefully he'll bring a tad more stability. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 26, 2006 22:10:36 GMT -5
Well, that's the reason he was put there by the CIA in the first place, and why he was left there by Bush Senior - because overall he was a secular leader who kept his country together, which is what is needed to stability. That he was bloody and murderous is a major downside, but I think it's clear that bloodshed in the area was inevitable. Speaking of stability, who is going to replace Bush Jr? I've talked with an American friend about this and he has a major concern with who will replace Bush. He went on to tell me that he and many of his friends feel frustrated at gradually losing their superpower status that was once the envy of many countries. I honestly don't know who will replace Bush as president. But, hopefully he'll bring a tad more stability. Cheers. Well, I want to see a US president who's reasonable - the US's power, relative to the rest of the world, has gone downhill since WWII and that will keep on going. That doesn't stop the US from being, by far, the biggest kid on the block, but there are a lot more kids around than there used to be. The US can still be a worldwide leader, but it can't do it the Bush way - ie, do your own thing and expect the world to follow, and blame the UN when it won't rubber-stamp your unilateral decisions. Viewing the UN as a glorified Unicef just ain't gonna work...
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2006 23:02:41 GMT -5
A little bit of googling......~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/21/MNGA5EB32L1.DTL~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEWS ANALYSIS The Iranian factor in Iraq insurgency Country is influencing rebellion, U.S. says -- analysts not so sure For 29 months, U.S. troops in Iraq have battled an elusive and increasingly violent insurgency that has eroded domestic support for America's involvement there. Now the United States says it faces another enemy in Iraq: Iran, the country's Shiite neighbor, which President Bush once called part of an "axis of evil." Senior Bush administration officials have gone so far as to publicly accuse Iran of helping to arm the insurgents and of undermining the government. But while analysts differ on the degree to which Iran is deliberately subverting U.S. policy, they agree that Tehran has become much more entwined in Iraqi affairs since the rise to power of fellow Shiites there. "They want to clearly influence the evolution of events there," said James Noyes, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former international security expert at the Department of Defense under former Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. The question is how deeply is Iran involved in Iraq, and how far is it prepared to go to damage U.S. interests there? Some analysts say that, at the very least, Iran is seeking to make America's involvement in the war-ravaged country even more difficult. "They don't want the U.S. to have an easy time with it," said Abbas Milani, an expert on Iran at the Hoover Institution. "They want to see the United States weakened (and) embarrassed." In the past two weeks, senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that Iran has been smuggling truckloads of weapons and explosives into Iraq. "There are Iranian activities that undermine the current system," Khalilzad told ABC's "This Week" last Sunday, after U.S. troops announced that they had seized sophisticated bombs near the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. Rumsfeld called the smuggling "a problem for the coalition forces ... a problem for the international community, and ultimately ... a problem for Iran. " British military commanders in Iraq and Iraqi officials are skeptical of the claims. Royal Marines Maj. Gen. Jim Dutton, commander of multinational forces in southeastern Iraq, said there was no proof that the weapons came from Iran, adding that there was "a lot of speculation" and "not many facts" about Iranian involvement with the insurgency. Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabr, said the reports were "very much exaggerated," and Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, last week denied his country's "alleged involvement in bomb explosions." Other experts point out that it is unlikely that Iran would be fueling an insurgency that is led primarily by Sunnis -- traditional opponents of Shiites -- and also one that is killing numerous Iraqi Shiites as well as U. S. and Iraqi security forces. But at a time when the new, hard-line government in Tehran refuses to abandon its nuclear program, the United States has reasons to be alarmed by Iran's growing involvement in Iraq, say analysts. "It was probably no accident that Rumsfeld chose to make his statement just days after the new Iranian President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad was inaugurated and nuclear talks seem to be breaking down," said Michael O'Hanlon, who heads the Iraq Index project at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. It is easy for Tehran to bolster its position in Iraq. Both the Iraqi parliament and government -- elected in Jan. 30 balloting in which the majority Shiite population voted in far greater numbers than the minority Sunnis -- are dominated by Shiite politicians and parties with close ties to Iran. Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari lived in exile in Iran for almost a decade. Iraq's president, secular Kurd Jalal Talabani, received money and political support from Iran for years while he ruled half of the Kurdish semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq. The supreme religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who recently held talks with Iran's foreign minister, was born in Iran and spent years in exile there. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), created by Iraqi expatriates in Iran in the 1980s, and another Iran-linked Shiite party, Dawa, won the overwhelming majority of the seats in Iraq's National Assembly last January. SCIRI's military arm, the Badr Brigade, was formed and trained in Iran in the 1980s. Although most of its fighters have now joined Iraq's nascent police and military, their alliances may still lie with SCIRI and Iran, said Noyes and other analysts. Already, Tehran has promised $1 billion in financial aid that Iraqi officials say they will use to rebuild schools, hospitals and libraries. It has negotiated lucrative deals, ranging from pipeline construction and arrangements for Iraq to export oil through Iranian ports to supplying parts of Iraq with electricity and training some of Iraq's nascent military in Iran -- an agreement that made Washington so angry it pressured Iraqi officials to rescind the deal last month. "Iran is seeking security, regional influence ... and a market for (its) production," said Majid Mohammadi, an Iranian sociologist who is currently a resident in the Democracy, Development and Rule of Law project at Stanford University. Critics also see Iran's influence in the drafts of Iraq's new constitution, which calls for Islamic Shariah law to be the main source of legislation and requests that Shiite clerics be granted special status, paving the way for Iraq to become an Iran-like theocracy. "They want to have control over Iraq," said Michael Leeden, a consultant to the National Security Council under former President Ronald Reagan, and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Their favorite way of doing it would be to create an Islamic republic," said Ledeen, who has urged the overthrow of the Iranian regime. But other analysts warn that Iran needs to be cautious in its policy toward its neighbor, with whom it waged a bitter, eight-year war in the 1980s that cost more than a million lives. Wayne White, a former deputy director for Middle East and South Asia in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said Iran's interests in Iraq should more closely coincide with those of the United States. "Iran should have concerns over instability inside of Iraq because if Iraq fails and there's a civil war, Iran has a major mess on its western frontier that it should not want," said White. However, Milani, of the Hoover Institution, says Tehran wants to see American troops bogged down in Iraq, because of fears of a possible U.S. attack on Iran -- an option President Bush raised last week when he said, in remarks about Iran's nuclear program, that "the use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country." "The U.S. forces are so deeply entrenched (in Iraq) that the possibility of taking on another war -- with Iran -- is simply untenable," said Milani. There is also the financial factor. The instability in the Persian Gulf region, combined with Iraq's weakened ability to pump oil, has kept the price of crude above $65 a barrel, "and that has been a godsend for the mullahs," he said. "Tehran is very much interested in controlled chaos." That chaos could easily get out of control, warn some analysts, especially if Iraq splits up. An independent Kurdish state in the north, for example, would encourage Iran's own 4 million Kurds to demand independence, said Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan. But such concerns are "small potatoes" for Iran compared to the opportunity to wield greater power over the Persian Gulf region, argued O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. "Iran's situation is pretty good," he said. "But if they want to aim more ambitiously, I suppose they could try to splinter Iraq into three pieces, in the belief that a Shia country in the south would be too small to threaten them." A smaller Shiite Arab state in the region could also provide Tehran with "potentially a kindred spirit on various matters," O'Hanlon said. Despite Iran's denials, it is possible that the Islamic Republic is sending weapons to Iraq -- but to the Shiite militias in the south, such as the Badr Brigade, said Noyes. Mohammadi agreed. "Iran does not really need to send weapons to Sunni insurgents; they have enough," he said. "Iran is and has been willing to interfere with Iraq, but through (its) friends," such as the two biggest Shiite political factions, SCIRI and the Dawa party, Mohammadi said. Yet, there is always the possibility that certain Iranian groups are supporting the insurgency in Iraq without the government's authorization, said O'Hanlon. One of them, analysts say, could be the Revolutionary Guards, Iran's militantly anti-American paramilitary force. "You could also imagine Iranian hardliners saying: 'Let's go for broke,' " O'Hanlon said. E-mail Anna Badkhen at abadkhen@sfchronicle.com.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2006 23:06:28 GMT -5
More.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr156.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Predominantly Shiite Iran emerges from the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall with considerable power and influence in Iraq as Iraqis themselves struggle to acquire a semblance of unity............................... More.......
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2006 23:12:29 GMT -5
More...........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=44566~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Iraq: The Consequences Of Withdrawal By Greg C. Reeson Oct 16, 2006 Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the best way for him to end the ongoing violence and ensure stability and security was to begin the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. Khamenei was explicit in his desire to see the rapid departure of American soldiers, but the consequences of a premature U.S. withdrawal would prove to be nothing short of catastrophic. There are three basic parties, excluding American Democrats, which are actively pushing for the removal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq: Iran, the Shiite faction led by radical Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the foreign jihadists who have flocked to Iraq to confront the United States in the Global War on Terror. Iran has been making a concerted effort to establish itself as the leading state in the Middle East. In pursuit of this strategic goal, Khamenei and Iranian President Ahmadinejad have been actively antagonizing the United States over their nuclear program in order to portray Iran as a nation that must be reckoned with. Simultaneously, the Iranians have used Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against Israel, and the Shiites in southern Iraq to foment unrest that threatens the fragile government in Baghdad. The conflict in Lebanon and the increasing Shiite-Sunni violence are meant to further demonstrate to the west that Iran has the ability, and the will, to destabilize the entire region for political gain. With the United States out of Iraq, there would be little to stop the Iranians from turning Iraq into a satellite state that could help cement Iran's hegemony in the Middle East. More................... Iraq is Irans stepping stone to regional hegemeony and consequently, world oil hegemony.
As Canadians, we like to think that we are "morally superior" and from our little perches, critisize the Americans for whatever they do. Fortunatly or unfortunatly, as a superpower, they have to deal with world wide geopolitics and responsibilities. Let's face FACTS, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan is NOT discussing Asian nuclear prolifiration and consequences for millions of lives with little ole Harper. In fact, he probably doesn't give a sh*t damn what Harper or Canadians think.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 27, 2006 2:05:25 GMT -5
The orphaned 10 year olds of this war are the terrorists of tomorrow. Wait. The worst is yet to come. That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 27, 2006 6:46:03 GMT -5
That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea. I don't think the US cares what the international community thinks about them ... I think the US cares more how they are perceived by others internationally within their own borders. The only way the US gets the gumption to do what needs to be done is if Democrats, Republicans, the Senate, and Congress agrees on what needs to be done. You take the US politics out of the equation and the US waltzes into Iraq and Afghanistan (not so sure about North Korea though) and it is over before it is even thought about. All through the 1990's you'd keep hearing how Canada was becoming Americanized ... well I think the US public are starting to become Canadianized. They know what needs to be done, don't want to do it, try in vain to come up with a compromise all parties will like, eventually screw one province party over, and the whole thing falls down like a house of cards. I was never a big fan of showing body bags and coffins draped in the flag coming out of planes .... it demoralizes the public, and those kids do not need us wavering (whether they are US kids or Canadian kids). They need us behind them and they need us to revere them for doing the "dirty" work .....
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 27, 2006 8:29:13 GMT -5
That's because the US are pussy-footing around and fighting the only type of war the "extremists" can win. The US has the capability to send these countries back to medieval times .... they just won't do it because they fear international backlash. For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea. So . . . the US doesn't care about international opinion, and the international community doesn't care about the US. At least until they want/need something. Don't get me wrong -- I think US politics is waaayyyy off base in a number of areas, but it seems that they've decided to go it alone because no one else will come with them. Wrongly, pigheadedly they continue on their way doing what they thinnk they need to do. In Canada we wait and wait and wait until the tipping point/decision point has past and then say either "we were right not to do it" or "sorry it took us so long to get here". No conviction, no principle . . . floundering until we move because we have to. If Moses were leading us we'd still be wandering in the desert. I think that Trudeau and Mulroney made some terrible decisions, but at least they acted, as opposed to everyone that has followed them and has ruled by poll.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 27, 2006 16:27:08 GMT -5
For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea. So . . . the US doesn't care about international opinion, and the international community doesn't care about the US. At least until they want/need something. Don't get me wrong -- I think US politics is waaayyyy off base in a number of areas, but it seems that they've decided to go it alone because no one else will come with them. Wrongly, pigheadedly they continue on their way doing what they thinnk they need to do. In Canada we wait and wait and wait until the tipping point/decision point has past and then say either "we were right not to do it" or "sorry it took us so long to get here". No conviction, no principle . . . floundering until we move because we have to. If Moses were leading us we'd still be wandering in the desert. I think that Trudeau and Mulroney made some terrible decisions, but at least they acted, as opposed to everyone that has followed them and has ruled by poll. If Moses was leading us, he would have to take into consideration our "feelings", our aspirations, our desires, translate every ones version of "manifest destiny" and of course, make sure that the path he chose does not diss ANYONE and cause a sudden eruption of the "non withstanding" clause.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 27, 2006 16:58:20 GMT -5
Our conjectures about the Habs' inner workings are highly speculative at best...we think we're going to figure out the motives behind governments with absolute power combined with multi-national corporations?
It used to keep me up nghts, worrying about this kind of stuff....sometimes it still does.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 27, 2006 21:25:03 GMT -5
For most of the last 4 years, the US administration has shown precious little concern for international opinion. Polls this summer showed that at least 30% of Europeans believed that the US is the biggest threat to international stability. The US recieved more votes than any other country, including Iran and North Korea. I don't think the US cares what the international community thinks about them ... I think the US cares more how they are perceived by others internationally within their own borders. I have no idea what that means. I disagree there. I don't think anybody really knows what needs to be done, let alone the US public. These are really complex issues, and the government's motives are not what they they say (and oil is only a small part of the picture). They make nonsensical arguments about what they should do in response to this and that, and the public is so badly educated that they buy it, when in reality, the government is pursuing it's own aims and concealing them as an attempt to solve problems they really don't care much about. It's just not possible that the Bush administration is as stupid as they appear. On the contrary, they have done a masterful job of making everyone argue about trivial things, and things that are orthogonal to the real issues.
|
|