| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Pay heed Iran: US shifts enemy in Iraq | |
| 2008-04-11 | |
| Looks like AlQ is on its way out. Now for the next item on the To Do list . . . . The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from al-Qaida to Iranian-backed "special groups" as the main threat to a democratic Iraq — a significant change that reflects both the complexity of the war and its changing nature. The shift was articulated this week in Washington by Gen. David Petraeus, who told Congress that "unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq." Before, American commanders have called al-Qaida the greatest threat. There is little doubt that Shiite extremists fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces have received Iranian weapons, although Iran's government denies supplying them. But Petraeus' comments obscure the fact that the United States has waded into a monumental power struggle within the majority Shiite community — and crucially, that both sides in that struggle, not just the "special groups," maintain close ties to Iran. The power struggle is only the latest stage in a decades-long competition between the families of the current top Shiite players: anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, whose political party in Iraq works closely with the U.S. despite its links to Iran. That intra-Shiite competition is likely to continue — sometimes violently — regardless of whether the Iraqi government and its U.S. backers force al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or not. In military parlance, the term "special groups" refers to presumed breakaway Mahdi factions whose main sponsor is Iran. American lawmakers expressed frustration this week because Petraeus offered no assurances that an end to the war is near. It's not. Anything else is called denial. Get over it. In part, that's because the conflict has been ever-evolving — from at first a Sunni insurgency, next to a Sunni-Shiite sectarian bloodletting, and now a violent competition for power within the Shiite community. Through much of the war, the Bush administration has presented the conflict primarily as a fight against al-Qaida, describing it as the principal enemy in the array of Sunni and Shiite "threat groups." Throughout much of the war, Iran didn't meddle so intensively. That changed when they saw their interests losing. That began to change after a tectonic shift in the Sunni Arab community: Thousands of Sunni tribesmen abandoned al-Qaida in Iraq and joined U.S.-backed security forces starting last year. Attacks against U.S. forces fell sharply in former Sunni battlegrounds such as Anbar province. U.S. troops are still fighting al-Qaida, of course, especially in the north. Nationwide, however, most of the recent battles have involved Shiite militants. The trouble started last month when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, launched an ill-prepared offensive against Shiite militias and criminal gangs in Basra in the south. I'll bet the next one isn't so ill-prepared. And despite its "ill-preparedness" status, it isn't Sadr's forces who are patrolling the streets there anymore. The offensive stalled and triggered a violent backlash by al-Sadr's followers, who believed the crackdown was aimed at weakening them before provincial elections this fall. To retaliate for the crackdown in Basra, Shiite militiamen fired rockets and mortars at Baghdad's U.S.-protected Green Zone, which houses the U.S. and British embassies and al-Maliki's office. Must have hit a nerve or something.
It's a fight the Americans didn't want now. Instead, U.S. commanders believed military resources should have been continued to be directed at al-Qaida in the north. Al-Q is pretty much mopped up. The Coalition just wishes it had more warning is all. But now, a cease-fire that al-Sadr called last August is in tatters and the prospect of more violence looms. You mean the hudna veneer wasn't working the way it usually does? The role of the "special groups" remains unclear. U.S. officials say they are breakaway factions of the Mahdi Army that no longer take orders from al-Sadr. Go take a trip over one of those EFPs and tell me how unclear the role of the Iranian Special Forces is. Such talk about the threat posed by the special groups casts the internal Shiite conflict as a proxy war between the United States and extremists controlled by Iran. "The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make," President Bush said Thursday. "They can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran." Simple, but impossible with the current regime. But the picture is more clouded. Not really, but go ahead anyway. With all Shiite factions close to the Iranians, it appears that Iran will profit — at least to some degree — no matter which Shiite groups end up in power and no matter how America pursues the war. So are you advocating for the status quo? I say if the current regime in Iran wants it, I'm against it. | |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #21 Bad first - it really does sound like the planning by the Iraqi govt was poor, not only in terms of communications with the coalition, but in terms of their own choices and staff work. First-time ops are always problematic. Also, they didn't have the luxury of time. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-04-11 18:37 |
| #20 My layman's perspective: Iran won't be so self-conflicted as Iraq was. If their government gets removed, they could put together a new one and keep on chugging, hopefully in a far more amiable fashion. Yes, I know that's what was thought of Iraq. That's why it's my layman's perspective! And with Iran out of the picture, I suspect that it would be just a few days before Iraq settled down, which would make things in the area quite a bit easier, and allow better focus on a narrower problem set. Syria would settle down, too, as would Lebanon. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-04-11 15:24 |
| #19 This is a hard slog, anyone counting on things being easy from here on out is in for dissappointment I think. I've got to violently agree with that. But that doesn't preclude one from recognizing encouraging progress when it happens, which isnot nearly asd frequently as one would wish. But every time the enormity of this effort increases, so does its importance. There is no substitute for victory. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-04-11 15:02 |
| #18 and Im not trying to be negative, just to avoid getting overly enthusiastic about an apparent victory. This is a hard slog, anyone counting on things being easy from here on out is in for dissappointment I think. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-04-11 14:42 |
| #17 nimble: Im not as cynical about the CIA as you are - their allies are in Saudi, and they may have failed to penetrate Iran, but theyre not Iranian allies. Learning - well, yeah, one hopes. But this IS an important battle, they lose it theyre kinda screwed up, esp as they have an audience in the US thats not going to stick it out with failure. They prevailed on the battlefield, well yeah, kinda so far, I dont have lots of details in Basra - it does look like Iraqi forces did better than JAM, but exactly by how much, isnt clear. Old Spook - is that so? Thats not the impression I got from listening to Petraues on CSPAN - it sounded more like they just threw in whatever they had, not like what he would have done if he had called the shots. But yeah, the experience earned by the green troops and officers is a good thing, Im not saying it isnt. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-04-11 14:41 |
| #16 Democrat = Copperhead = self-absorbed, amoral, greedy, hedonistic parasite. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-04-11 14:38 |
| #15 #1 The history books will long record the Democrats behavior in this war. I think that the descendants of Iraq (such as in Anbar) who dodged insurgent sniper-fire to cast their vote; will be thankful that they fought their own Jihadi insurgence, and the US Democrat resistanceÂ… |
| Posted by: MB 2008-04-11 13:53 |
| #14 With all Shiite factions close to the Iranians, it appears that Iran will profit — at least to some degree — no matter which Shiite groups end up in power and no matter how America pursues the war. How about that for classic, poorly reasoned, "quagmire" hopelesness from "journalists"? Wow! So tell, us Einsteins of the press, exactly how does Iran "profit" from a Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government that works closely with the US in the context of a reasonably stabilized Iraq (and there's less than a slim chance that Mookie Atari Boy will be the one who emerges as an enduring political force)? Remember, it's always complex, but in a HOPELESS way! These people wouldn't have lasted 2 weeks in WWII. Would have counseled surrender after Wake Island fell. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-04-11 13:14 |
| #13 it wasn't green troops all on their own - there were experienced ones nearby. And now those green troops aren't nearly so green, and will be far more useful in the future. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-04-11 12:58 |
| #12 I've seen no indication that either the IA, the IP or our forces have pulled out of Mosul or are reducing operations there. I think we are still taking the fight to AQI as needed. Most of our other activity seems to be in Bagdhad with air ops/spec ops in Basra as well. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-04-11 12:54 |
| #11 it really does sound like the planning by the Iraqi govt was poor, not only in terms of communications with the coalition, but in terms of their own choices and staff work. As to the coalition, why tell the US something so it can get to the CIA who leak it to their allies in Tehran? As to their own choices and staff work, so what? It wasn't Kasserine Pass. If they learned from the experience it was valuable. And ultimately they prevailed on the battlefield. So, why all the negative waves? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-04-11 12:13 |
| #10 Chief, unless you want a target rich environment, e.g. allow one 'safe haven' of your choosing. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2008-04-11 11:31 |
| #9 Rule #1 in contra-insurgent warfare: allow no safe havens. |
| Posted by: Chief Running Gag 2008-04-11 11:16 |
| #8 Eh, Yon doesn't seem to think that al Queda is finished in Ninevah yet. Down, but not out. Remember what they say about courses of antibiotics & stopping them prematurely because you're feeling better? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2008-04-11 10:48 |
| #7 It seems that the IP is actually doing relatively well in the Mosul area. I'm concerned that while the ISF overall held up fairly well in Basra (and with some units doing really well), the IP isn't up to the job down there (too corrupt, too beholden to Shia factions, too tribal). anybody know. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-04-11 10:47 |
| #6 The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from al-Qaida to Iranian-backed "special groups" as the main threat to a democratic Iraq — a significant change that reflects both the complexity of the war and its changing nature. Or because once you have dealt with one foe you can focus on the second. Like when America focused shifted her focus from Germany to Japan. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-04-11 10:28 |
| #5 I agree LH, The green units behaved like militia and broke after a couple of shot. However, the rest of the Iraqi army performed well on the battlefield and deserve credit for their actions. The fact that partially trained Iraqi units still did well speaks highly of not only the Iraqi character, but the training methods used. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-04-11 10:21 |
| #4 Its good news - cause even the less prepared Iraqi units managed to acquit themselves relatively well in the fight, and it seems likely that those units who DID break were completely green. And those who didn't will have learned a lot. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-04-11 10:19 |
| #3 Petraues yesterday said that Iraqi troops who went into Basra were not their first line units, some of them were fresh out of training and had no experience. This is good AND bad. Bad first - it really does sound like the planning by the Iraqi govt was poor, not only in terms of communications with the coalition, but in terms of their own choices and staff work. Its good news - cause even the less prepared Iraqi units managed to acquit themselves relatively well in the fight, and it seems likely that those units who DID break were completely green. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-04-11 09:15 |
| #2 history books will long record the Democrats behavior in this war Don't forget who writes the history books. If the Dems prevail in efforts to lose to the Islamofascists (Shia and/or Sunni), it will be not be us. |
| Posted by: Menhadden Snogum6713 2008-04-11 08:07 |
| #1 The history books will long record the Democrats behavior in this war. They are actually working against their own military and rooting for the failure of democracy in Iraq. Is it self-destructive behavior or treason due to special interest campaign cash? Don't have the answers, but it is mind boggling to watch. |
| Posted by: Woodrow Slusorong7967 2008-04-11 07:13 |