Article

2003-04-24 Iran

Bush warns Tehran to keep out of Iraqâs Shia strongholds

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-04-24 12:55 am|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The only reason that it's tougher to work with Ahmed Chalabi is that you have to keep BOTH your hands on your wallet.

Posted by Chuck 2003-04-24 07:30:18|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-04-24 07:30:18|| Front Page Top

#2 "Washington policymakers have watched as Shia groups re-emerged and leading clerics became the de facto rulers of individual cities such as Kut, which is close to the Iranian border. In these areas, Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress who is backed by the Pentagon, has made little impact despite being a Shia himself"

AFAIK its only Kut thats controlled by a SCIRI cleric (and his control is far from complete) even Karbala and Najaf are not under SCIRI control, and Basra is certainly not. Chalabi clearly doesnt have the organization on the ground that SCIRI does - thats cause the only organization on the ground in most case is the Imams, and those who arent pro-SCIRI (like Sistani) are playing their cards close to the vest - waiting to see how things develop. Meanwhile Chalabi's people are spreading around and making contacts - they will be players.
And as for the accusations against Chalabi - suppose it was clean academic Makiya instead of sleazy banker Chalabi - ya think CIA and State would be any more supportive - its not about embezzlement - its that CIA and State dont like INC, just as Saudi dont like INC - remember how this mess started - in '91 Bush sr called on Iraqis to revolt - thinking, as his CIA pals told him, that the Iraqi military would rise. Instead, to the shock and horror of the Saudis and their pals on the Potomac, the Iraqi people rose. So, in deference to the Saudis, we let the Iraqi people be slaughtered by Saddam. Since then State and CIA have said that they could achieve regime change in Iraq through a coup (the method favored by our Saudi "friends" who want neither Shiite rule nor democracy next door) I continue to wait for evidence that State (other than Bolton) or CIA want democracy in Iraq, and beyond. Then I might take their criticisms of Chalabi more seriously.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-24 08:46:08|| 2003-04-24 08:46:08|| Front Page Top

#3 I'll be the first to claim I'm no expert and I'll go further and say that this situation is well beyond my comprehension.

But...it's pretty easy to see that underneath the blather of "facts", this is just another same ol'-same ol' article to "inform" us that those silly bumpkins in the Pentagon underestimated the power of the crack, elite, Arab will to stand up against the evil American imperialism. So...we might as well give up and go home already, .cause it's just another hopeless "quagmire".

Just like every story on NPR (and script from Hollywood) is based on the premise that "underneath every happy surface lurks a river of darkness and misery"....every story about Iraq is based on the premise that the "silly, simple-minded American's are just about to get their comeuppance".

Yawn. Am I the only one sick of the liberal's pathological need to sing the "tears of the clown" song, over and over and over again?

Posted by becky 2003-04-24 09:46:13|| 2003-04-24 09:46:13|| Front Page Top

#4 sorry becky - this aint liberals vs conservatives. Even less now than pre-war. Its democracy vs stability; neo-cons and some dems vs. State, CIA, Saudis, etc. The lefties are pretty much irrelevant (other than hoping for SOMETHING to go wrong)

For a good overview of what we need to accomplish in Iraq and why see Den Beste's latests. http://www.denbeste.nu/

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-24 09:58:28|| 2003-04-24 09:58:28|| Front Page Top

#5 David Pryce-Jones, an old Middle East hand (author of The Closed Circle) writes an excellent article on post-war Iraq entitled The Great Sorting Out. In my view, he is right on the mark.

Far from thinking this through and establishing a government-in-waiting, the State Department and the Pentagon are openly engaged in a wrestling match over their respective Iraqi candidates for office. He writes--

"The State Department hopes to rescue from retirement Adnan Pachachi, an 80-year-old former foreign minister. His career was based on Arab nationalism and hatred of Israel. But he is a Sunni, and so his backers are set to repeat the British mistake of promoting someone from that minority without sufficient concern for everyone else.

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of it, democracy is based on pluralities. This puts the Shia in a strong position. Many of their most capable spokesmen long ago fled into exile. The most articulate and forceful of them is Ahmad Chalabi, a member of a prominent family and secular in outlook, with a degree from MIT. Consistently supported by the Pentagon, he founded and now leads the Iraqi National Congress, an embryo political party as well as a movement of national liberation. But every time he takes a step forward, the State Department pushes him back. The CIA has long maintained that Chalabi has no popular support. A few days after the ground assault began, the CIA went so far as to issue a report to the effect that Chalabi should not replace Saddam. In reality he is very much his own man, but the only serious argument his detractors can offer is that he might be perceived as an American puppet."

Then there's the final paragraph--

"The Israeli experience in Lebanon indicates that the United States can liberate Iraq and even keep a garrison in the background in case of emergency â especially with neighbors like Iran and Syria â but Iraqis are going to have to remake their country for themselves. Fortunately they are capable people, and will not long be needing the services of Gen. Garner. It hardly matters who is right about the qualifications or otherwise of Ahmad Chalabi. He's the only candidate in sight for the task ahead. Let him get on with his plan of summoning a convention of all interested parties to establish a democratic constitution. And should elections after that throw up someone who can do a better job than he, then that will be proof of freedom too."

Posted by kgb 2003-04-24 10:54:28|| 2003-04-24 10:54:28|| Front Page Top

#6 Liberalhawk, you are right, but so am I. First let me apologize for incorrectly using the term "liberal" to mean, well...what the term has become associated with, rather than what you represent in the true sense of the word. That is a complement to you and an acknowledgement that I used the word incorrectly.

Secondly, my point is still valid. I had already read Den Beste's article and I agree with both him and you ...to the best of my limited abilities.

But my point is this....and it may be minor... but it's still valid. Despite the fact that this article is about a very real and important issue and despite the fact that it is grounded in facts, it is just another transparent attempt to say how the Bush administration isn't up to the job...Americans bit off more than they can chew...the Pentagon planners are Gomers who haven't a clue what they were in for.

You know what? I'm not buying it. Post-war may be the toughtest part of the job, but I hardly think that's a surprise to anyone. I'm sorry, but I'm sick of the "glass-half-empty" attitude that always seeps through the lines of this crap. How about a good ol' can-do attitude? How about a little help from our friends and the press to shape positive opinions rather than negative ones?

Re-read this article and tell me if you don't think this could have been rewritten to be helpful, rather than just another swipe at American's for miscalculation and bumbling?

Posted by becky 2003-04-24 10:54:34|| 2003-04-24 10:54:34|| Front Page Top

#7 The best source for government candidates (and the new police) should come from people who sat in saddams jails. They have a vested interest in an open society.

Posted by flash91 2003-04-24 11:28:12|| 2003-04-24 11:28:12|| Front Page Top

#8 I agree with becky. The media has a single default spin on foreign operations: defeatist. Never mind how wrong they were before...

I'm not sure it's entirely ideological though. Fear-mongering makes folks pay attention more. Hence more readership/ratings/whatnot. Like the exploding trucks on Dateline.

Posted by someone 2003-04-24 12:02:35|| 2003-04-24 12:02:35|| Front Page Top

#9 Not all Shia clergy think Iran is a good model for Iraq.

Posted by JAB 2003-04-24 12:40:26|| 2003-04-24 12:40:26|| Front Page Top

#10 Today in exclusive interview with Washington Times (!!!!) Shiite cleric Sadr, for whose martyred father the Saddam City has been renamed Sadr city, now says he doesnt want an Iranian style theocracy (of course he might want a different style theocracy!) wants non clerics in office (friendly non-clerics, presumably) and says there is now problem with US troops staying until elections have been held (no time span mentioned, IIRC)

Seems to me that Sadr is frightened that if SCIRI and Hakim clan take over, hes out in the cold - trying to keep Americans in for balance.

Political situation shaking out
Kurds:pro-US, divided between KDP and PUK
Shiite Fundies: 1. Pro-Iranian Hakim followers, 2. Sistani - anti-Iranian and anti-theocracy but not explicitly pro-US, 3. followers of Sadr, anti- Iranian, moderate on theocracy, trying to make nice with US
Everyone else -IE Sunni Arabs (minus the true Baathists) and secularist Shiites - 1.Chalabi - pro-US, soft on Israel 2. Pachecho(sp?) pro-UN, anti-Israel, 3. Zubaidi(self proclaimed Baghdad governor) affiliations unclear.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-24 12:43:43|| 2003-04-24 12:43:43|| Front Page Top

#11 I think that the main goal must be to create a federal system in Iraq. It doesn't matter if certain areas go overboard on Sharia law as long as others go in a different direction. Then the benefits of secular rule will become apparent in comparing the different regions.

I presume that the Kurd and Sunni minorities see the benefits of a federal system, and it remains to get enough Shia on board. And that could be done by pointing out to regional politicians that they can make power bases in their regions under a federal system rather than play for winner-takes-all stakes under a central political system.

The other task is to create an army - perhaps modelled on the Turkish army, that cannot be used by a dictator-to-be.

Posted by A 2003-04-24 15:59:25|| 2003-04-24 15:59:25|| Front Page Top

#12 How about modeled on the U.S. Army, which has no internal security functions at all? The Iraqis would be well advised to look at our Constitution - specifically at the checks and balances built in - and at the way the armed forces have historically been employed.

Posted by Fred 2003-04-24 16:11:26|| 2003-04-24 16:11:26|| Front Page Top

#13 > How about modeled on the U.S. Army, which has no internal security functions at all?

Yes, but the US army split during the Civil War. Iraq is a collection of religions and ethnicities that needs something to keep it together and prevent a civil war. This needs to be carefully thought out.

Posted by A 2003-04-24 16:55:29|| 2003-04-24 16:55:29|| Front Page Top

#14 Bush is not that happy with America's secular constitution. His "faith based" pressure for one-man-one-vote-one-time "democratic" elections, has already delivered victories to Islamofascists in Pakistan and Turkey.

Al-Qaeda etc, may be gone but Islamofascism has strengthened under Bush's "Islam is peace" protection racket. If the US media wasn't spiking coverage of the genocide incitement, that issues every Friday from mosques in Islamania, they would be out for blood.

Posted by Anonon 2003-04-24 19:30:49|| 2003-04-24 19:30:49|| Front Page Top

15:57 my name is Jane Baner
15:46 my name is Jane Baner
09:03 raptor
08:55 raptor
08:24 raptor
07:33 Hiryu
07:31 Hiryu
04:02 becky
02:44 Bulldog
01:02 Profshan
23:51 Mark IV
23:10 The Marmot
22:49 Ralph
22:43 Alaska Paul
22:25 Douglas De Bono
22:04 greg
22:03 R. McLeod
22:03 Denny
21:55 Dishman
21:47 Tibor
21:43 Tom
21:25 Mark IV
21:21 Rawsnacks
21:09 Alaska Paul