Month: July 2008

by Eric Martin

For years I have been seeking to dispel the notion that the Sadrists are "vassals" of Iran, whereas Maliki’s Dawa Party and ISCI (both either formed by, aided by and/or housed in Iran for most of the 80s and 90s) were independent from, if not hostile to, that nation.  The origin of this misinformation dates to the moment that the Bush administration gauged (incorrectly apparently) that Dawa/ISCI would be amenable to its long term objectives in Iraq (permanent bases, preferential treatment on oil concessions).  From that point onward, Dawa/ISCI’s long historical ties to Iran were whitewashed, while the expunged "sins" of those parties were gathered up and then applied, with a broad brush, to a caricature of the Sadrists.

It got so bad that a plethora of conservative pundits (even Vali Nasr!) took to characterizing the recent anti-Sadrist operations undertaken by Dawa and ISCI as a victory by the Maliki government over the forces of Iran (despite the obvious subtext of longstanding rivalry between Shiite rivals, as well as the Sadrists historical antipathy to Iran).  Charles Krauthammer, in typical fashion, didn’t let pesky facts interfere with a self-serving narrative:

[The Sadrist trend’s] sponsor, Iran, has suffered major setbacks, not just in Basra, but in Iraqi public opinion, which has rallied to the Maliki government and against Iranian interference through its Sadrist proxy.

It should be noted that the above cited Krauthammer column is directly contradicted by…an earlier Krauthammer column in which he describes Maliki government stalward, ISCI, as the Iranian cat’s paw, and "Shiite Menace":

Of course there are telegenic elements among the Shiites who would like fundamentalist rule by the clerics…many of whom are affiliated with, infiltrated by and financed by Tehran, the headquarters for 20 years of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI].

These Iranian-oriented Shiite extremists are analogous to the Soviet-oriented communists in immediate post-World War II Italy and France. They too had a foreign patron. They too had foreign sources of money, agents and influence. They too had a coherent ideology. And they too were highly organized even before the end of the war. They too made a bid for power. And failed.

Now that Maliki has been making it increasingly clear that he is not on board with the Bush/McCain vision for Iraq, the pendulum is swinging back toward Krauthammer 1.0.  Some people are feeling had. Although others, like John Derbyshire, are claiming that they were in on the fix all along:

Nothing in any of Maliki’s "inartful" statements is the least bit surprising to a "To Hell With Them" Hawk…

Now that our American blood and money has seen off most of the enemies of Maliki and his Iranian pals, it is perfectly natural for them to believe they can finish the job themselves, without further assistance from us.

That’s tantamount to an admission that Maliki and his "Iranian pals" have used the Bush administration quite deftly to dispatch their enemies – which, for the record, include the Sadrists to some extent.  One wonders why Derbyshire has kept this piece of heretical insight to himself over the past few years?  Andy McCarthy pleads non-ignorance as well:

As I’ve mentioned before, Maliki, of the Shiite Dawa Party which opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place, has long-standing ties to Iran and Syria — and has expressed support for Hezbollah.  The only thing that surprises me about this story is that anyone is surprised. [emphasis added throughout]

Got that folks: It was obvious all along that Maliki and ISCI were Iran’s chief proxies in Iraq.  Yet, oddly enough, anyone out there questioning the strategy of helping Iran’s proxies to consolidate control over Iraq’s government were "defeatists." John McCain, for example, has frequently argued that removing US troops would "boost Iranian influence in the region."  But did we do something different by offing the enemies of "Maliki and his Iranian pals"?   

Read more

by publius

Let’s get to the real issues of the day – The Dark Knight. One of the larger intellectual questions the film asks is whether humans can be the final arbiter of their own power. In other words, should I (or anyone) be entrusted to decide which laws I can ignore for the sake of the greater good?

Obviously, these questions relate quite directly to our own war on terror. But they also extend well beyond the national security context. The questions raised there cover everything from epistemology to the theological divide between Catholics and Protestants.

Spoilers below…

Read more

by Eric Martin

You might expect that after brash declarations like "Mission Accomplished" (2003), "last throes" Part I (2005), "last throes" Part II (2006), and Rich Lowry’s infamous "We’re Winning" cover photo and story (2005), Iraq war supporters would have developed a little healthy circumspection.  You could have assumed that after declaring every new development over the past 5+ years the turning point and pivot to victory (the killing of Uday and Qusay, capture of Saddam, handover from CPA to interim government, elections, constitution, etc), that a more mature and cautious "wait and see" approach would be the norm.  You would, of course, be wrong (you always are). 

John McCain on the campaign trail lets the American people in on the best kept secret: we’ve actually already won the Iraq war.  Who knew?

I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq, not we are succeeding we have succeeded in Iraq. The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run… [emph. added]

Of course, it’s the kind of success that requires Americans to continue to fight and die in the war.  That’s already won.  And over. 

…but the success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed, and it’s still – if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed and we could face again the chaos, increased Iranian influence and American loss and defeat.

Ah, sweet victory.  Still no definition of success or victory – but who cares, whatever it is, it’s ours!  And again, we see the absurd suggestion that Iranian influence has been lessened by our efforts to facilitate the consolidation of power by Iran’s main proxies, ISCI and Dawa.  Right.  But I’ll put that aside because now would be a good time to check in with the Kagans who, just last month, were telling us that we were "very close to succeeding."  One can only imagine the progress of their pollyanna:

All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

The sectarian war has ended?  Or is it just in its last throes (more on this below)?  What of the Iranian-backed political parties (ISCI, Dawa) that are getting stronger?  More important, what about that political reconciliation stuff that Bush and Petraeus said was the most important objective of The Surge, and without which, the various conflicts would eventually re-ignite?

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq’s development.

Wow.  That sets a new benchmark for mendacity.  Regarding provincial elections, the results are being cooked and, as such, will represent a "pivotal moment" the same way the last two rounds have – not so much.  As to the benchmarks being "accomplished," the Kagans (with Jack Keane, "KKK" for short – I kid) are, quite frankly, lying. 

Read more