article tools: email | print | read more Cenk Uygur
Who is the Iraqi Army? That seems like a strange question. What do I mean?
The Bush administration claims the Iraqi Army is a unified force of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who fight together for the centralized government of Iraq. That's complete nonsense.
In fact, the different divisions of the army are segregated by sect. The so-called Iraqi Army fighting in the south right now is mainly the Badr Corps. This is a rival Shiite militia to Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
The Badr Corps is connected to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Don't get freaked out, they're theoretically the good guys. Well, at least they are the largest political party in Iraq and the ones we are supporting. Here's the problem -- they're not the good guys at all. They ran death squads and torture chambers out of the Interior Ministry throughout the period of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
And get this, out of all the parties in Iraq, the one most closely linked to Iran is -- the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and their militia partners in the Badr Corps.
So, who is the Iraqi Army? The ones fighting Sadr's forces right now is the Badr Corps -- a Shiite militia with closer ties to Iran than Sadr.
Why are we backing the most pro-Iranian group inside Iraq? Two possible choices. 1) We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground in Iraq. 2) We don't really believe Iran is a threat to Iraq (or to us).
I understand that this is confusing to the average American. The only reason I understand it is because the preeminent expert on Iraq, Juan Cole, explained it to me in this interview (it's a little long, but in about twenty minutes Prof. Cole explains exactly who is who in Iraq and why our efforts are insanely counterproductive).
So, I'm not frustrated by the fact that the public isn't up on all this. I'm frustrated that our media hasn't even bothered to try to figure it out (by the way, one easy way would have been to do what we did -- ask Prof. Cole). The press has bought into this fiction that we are fighting against Iranian proxies.
Whenever Bush, Cheney or Petraeus says we are being bombed by Iranian backed militias, the press dutifully writes that down and never really questions it. Has anyone confirmed that Sadr is actually getting help from Iran? More importantly, has anyone looked into where the Badr Corps' sympathies lie? When is the last time you even heard of the Badr Corps in the mainstream press?
Has anyone done an investigation into who's in the Iraqi Army? How does it run? Do the Iraqi troops really fell like a unified force? (The best piece I've seen on it is by Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone and he shows clearly that they are nowhere near unified.) Are the divisions mixed or segregated? Where do the different sects patrol? In their own area or in other areas of Iraq? Who controls the Iraqi Army? And what is their purpose?
If you look into these questions, you'll find that the core of the Iraqi Army is simply another Shiite militia. In essence, we are supporting one Shiite militia over another. Worse yet, we're supporting the militia with more ties to Iran.
If you don't believe me, and for some bizarre reason you don't believe Prof. Cole, then by all means, please investigate and find out what's actually going on. In other words, I am encouraging the press to actually do their job.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like it's easy to do reporting out of Iraq. These folks are literally taking their lives into their hands by doing so. But it's one thing to say the situation is unclear. It's another to parrot government talking points because you don't know any better.
The press keeps talking about how they blew it in the lead up to the war, but then they act like they have learned nothing from their mistakes. One of the principal problems before the war was that the media unquestioningly accepted government suppositions as if they were true -- which is exactly what they're doing now.
These basic questions must be answered: Who are we really fighting? What is their goal? Who is on our side? What is their goal? And, oh yeah, what is our goal? Why are we backing one militia over another and how does that serve American interests? And how is any of this leading to "victory" in Iraq? And the one no one bothers to ask anymore - what the hell does victory in Iraq really mean?
Young Turks on You Tube
_______
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
___
"Iraqi army". Head or body?
The body is confusing, sure.
But the head is easy because it's the same head that our army has. The same head as our government has. Banks and corporations. That is "who". Try asking "What have they been buying with their money and why?
Every cowboy knows: when you are breaking that bronc, you watch the head. the head, not the neck legs or body.
WHO is the Iraqi army isnt really relevant until their leader is Iraqi again.
______________
"In the desert, you can remember your name,
cause there aint no one for to give you no pain"
-America
_____
good instincts.
but a bit careless with: "The press has bought into this fiction that we are fighting against Iranian proxies."
a following sentence corrects this with: "...the press dutifully writes that down and never really questions it."
the press hasn't 'bought into' anything. Except for the paid shills (faux, cnn, etc.), they simply mirror the dumbfuck in chief's incuriousness and act as a stenographic pool. The exceptions are so very few and none (that's *NONE*) are doing any actual groundwork.
The best scenario I can come up with (and, here, I must assume a modicum of non-stupidity in DOD and state depts) is they're setting iraq up to be partitioned into shia (south), sunni (triangle) and kurd(north) and are attempting to select someone/something to be the best-case single power base in each. We've bought the cooperation of certain sunni sheiks (and their militias); the kurds are pretty much united already; which leaves the shia in the south. Sadr has already proved to be problematic, so perhaps they picked the Badrs as the lesser of X number of evils. (If true, then there is a large cleansing operation to come in Baghdad.)
Or, perhaps they decided to give the south to Iran so they can use that against them (influence on iraqis) later when cheney gins up the propoganda for his attack.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Nothing surprising here.
The press really just mirrors the incuriousness of the American people. What are the stories that get the most play? Celebrity bullshit and cats-stuck-in-trees type stuff. Why? It's easy and cheap to report on, doesn't require much thought, and doesn't offend any wingnuts or so-called "patriots". Don't want our sheeple thinking too much, do we?
you're not wrong
a couple of weeks ago I saw a poll that had, in order of importance to americans, the following:
economy
heath ledger's death(!)
iraq war
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
________
....this heath ledger..
I have never heard the name before reading
this post. Should I know who that is?
I think that I am being proud of my strict TV-land-abstention right now.
______________
"In the desert, you can remember your name,
cause there aint no one for to give you no pain"
-America
_____
movie star
starred in "Brokeback Mountain" and several other films. Actually, he was pretty good.
killed himself with an overdose of several different prescription meds.
but iraq should have been ahead of him.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
__
brokeback mountain sounds
vaguely familiar. vaguely.(sp?)
have a look at this graph
which shows the changing focus
we recieve about Iraq from our
so-called "news"media..
_______
"In the desert, you can remember your name,
cause there aint no one for to give you no pain"
-America
_____
vaguely. correct.
brokeback...gay cowboys... whatever.
the graph is not unexpected.
the government/media have been propogandizing about the surge working, and all that crap. It was, I'm sure, part of the plan to convince the mouth-breathers that all was well and then let the topic die of atrophy. Late developments in country may foil their plans. we'll see.
Considering that the majority of americans are brain dead and quite suggestible, it is not surprising, though lamentable, that the media can get such prompt results.
Of course, we must also remember that the pollsters are also part of the media.
So basically you just have to assume that everything printed and said on the msm is horseshit until you can independantly verify, if you can.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
___
The Fractioning-of-the-Nation scenario will not be doable unless they escalated the war and started an aggression into a few more nations ..like maybe SYRIA for one.. That way with the whole region being involved, it will be a trade-off. The way they fractioned Korea into two Koreas.
Bush (assuming that his actions and attitudes are his own) is out of touch and denies what is going on.
He will blame (or will remain under orders to blame) everyone else in the world before he accepts (or appears to accept) the truth.
______________
"In the desert, you can remember your name,
cause there aint no one for to give you no pain"
-America
_____
please 'splain
what you meant with the fractioning paragraph.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
excellent analysis, jtree...
Quote jtree:
"The best scenario I can come up with (and, here, I must assume a modicum of non-stupidity in DOD and state depts) is they're setting iraq up to be partitioned into shia (south), sunni (triangle) and kurd(north) and are attempting to select someone/something to be the best-case single power base in each. We've bought the cooperation of certain sunni sheiks (and their militias); the kurds are pretty much united already; which leaves the shia in the south. Sadr has already proved to be problematic, so perhaps they picked the Badrs as the lesser of X number of evils. (If true, then there is a large cleansing operation to come in Baghdad.)"
Those SC bloggers who choose to read your analysis above - and that of Uygur/Cole too - will already be better informed than most joe six-pax out there even before the msm ?finally does some diligent depth reporting on this issue...
Several of my concerns during the invasion phase of this war: WTF are we doing? Are we going to turn lead dog status during the occupation phase over to DoS or leave it w/rummy's DoD? (oops...) Are we gonna be smart enough to retain parts of the Iraqi army for triangle security ops after the Fall of Baghdad (oops 2...) Are we going to recognize de facto three major tribal regions and quickly find/support the 'best available' leaders in each - north, triangle, and south? (oops3...) Are we REALLY going to seek a fair/equitable distro of oilfield profits among the 3 regions (oops4...) etc etc -- damn, now my head hurts again.
The Neocon Plan For Iraq
My take on it is that Bush's strategy is, and has been all along, to create a weak and politically stalemated Iraqi government that will be unable to make decisions, unless the US steps in as the tie breaker. The plethora of militias creates excellent opportunities to play one off against the other.
With Iraq having a weak central government, and various local and regional warlords controlling or contending for control of the various parts of Iraq, the country is then controllable by a US military that can mostly stick to it's bases, only coming out once in a while, when necessary to keep the balance of power between the various factions, so that the country can never unify, and will remain weak and controllable. It is somewhat similar to the way the British ruled India under the Raj.
The new Iraqi Army has been configured as a colonial army of cannon fodder infantry, with few tanks, artillery, or combat aircraft, little logistical capability, and mainly suitable for guard duty, but too weak to engage in a major offensive on their own. The tanks and aircraft will be American, to be committed only by the decision of the American commander. The fact that units of the Army may be loyal to this or that milita or faction only plays further into Bush's hands, because it means that the Army will never unify into a force that could challenge American dominance.
This may account for Bush's continuing optimism about the war. From a purely colonialist point of view, the war is actually going fairly well. Of course Bush and his minions engage in the obligatory hand-wringing and expression of regret over all the deaths in Iraq, but really, that is all part of their winning scenario. They have Iraq approximately where they want it, divided and weakened at the center. The country is so impoverished that a few bribes can solve most problems for the occupiers, as we saw recently, when the Sunni guerrillas in Anbar were bought off for a few millions of dollars. The Sunni-Shi'ite ethnic cleansing of the last couple of years played right into Bush's hands. Now that the communities are divided into separate neighborhoods, each afraid of the others, they are easier to play off against each other, and there is less danger that they will unite to get rid of the occupiers.
Ultimately, Bush would probably like to see the number of US troops reduced to a permanent garrison of about 50,000. If McCain wins in November, that is exactly the policy he will continue to pursue, and it is how McCain envisions his hundred year occupation unfolding.
plausible....
but only if saint king dumbfuck, mccain, rumsfeld, etc were smart enough to plan this. cheney ... maybe. not the others. 1 and 2 are too limited. 3 is too much into the minutia. not strategic.
the whole problem with this is oil. with instability, the oil and profits will not flow. And surely by now they realize the expense in maintaining the instability - paying and supplying mercenaries, sheiks and such - is not sustainable.
perhaps the americans just told maliki to crap or get off the crapper.
late reports show that maliki's move is not working, even with american air support.
We'll see.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
The (inherited) Neolib Plan for Iraq...
Quote wrbt99:
"Ultimately, Bush would probably like to see the number of US troops reduced to a permanent garrison of about 50,000. If McCain wins in November, that is exactly the policy he will continue to pursue, and it is how McCain envisions his hundred year occupation unfolding."
.....
Perhaps Bush (or some nether neocon) remains confident because if McCain does not win, a new team of Clinton neolibs or Obama neoprogressives (a newly formed 2009 Dem national security team -- please not to include Brezinski or McPeak) will have to deal with the reality of this policy as it exists on the ground in January '09...
If Iraq is "...then controllable by a US military that can mostly stick to it's bases, only coming out once in a while, when necessary to keep the balance of power between the various factions...", then the D's may change the R's names, nomenclature, and words in speeches, but the much-hyped withdrawal of troops from Iraq will indeed stop short of complete withdrawal, an open-end policy which both Hillary and Barack have already committed to in public debate.
Sadly, I Think You're Right
Kucinich, Richardson, and Paul were the only three candidates who I had confidence would promptly get all of our troops out of Iraq.
Clinton and Obama have tried to sound as if they wanted withdrawal, but have equivocated, and if they thought they saw the opportunity, I believe they would try to maintain permanent bases there. In all probability, what they both mean by withdrawal is to get US troops out of a combat role, and into a garrison role, which is what Bush has been trying to do, for the past five years. So how much change from Bush are Clinton or Obama?
We have seen this past week, though, that it will be very difficult for them to accomplish this. The power struggle among the Shi'ite factions is not settled, but it appears that if elections were held, the Sadrists would prevail, which leaves the occupiers with the choice of having the elections, and getting a government that wants to kick out the U.S., or cancelling the elections and giving up the pretense of democracy. The Mahdi Army appears able to hold it's own against the regular Iraqi Army, and Clinton or Obama will be faced with either committing US troops on a large scale to try to defeat the Mahdi Army, or acquiescing in it's existance, which will make continuing the occupation difficult, even in a garrison role.
And you also = a shared view?
wrbt99: "...I believe they would try to maintain permanent bases there. In all probability, what they both mean by withdrawal is to get US troops out of a combat role, and into a garrison role, which is what Bush has been trying to do, for the past five years. So how much change from Bush are Clinton or Obama {or McCain}?"
This is not a peace vs war thing - or a Left vs Right fight - or bush-hate vs hillary-hate debate - or even a next-prez-does-it-different-maybe option... this is a sad tough America-stuck-in-Iraq/oil/terrorist/insurgency/civil war reality mess:
~ the permanent bases are indeed permanent for the next ten years minimum, no matter who is president
~ the 2009 combat troop draw-down after the 2008 surge will in fact happen, regardless of C*O*M as president
~ the existing FOB's will have garrison troops, train-the-trainer troops, and limited-number combat counter-terror/insurgency ops units, per C*O*M
~ the only good news here is that the number of American war casualties - and co$t per annum - will be significantly reduced from current rates
wrbt99: "...it will be very difficult for them to accomplish this. The power struggle among the Shi'ite factions is not settled, but it appears that if elections were held, the Sadrists would prevail... The Mahdi Army appears able to hold it's own against the regular Iraqi Army, and Clinton or Obama {or McCain} will be faced with either committing US troops on a large scale to try to defeat the Mahdi Army, or acquiescing in it's existance, which will make continuing the occupation difficult..."
~ events in Iraq, next door nations, middle east activity and other global factors will all play a role in affecting that decision... who do you want in charge of the Iraq situation in Spring/Summer 2009?
The Best Solution....
...IMHO, would be complete withdrawal over a period of no more than six months, and forget about the permanent bases, or even 10-year bases. The parade of horrible consequences that is trotted out every time withdrawal is contemplated is just another reincarnation of the domino theory.
I can well remember the latter stages of the war with Vietnam, in which the American public realized that we weren't going to win it, but we were told that we couldn't pull out now, because there would be "a bloodbath" if we withdrew. So we stayed a few more years, and the bloodbath happened while we were there fighting the war, and we ended up pulling out anyway. These conflicts are going to play themselves out, whether our troops are there or not.
As for neighboring countries, and particularly Iran, the danger to US interests has been hyped and exaggerated beyond any practical reality. Iran actually poses very little threat to the US, whether they consider us to be the Great Satan, or not. Iran's influence extends only to the predominantly Shi'ite areas of the Middle East, which is mainly Iran itself, but includes Southern Iraq, parts of Afghanistan, Azerbijan, Bahrain, a small part of Saudi Arabia, and a little of Lebanon. That's hardly the basis to make Iran a world power, or a threat to much of anyone. Iran hasn't attacked any of it's neighbors for a couple of centuries, and, by Middle Eastern standards, has one of the more democratic governments in the region.
If we pulled out of Iraq, and Iran became the most influential neighbor of Iraq, the harm to US interests would be minimal. If we stopped threatening Iran with nuclear attack, or invasion, relations could normalize.
For the three billion dollars a week that we are spending to stay in Iraq, we aren't getting anything of value in exchange, and it appears to be a very bad bargain.
So, of the three, McCain, Clinton, or Obama, the prospects are not all that great; but I'd have to say that Obama seems the most likely to make a complete withdrawal.
Two different wars... two different situations
1. Old War...
You say:
"I can well remember the latter stages of the war with Vietnam, in which the American public realized that we weren't going to win it, but we were told that we couldn't pull out now, because there would be "a bloodbath" if we withdrew. So we stayed a few more years, and the bloodbath happened while we were there fighting the war, and we ended up pulling out anyway."
Bear sez:
The American army did not lose the Vietnam war on the ground. American civilian ?leadership policies lost the war (defeat began under Johnson, ended under Nixon). They were aided and abetted by the msm (led by Cronkite, who misinterpretted the Tet offensive results - on purpose or stupidly) and the peace protesters, who raved against an immoral war mostly for selfish/guilt reasons (please read the piece by Frank Dudley Berry, "Boomers and the Vietnam Shrug" -- you can google it -- only about 18 paras long)... As for the "bloodbath", it began before we got there in '63 and CONTINUED LONG AFTER we left in '75 -- especially in the killing fields of Cambodia.
2. Current war...
You say:
"IMHO, would be complete withdrawal over a period of no more than six months, and forget about the permanent bases, or even 10-year bases. The parade of horrible consequences that is trotted out every time withdrawal is contemplated is just another reincarnation of the domino theory... So, of the three, McCain, Clinton, or Obama, the prospects are not all that great; but I'd have to say that Obama seems the most likely to make a complete withdrawal."
Bear sez:
On this particular issue, Obama would be the worst choice of the three.
But hey, I admire your desire to see the war end as soon as possible...
Soooo, IF Obama is elected, and he closes all the bases AND brings all the troops home in six months, Bear will buy you a sushi dinner for two -- or make a generous contribution to your favorite charity.
/sot
This seems accurate
It seems that the factions within Iraq are pursuing their feuds and struggles as if the Yanks were nothing but a Mongol horde that occasionally swoops in to devastate a city before galloping off somewhere else.
The failure to create a government to replace Saddam's regime meant that every thug with a gun and a Koran was in the running to be the next Sultan. They are quite happy to accept guns and money from anyone who offers them including the US.
This does not mean that they have any loyalty or reverence for alien objectives and rhetoric.
This situation is perpetually unstable, at the mercy of an accident and cannot come to good.
_______The Corporations must be Destroyed.
Good points all-around...
I think what's at the crux of this issue is: stupid people have always been; long before the news. So does the news feed the stupidity by only handing the easy, inoffensive stories and not presenting the public with some thoughtful discourse? Or does the news (and the media at large) simply give simpletons what they want? At the end of the day it's always going to be about ratings ~ and therefore money.
If people are generally too stupid to understand what they're watching there's about 500 more options on the dial, and there's bound to be something easier to digest. I really wish the bulk of humans were more intellectual, but I've looked around. They're not.
Good thread... Good questions...
Who is the Iraqi Army?
Has anyone done an investigation?
Who's (actually) in the Iraqi Army?
How does it run?
Do the Iraqi troops feel like a unified force?
Are the divisions mixed or segregated?
Where do the different sects patrol?
Who controls the Iraqi Army?
And what is their purpose?
Who are we really fighting?
What is their goal?
Who is on our side?
What is their goal?
What is our (current) goal?
And the biggie:
What the hell does victory in Iraq really mean?
Four comments:
1- After the statues fell in Baghdad, the B-C-R triad got the occupation phase in Iraq mostly wrong.
2- You and Cole have some of the Iraqi army analysis correct -- but not all of it.
3- DoD and Gen Petraeus have some of it correct also, whether the MSM realizes it or not (or reports it accurately, or not)
4- Most of your questions will not be answered until the October Debates (C/O vs Mac), if then...
many won't get answered in depth until the new Demo administration gets analysis and answers from a new national security team in 2009.
What it really means
(With apologies to the creator of the long-defunct webcomic "Men in Hats")
what the hell does victory in Iraq really mean?
Secretly, the U.S. government has replaced the meaning of "victory" with "barrel o' crabs down your pants"!
Americans: What? How does that even make sense?!
U.S. Gov: Shhh. You're tired. Just go with it.
Americans: Why do I always just go with it?
U.S. Gov: Ahh, barrel o' crabs...
Iraqi Army
I'm glad you brought this up. That was my first thought when I heard the news broadcast on the radio about the bombings. I think the media are generally in the same bottle of Prozac as the rest of the country.