Iraq turning Iranian? The latest from Riverbend at Baghdad Burning

[Roland99]

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#113122752015115028

The agony of the long war with Iran is what makes the current situation in Iraq so difficult to bear- especially this last year. The occupation has ceased to be American. It is American in face, and militarily, but in essence it has metamorphosed slowly but surely into an Iranian one.

It began, of course, with Badir’s Brigade and the several Iran-based political parties which followed behind the American tanks in April 2003. It continues today with a skewed referendum, and a constitution that will guarantee a southern Iraqi state modeled on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The referendum results were so disappointing and there have been so many stories of fraud and shady dealings (especially in Mosul), that there’s already talk of boycotting the December elections. This was the Puppets’ shining chance to show that there is that modicum of democracy they claim the Iraqi people are enjoying under occupation- that chance was terribly botched up.

...

Interestingly enough, this time around the UIA will be composed of not just SCIRI and Da’awa- but also of the Sadrists (Jaysh il Mahdi)- Muqtada’s followers! For those who followed the situation in Iraq last year, many will recognize Muqtada as the ‘firebrand cleric’, the ‘radical’ and ‘terrorist’. Last year, there was even a warrant for Muqtada’s arrest from the Ministry of Interior and supported by the Americans who repeatedly said they were either going to detain the ‘radical cleric’ or kill him.

Riverbend thanks you, George. From the bottom of her heart.

:(

[Dancing_Dave]

1. Very interesting piece of writing!

Best of luck to the riverbend girl! :loveya:

Actually, this peice is very good at saying what's going on in Iraq from an educated middle class mainly Sunni point of view. However, what's going on in more Shiite parts of the country and it's relationship to Iranian policies is not so simple as she can see from her situation. I haven't found a great blog from Basrah yet, but some other good clues are at http://www.albasrah.net/

[Dancing_Dave]

2. For balance: the crisis in Iraqi Shiite politics

Here's a piece with some interesting clues on recent changes in Iraqi Shiite politics, which are actually far from unified and triumphant: http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/69510

[UndergroundRadical]

3. I hate to say it but.....

many of us knew this a while back when Jaafari assumed control. He's in the fundamentalist Dowa party. These are the same theocrats who want to make all the women wear Burkas.

Somebody told me that even radical right-wing shock jock Michael Savage said that Bush had basically done something worse than leave Saddam in power - he had created a defacto Shia superstate between Iraq and Iran. And I think it's sadly true. We wasted all that money, all those lives, and all that respect just to give power from one dictatorship to another......

[Roland99]

4. Welcome to DU, UndergroundRadical!

:hi:


And, yeah, the insurgency risk was known but the neocons ignored it.

[UndergroundRadical]

6. Hello Roland!

:hi:


Pleasure meeting you as well friend. The neocons unfortunately didn't plan for any of this shit. What do you expect though from a bunch of cushy, soft, middle-aged white assholes who sit at their comfortable $10,000 imported desk drooling over blonde porn on their laptops because their 300 pound wifes stopped giving them any years ago.

[newspeak]

16. actually I think they like these regimes

as long as their corporate buddies can do business with them. Look at Saudi Arabia, one of the worse human rights abusers, especially when it comes to women. No, this administration loves dictatorships as long as they play their game.

[Dancing_Dave]

10. The Bush Administration seems to be exploring a secret deal with Iran

Using both Chalabi and Jaafari as intermediaries.

It's not that Bush and Cheney have really given up hopes of invading Iran too, but I think Russia and China have drawn some lines and scared them away from it for the time being.

One reason the deal may fall through, is that Chalabi and Jafaari are not especially well trusted in Iran. Yes, they certainly have their political and buisiness contacts there, but they are not really well trusted enough to gain any long-term commitments from the present Iranian government. Of course, it would be just fine by me if this devil's bargain did fall through!

[UndergroundRadical]

13. Well, Jaafari is still basically an Iranian agent

He answers to Sistani - who is an Iranian agent and a religious leader. Sistani, although they don't like to admit it, answers to Tehran and to nobody else. Whatever he says the Iraqi Shia have to do.(and he's usually backed by al-Sadr so as long as Sistani doesn't step on his feet)

The Iraqi Shia would never have been in a different country than Iran in the first place had the British not colonized Iraq. They are one people traditionally and from what I've read that feeling is still apparently very, very strong.

[Wordie]

15. If all it takes is just a little smarts and to actually talk to some

people from the ME, for us to figure some of this out, and predict a potential problem with the issue of fundamentalism, how come the administration couldn't???

Great post, UndergroundRadical

[ngGale]

5. Iraq was a secular country, until we decided to....

force democracy on them. Of course the women have been pushed back into the dark ages. Good luck, Riverbend...:cry:

[UndergroundRadical]

7. Well, Saddam was still a murderous piece of shit

Just because it was secular and partially socialist doesn't make it a good system. I hate to say it because I would like to see them free but they've basically replaced the rule of one madman with the rule of several wacko theocrats who legislate from their mosques in Tehran. And I can't say they're better off now freed from that thug's control.

[TheGunslinger]

8. As that Iraqi said on 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago >>>>

"You're asking me to choose between death and cancer. With death, I'm dead. With cancer, I'm going to die."

[UndergroundRadical]

9. hell of a choice n/m

<eom>

[sandnsea]

11. If Iraq chooses an Islamist government

it's their business. That's democracy.

[Roland99]

12. But...but...but....democracy means pro-U.S. in every aspect.

Don't you know that?

[UndergroundRadical]

14. I concur

If the Shia choose an Iranian style theocracy. Tough shit. They made their call. Anybody who doesn't like that can immigrate to the US or to South America. The Kurds will probably still retain their automony because the Shia don't give a shit about areas outside their control.

[newspeak]

17. the reason we should not play "God" in other people's countries

Our forefathers knew that "pure" democracies can be tyrannical, especially against those in the minority. That is why a Constitution for all peoples, protecting the rights of minorities is needed. Philadelphia started with a pure democracy form of government at the founding of our country, but two brothers through coercion and bribery took it over with the blessing of the majority--rules must be in place to protect everyone.

[Roland99]

18. A reason why one-party rule is dangerous for this nation.

Esp. when that party is filled with warmongering chickenhawks.

[UndergroundRadical]

22. I agree with you

It is not our duty to impose our style of government onto others. Jefferson believed that it is the responsibility of other nations to build their own path towards democracy. Cheney and Co. seem to have a different philosophy and they want to impose and set up little Israeli puppet-governments all over the Middle East. That's the Likud/neoconservative goal.

[Wordie]

21. The tragedy is that we've probably set back any possibility for a

future turn of Iraq toward the West. This was unlikely anytime soon at any rate, but now doubly so. At least they were a tiny step closer before, in that they had a secular government; they have moved backwards now that the theocrats will be in control. The problem is that you can't impose "democracy" from the outside. People have to be ready for it, so putting them in the position of making "the call" was premature, imo, and now we're gonna have to live with the results of our meddling.

And at the same time we strengthened the hand of the mullahs in Iran!

[UndergroundRadical]

23. The problem with "Iraq"....

is that it really is a pseudo country. It doesn't exist in real life. Iraq was a nation drawn up by the British without any regards to political stability, ethnic, tribal, or religious concerns. They mindlessly set up the colony to rape and exploit it - which they did. The problem is that such an unstable nation can only be held together with force. There is sadly no other way. These people have thousands of years of hatred between them and the Mullahs in Tehran are only a recent introduction to this seething pot of hatred. We've insinuated ourselves into a situation that doesn't even concern us. Tell me that's not fucked up.

[Roland99]

24. That's why Saddam partly wanted to invade Kuwait.

That area was carved out and Saddam felt it rightly belonged under Iraqi control.

[UndergroundRadical]

25. I know

And I'm not advocating it but he may actually have had a legitimate claim to the nation. The British made Kuwait separate because the Iraqis would constantly revolt, and to punish them they carved out most of their coastline. Look at what that caused us now.....

[Roland99]

26. Lots of history repeating itself...that's what.

The Brits used mustard gas on the Iraqis in the 1920s.

The U.S. is using Depleted Uranium and White Phosphor.

:(

[UndergroundRadical]

28. And to think they were "our best friends" at the time.....

only goes to show you how racist and bigoted Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, and the rest of the white power establishment at the time treated non-English/American people. Not to mention Wilson's justification of the Armenian genocide.

[Wordie]

27. It just doesn't look good, you're right.

I still HOPE (albeit without much confidence) that the Iraqis will be able to make something of this mess, but it sure doesn't look good.

[Nederland]

19. No sure about this part

What happened to the dream of a democratic Iraq?

Iraq has been the land of dreams for everyone except Iraqis- the Persian dream of a Shia controlled Islamic state modeled upon Iran and inclusive of the holy shrines in Najaf, the pan-Arab nationalist dream of a united Arab region with Iraq acting as its protective eastern border, the American dream of controlling the region by installing permanent bases and a Puppet government in one of its wealthiest countries, the Kurdish dream of an independent Kurdish state financed by the oil wealth in Kirkuk…

The Puppets the Americans empowered are advocates of every dream except the Iraqi one: The dream of Iraqi Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen… the dream of a united, stable, prosperous Iraq which has, over the last two years, gone up in the smoke of car bombs, military raids and a foreign occupation.


This seems to imply that the Kurds that live in the north who want their own state, the Shia in the south that want their own state, and the insurgent Sunnis that want a return to domination aren't "Iraqis". No, apparently "Iraqis" are a bunch of tolerant, pluralistic secularists who want democracy.

Give me a break. The "Iraqis" described by this blogger don't exist.

[Roland99]

20. I would think she, being an Iraqi, would know.

And, from the two books from Tariq Ali that I've read I believe she's accurate in her assessment.


I see your point but I think she's referring the leadership of those areas, not the people.