A great blog from Scott Ritter

[ChairmanAgnostic]

just a sample:


In post-Saddam Iraq there are three groups capable of organizing themselves to the extent that they can effectively participate in national-based elections. The first is the Ba'ath party of Saddam Hussein, outlawed in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and driven underground. Thus banned from overt participation, the Ba'athists have formed their own distinctly non-democratic coalition of secular Saddam loyalists, Sunni Islamists and tribalists who resist not only the US-led occupation of Iraq, but also any form of Iraqi government imposed on Iraq by the occupation.

When Paul Bremer signed into law his dictate that banned the Ba'ath Party, he forgot the age-old notion that the enemy has a vote. In this case the enemy was the two-million plus members of the Ba'ath party who were suddenly disenfranchised from any legitimate role in determining the future of Iraq. When combined with the Sunni Islamists and tribalists, the Ba'ath-led coalition comprises a constituency of nearly five million people, a number that while incapable of seizing the reigns of power through an election process based upon majority rule, can and will disrupt any process which it has been frozen out of either through the tyranny of foreign occupation or the tyranny of a non-Sunni majority.

The second group in Iraq capable of immediate political organization is the Kurdish Union, specifically the majority Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the minority Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The reality of the union is that it is born of political convenience, given that as recently as 1997 these two factions were engaged in a full-scale civil war with one another. The one thing that unites them is not a free and democratic Iraq, but rather an independent Kurdistan, something that was certified in the January 2005 national election when the Kurds held their own referendum on independence, something over 90 percent of the Kurds in Iraq voted in favor of. The principle focus of the Kurds since that time has been to solidify their hold on the territory they call Kurdistan, and to improve their position politically, militarily and economically.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/30299

[radwriter0555]

1. Oh Shit, did the big light bulb just go off over Rad's head? Why YES, it

did.

Ritter makes reference to the Iranian backed SCIRI as having been elected to power in Iraq... Now, if I connect the dots here, are these people the same ones rattling the sabres at the current government in Iran, creating an alliance with those who wish the USA to overthrow Iran?

I know I sound ignorant, I don't know the players names or their groups or how they're identified... but this is it, right?

[julianer]

4. SCIRI

is backed by Iran. I believe it was exiled in Iran for the whole of the 80' and 90's and up to the invasion. It is part of the alliance that forms the new Iraqi 'government'. They aren't rattling sabres against Iran - they are a threat hanging like the sword of Damocles over the heads of the occupiers. If the US attacks Iran the thinking is that the SCIRI will make southern Iraq ungovernable and join the Sunni/Ba'ath/fundie based resistance, leaving the occupation totally f*cked.

[radwriter0555]

6. But you see, there are rivalling factions in Iran just like in iraq... And

one is struggling for control, just like in iraq.

So I'm betting that it's the same guys who are backing the iranian takeover, as who've just taken over Iraq... and I'm betting they're siding with sharon and bush, et al? I could honestly be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.. it's just a hunch.

[julianer]

8. No, I don't think so.

You are right that the dynamics of Iranian politics is very complicated and I'm no expert on it. The fact of SCIRI in government in Iraq however, is a very big sign that the PNAC plan for the middle east is totally f*cked up.

I think, if anything, the SCIRI is going to be influenced by the traditional religious leadership in Iran - less concerned with Ahmedinajad's populist nationalism or the 'reform' movement represented by Rafsanjani, but I could be wrong about this because there isn't much that is clear cut and easy to interpret in this situation. If it comes to choosing sides between Iran and the US, however, there isn't much doubt as to where they will end up.

It is also unlikely that SCIRI is unaffected by factions, with these most likely representing the same cultural and social diversity as to be found in Iranian and southern Iraqi mainstream Islamism.

Just my sketchy thinking on the subject, for what it's worth.

[pberq]

2. K&R - excellent

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. Between Ritter and Juan Cole, we see a suggestion of real information

I am glad that a baby gets surgery for spina bifida, but, the real news is how many kids are being killed by our bombs.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Exactly. For every story they do on baby Noor (she's adorable!) they

should do a story on the babies whose skin was melted off by the napalm we used on them and a story on all the babies left without limbs because of our bombs. Then, follow those stories up with the pictures of DEAD BABIES.

[yodermon]

7. knockout quote:

What the January 2005 elections in Iraq showed more than anything is that an election does not certify a democracy; only a democracy can certify an election...