« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
U.S.-Backed Sunnis Fight al-Qaeda -- and Maybe "Iran-Backed" Shiites?
Indications that hardliners within the Bush administration are (again) pushing for war with Iran casts new light on the recent alliance of convenience between the U.S. military and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. We've been highlighting for a while the administration's penchant for implying that the deterioration of Iraqi politics isn't as important as the U.S.-Sunni alliance against al-Qaeda. And there's little doubt that the alliance is important, both for fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and for the prospect of an Iran war spilling over into Iraq. It's not inconceivable that our new Sunni allies of convenience would read the push for war with Iran as a green light to go after the Iraqi Shiites they view as Iran's proxies, politically or militarily.
Throughout 2005, when U.S. military commanders met for talks with Sunni insurgents, one message the insurgents delivered, according to several sources of mine, was that the U.S. was handing Iraq over to the Iranians by allowing the Shiites to take power through elections. If the U.S. didn't want to see Iran claim a hegemonic role in the region, said the insurgents, it had better return to its traditional posture of preferring Sunni rule in Iraq. Nor were insurgents the only ones articulating that fear: so were key Sunni allies of the U.S. in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Fast forward two years and the Bush administration's premiere argument that the war is proceeding well is the cleavage between Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda. Shiite political leaders, knowing that the Sunnis largely consider the Shiite-dominated government illegitimate, view the emergent Sunni-U.S. alliance with extreme concern. It's only a matter of time, many reason, before the Sunni tribal figures and ex-insurgents attempt to reclaim Baghdad by force -- something that they view as consistent with the U.S.'s hardening posture outside Iraq against the Iranians. It's within that context that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, visiting Tehran last month, praised Iran's "constructive role" in "fighting terrorism." Sectarianism in Iraq is such that the U.S. inching closer to Sunni tribal leaders creates an incentive for Iraqi Shiite politicians to inch closer to the Iranians.
A crucial figure here is Ayad Allawi. In his recent op-ed urging the parliamentary overthrow of Maliki, Allawi castigated the Shiite-led government for not "telling Iran to end its interference in Iraqi affairs." His efforts to catapult himself to the top of Iraqi politics, displacing the Shiites, have now won him the endorsement of both the Baath Party and Saleh Mutlaq, the ex-Baathist leader of one of the two Sunni parliamentary blocs. Allawi's cardinal political effort to become premier is occurring in Washington, where he's hired a GOP lobbying powerhouse to promote him as a non-sectarian force for stability and an enduring U.S.-Iraqi alliance. He's cheered on comments by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin that Maliki needs to go, which Sunnis probably read as auguring an inevitable split between the U.S. and its erstwhile, uneasy Shiite allies.
According to biographer Robert Draper, President Bush maintains support for Maliki even as his rule grows more tenuous. If Dick Cheney (a one-time advocate of backing the Shiites and Kurds against the Sunnis) and his allies are gunning for a war with Iran, they'll have to convince Bush that the road to Tehran runs through Baghdad. That will be an argument that the U.S.'s new allies in Anbar Province -- as well as its traditional ones in Riyadh and Amman -- find very appealing.
Comments (27)
M M wrote on September 4, 2007 6:16 PM:all this foreign policy incompetence really does argue for a parliamentary system where incompetent administrations can be replaced
Bush/Cheney/et al have no clue about the consequences of their actions, they're just going in three month increments to the next pr blitz before a congressional vote until they can foist Iraq on the next admin (and pin any "loss" on them); they'll do something in Iran before they go (again, with no clue/care for consequences versus benefits)
code word: pain
(does the code generator have a sense of humor?)
714Day wrote on September 4, 2007 6:17 PM:Surely no thinking beings can still delude themselves that this sociopath is not fully capable of employing any means to maintain control of power for the execution of his particularly bloody agenda. (It isn't HIS blood that will be let...)
Roberta wrote on September 4, 2007 6:35 PM:We are screwed.
Once again I'm confused about this so-called goal for democracy in Iraq. Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population." This population elects representatives, and whichever way the majority leans so will lean their representatives. People, being what they are, tend to elect people to office who best represent their ideals or their self-interests.
Even though oil still winds up being the main and strongest reason for invading Iraq (at least to very many of us), the claim was to shut down terrorism by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Then, when that didn't look too good, the Admin's rationale for this boondoggle was to bring democracy to the people of Iraq.
Did no one tell Bush and Cheney that the majority of the population, a.k.a. "the people," is Shiite? I lay no claim to knowing why Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that bringing "democracy" to Iraq meant changing the balance of power to the Shiites from the Sunnis.
Well, duh that the Sunnis now feel disenfranchised. They HAVE been. And duh that other Sunni-dominated states support Sunni rule in Iraq. But this is what democracy does: It allows the majority party, religion, or sexual preference to set policy for the rest.
Is this a good thing? Yes, if those in the minority are allowed a voice in their lives and governance and the majority rule doesn't decide to obliterate all the minorities. No, otherwise. But even if those elected by the majority rule like a bunch of thugs, as long as they have been elected democratically, they rule validly.
I prefer a cooperative approach to government within a democracy, but then I'm fortunate enough to live in a place where I'm not grievously outnumbered by people who want me dead just because of my heritage. This seems not to be the case in Iraq.
But just because--after a majority democratically elected it--the US doesn't like they way the Iraqi government is made up or the direction (or lack of direction) it imposes on its state, the US cannot decide to put in a government that it (or its pals in other countries) might like better.
I hate it that Iraqis are killing one another because of a different interpretation of the same religion. I'd have hated post-Reformation Europe as well, I suppose. But if "We the People," to which so many writers here refer, allow this Administration or this Congress to change the makeup of the Iraqi government, we are as guilty of hypocrisy as Bush and Cheney are.
We all have enough blood on our hands for not somehow forcing this country not to invade Iraq and for allowing the occupation to go on this long. People against the war are now in the majority. And the majority is supposed to rule. We will only be compounding our actions and inaction if we stand by to see a duly elected government (no matter how crappy) be swept aside for US interests.
Bill in Chicago wrote on September 4, 2007 6:46 PM:I'm sure that all makes sense in DC.
But back here on planet earth, it sure seems like our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia is a grotesque fraud:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
And that their lackeys and defenders in the Bush administration are about to be played for fools yet again.
MikeS wrote on September 4, 2007 7:42 PM:Am I missing something here, or does this imply that the Bush (mis)Administration is promoting a civil war in Iraq?
BJC wrote on September 4, 2007 7:42 PM:That's a lot of trouble to re-create the Iraq-Iran war from the 80's...
Gandhi wrote on September 4, 2007 7:44 PM:Siding with the Sunnis now means that the neocons have turned against democracy in Iraq since the Shiites make up 60% of the population.
Close to 4000 coalition troops wasted (besides all the money) and many more Iraqis killed just to oust Saddam's brutal regime?
The Republicans prove once again that there are not too many values they appreciate: money and power seem to be the only ones.
Anamika wrote on September 4, 2007 8:13 PM:Spencer,
Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith. August 11, 2005.
[snip]
Real power in Shiite Iraq rests, however, with two religious parties: Abdel Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa ("Call," in English) of Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. Of the two, SCIRI is the more pro-Iranian.
[snip]
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than Iraq's relatively progressive civil code—would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not "of the book," such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.
This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern—and legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).
The Iranian nightmare. By Michael Schwartz. Aug 11, 2005.
Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan's prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse.
The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the "axis of evil" and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region.
As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, "By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein ... the US removed the main barrier to Iran's eventual triumph."
Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?. F. Gregory Gause III. Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.
Supdog wrote on September 4, 2007 8:15 PM:The New Middle East. Richard N. Haass. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2006
Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun.
MM: "Bush/Cheney/et al have no clue about the consequences of their actions"
I sort of disagree; they just don't care.
Roberta: "Once again I'm confused about this so-called goal for democracy in Iraq."
Heh. Maybe because creating democracy in Iraq was never the point; invading Iraq had virtually nothing to with WMDs, combating terrorism, nor democracy. Its about controlling energy reserves, and to a lesser extent about reducing threats against Israel.
The US, Britain and Israel refused to recognize Hamas despite Hamas' sweeping victory (77% voter turnout!) in Jan 2006. So much for democracy...
Now the noise about Iraq's Shiite gov't incompetence and PM Nuri al Maliki being a failed leader (again, never mind democracy), in concert with the noise about Iran.
As Mr Ackerman notes, Ayad Allawi (he who has been marginalized by every vote in Iraq) is lobbying Washington to replace Maliki with himself as PM.
Democracy. US style.
dircha wrote on September 4, 2007 8:20 PM:I see. So first we go in to take out a Sunni administration in order to bring democracy. Then in proportion to their representation in the electorate, we get a democratically elected Shiite government. Now we decide that democracy wasn't such a good idea because the people, it turns out, don't like us, and used their new found freedom to show us. So now we'll reinstall an undemocratically elected minority Sunni administration, and call it even.
The neo-cons would do a lot better for themselves if they'd go back to the old strategy of installing dictators dependent on us for their power. This democracy and freedom business is just too unpredictable.
Then again, maybe that's the idea? With all the post 9/11, post-Iraq legislation to protect government secrecy, we'll never be able to tell when the next Iran-Contra comes along. Which is exactly how "they" want it.
maxbaer(not the original) wrote on September 4, 2007 9:05 PM:Could it be that the Neocons actually want to restart the war between Iran and Iraq with these Sunnis we are arming serving as our surrogates? Obviously we don't have the ground troops. The flaw, I suppose, is that these Sunnis would be woefully outnumbered even in their own country let alone by the 75 million Iranians.
M M wrote on September 4, 2007 9:13 PM:Maxbaer, that's why we just sold the saudi's and other sunni gov's $20b of weapons; look for a nice bump in major US defense company stocks this fall as this will be just the beginning of the middle east arms race with the U.S. arming the sunni's (ironic that al-qaeda is sunni based) and russia/china arming the shiite's as a counterbalance to us
nepeta wrote on September 4, 2007 9:28 PM:Yep. It sure looks like the US is changing horses in midstream. What amazes me is that the neocons hadn't thought about the 'Shiite Crescent' they would create by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. I think an argument can be made that the sparkle of Iraq's oil reserves temporarily blinded them to the political consequences of their plan. Also, the predominance of Jewish neocons, with their fear of Saddam, forgot to consider the effect that a Shiite Iraq would have on the power balance in the whole region. Still, though, the war planners were just unbelieveably stupid (given their priorities for the ME. Now, for the US to forge an alliance with Iraqi Sunnis and eventually return them to power in Iraq would be unforgiveable. It was the Shia in southern Iraq who suffered the horrors of Saddam's reign.
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on September 4, 2007 9:36 PM:Luckily the Shia are well-aware of the US proclivity for double-dealing. As recently as the end of the Gulf War, the US, after urging the Shia to revolt against Saddam, left them alone to be slaughtered en masse. I'm sure the Shia learned an important lesson and perhaps will be able to save themselves this time around (with the help of Iran). Proxie war at hand?
There is even less reason to distroy iran than there was saddam which is zero.
TheraP wrote on September 4, 2007 9:52 PM:Even to discuss this for any reason shows the level of insanity these guys have reached.
Using simple logic here: bush and cheney are liars. Their cronies are liars. Thus, if Allawi is a bush/cheny crony, he too must be a liar. It seems to me he may be playing bush/cheney as much as they think they are playing him. Wouldn't it be funny if Anamika above is correct and Allawi has a hidden agenda, which even bush/cheney do not know, because, like them, he lies?
These guys all seem to be crooks and liars - "birds of a feather." And I honestly can't trust any of them!
don_wis wrote on September 4, 2007 10:20 PM:It's helpful to know the purpose of the so-called 'democracy' the administration is pursuing. The most concise background for that is the Introduction to the updated edition of "The Political Ideas of Leo Straus" by professor Shadia B. Drury, who holds the Canada Research Chair for Social Justice at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan. Published June 2005 by Palgrave Macmillan with ISBN 1-4039-6954-X. It's in paper.
It will quickly clear up the fact that this isn't your father's democracy their proposing. It also clarifies their doctrine of 'perpetual war.'
Robert Teiken wrote on September 4, 2007 10:31 PM:So predictable. Any Iranian Shiite who fought against Sunni Iraq in the 1980's and had family members killed by Saddam will certainly be willing to support their Iraqi Shiite brethern. What is so hard to understand about this? Our poor American fighters are caught in the middle of this...a definitely forseeable consequence of our invading, overthrowing Saddam and occupying Iraq. Why are Bush and PNAC still in charge of this country?...Ok I know...911,911,911,911.911.....
Robert Teiken wrote on September 4, 2007 10:32 PM:So predictable. Any Iranian Shiite who fought against Sunni Iraq in the 1980's and had family members killed by Saddam will certainly be willing to support their Iraqi Shiite brethern. What is so hard to understand about this? Our poor American fighters are caught in the middle of this...a definitely forseeable consequence of our invading, overthrowing Saddam and occupying Iraq. Why are Bush and PNAC still in charge of this country?...Ok I know...911,911,911,911.911.....oil, oil, oil, oil.......
Bourgeois Liberal wrote on September 4, 2007 10:50 PM:There is even less reason to distroy iran than there was saddam which is zero.
But, but but...Saddam killed his own people!!
Now that we're killing them instead, everything's peachy.
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 12:06 AM:dircha said, "The neo-cons would do a lot better for themselves if they'd go back to the old strategy of installing dictators dependent on us for their power."
That was the plan from the beginning. (You didn't REALLY think a democratic government was the objective, did you?) Chalabi was their guy who, if you'll recall, they thought was going to sign a peace treaty with Israel and build a pipeline to supply them with oil. (That still cracks me up.) When Chalabi didn't fly, Allawi was plan B, but that didn't work out either. Elections are messy like that and they didn't have a Supreme Court to impose the decision they wanted.
Remember, Dubya didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shiite until well after "Mission Accomplished".
Me_again wrote on September 5, 2007 12:10 AM:Maybe Iran is an anti-Western oil contractor country?
I mean, exactly what is "our vital national interest" in the region?
Why did Bush want Richard Clarke to lie and say that 9/11 was caused by Saddam?
Why did Bush say there was a energy crisis when there was not one?
What is the PNAC?
This war is about OIL - it has never been about ANY THING ELSE.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made clear at the conference that Tehran was prepared to join the club, which would see the world’s first, second and fourth largest gas producers form a powerful bloc, potentially ranged against Western interests.
anna missed wrote on September 5, 2007 1:48 AM:Actually, the original plan probably came from David Wormser. Install a "democratically" elected Shiite government in Baghdad that would shine a light on the clerics in Najaf as the irresistible democratic alternative to the clerics in Qom - thereby creating an the pretext for democratic revolution (regime change) in Iran. Clean and simple. Except it didn't quite work out that way. By a long shot.
thepeoplechoose wrote on September 5, 2007 7:40 AM:Democracy (the conventional form) in an Arab / Islamic dominated state or government is a practical impossibility. The WH is populated by 90% idiots if they truly think otherwise.
Or for those who are more inclined to skepticism, we aren't in Iraq to promote democracy in any way shape or form.
The above equates to the inescapable fact that the WH is peopled by idiots or liars or some combination of the two. And that is why we are so screwed.
And just to demonstrate a non-partisan spirit, Congress is no different. After all, Congress has repeatedly agreed to let the WH go after an unachieveable goal.
Stupid liars!
Allawi wrote on September 5, 2007 10:32 AM:You need to combine this thread with the news about the "public coup" being waged by well-connected US public-relations firms to replace al-Maliki with our favorite puppet, Allawi.
Allawi is Sunni. Al-Maliki is Shiite (as is our fallen-from-grace-puppet, Chalabi).
Laying the groundwork for a proxy war is a very ominous, scary, and threatening development.
"Iraqi Sunnis are our Enemy, they are insurgents, they are allied with Al-... Iraqi Sunnis are our Friend, they have always been our friend. Iran is our Enemy and has always been our Enemy. War is peace."
Playing hot-pursuit and provocation games in a tinder-box is the height of folly.
correction wrote on September 5, 2007 10:38 AM:Ack, I'm wrong, Allawi is secular-Shiite (albeit a Baathist), he was born to a well-known Shia business family. Hrm, evidently his strong Baathist ties trump his weak Shiite roots? (Or the Cheneys think they do?)
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 10:39 AM:Ack, I'm wrong, Allawi is secular-Shiite (albeit a Baathist), he was born to a well-known Shia business family. Hrm, evidently his strong Baathist ties trump his weak Shiite roots? (Or the Cheneys think they do?)
John McCutchen wrote on September 5, 2007 3:04 PM:The Surge was never intended to achieve the stated objective - to provide breathing space for the Iraqi government to achieve political benchmarks. There were never enough troops to even hope to accomplish that goal, and in fact, no real government of Iraq to accomplish it
Iran and its Shiite militias have always been the target and while the Sunnis weren't obvious allies in December when the surge was announced, Spencer's hypothesis has great merit.
The military and the embassy have been attempting to cultivate relations with Sunni insurgents (baathists and other "dead enders") for a couple of years now. With the collapse of the Iraqi state accelerating during that time and pressure for US withdrawal mounting, either Petraeus was going to arm the Sunni insurgents for the Final Conflict in the Iraqi Civil War or Saudi and the emirs, and Jordan were.
As usual, Ackerman's nearly flawless