The Wrong Country
By Mitch Berg
Mike Kelly at Irish Pennants on the ISG report:
The truth, which the ISG’s aging luminaries lack more the guts than the brains to grasp, is that Iran and Syria are now our principal enemies, both in Iraq and in the broader war on terror. Without their interference, sectarian violence in Iraq would swiftly and sharply decline.
If there’s been one big overarching mistake in the War on Terror, it may have been that Iran and Syria needed to be taken out of the war (not necessarily militarily) at the same time, or before, Iraq.
The fact that the US government is doing effectively nothing to destabilize Ahmadinejad – in the same sense that Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and, of all people, the AFL-CIO’s Lane Kirkland – did to destabilize the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact with their support of Polish labor unions and Czech and other Eastern European dissidents – is, to use my gift of understatement, a crying shame.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
If Iran is the source on sectarian violence in Iraq, why is the Bush Administration trying to arrange for a greater role for the SCIRI party and it’s Badr Brigade. The are the Shia party / militia with the most direct connection to Iran?
Does this mean you favor support for al Sadr and his Mahdi army. As the strongest non-exile Shia, he is least connected to Iran?
And just how did you propose to do this?
“Iran and Syria needed to be taken out of the war (not necessarily militarily) at the same time, or before, Iraq.”
The Iranians are ‘in’ Iraq b/c without Saddam to keep them out, large Iraqi consituencies were able to invite them in.
Just how do you propose to stop Iraqi Shia from inviting the Iranians ‘in’?
As for helping Iranian unions, perhaps the U.S. could start by not banning them under the CPA in Iraq.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:15 am
If Iran is the source on sectarian violence in Iraq, why is the Bush Administration trying to arrange for a greater role for the SCIRI party and it’s Badr Brigade. The are the Shia party / militia with the most direct connection to Iran?
Because killing them would alienate too many Shia?
Does this mean you favor support for al Sadr and his Mahdi army.
I’d love to know what draws you to that absurd question.
I favor calling a truce in the “War on Drugs”; it doesn’t mean I favor issuing meth to junior high kids.
And just how did you propose to do this?
Do what? Sorry – I
lost the narrativenever found an actual question among your various strawmen.The Iranians are ‘in’ Iraq b/c without Saddam to keep them out, large Iraqi consituencies were able to invite them in.
So the lesson is – foster totalitarianism!
Just how do you propose to stop Iraqi Shia from inviting the Iranians ‘in’?
By making the Iranians the fundamentally-friendly nation they should be – and that most of the “Iranian Street” wants to be. By using economic, diplomatic and social pressure to topple the mullahs.
As for helping Iranian unions, perhaps the U.S. could start by not banning them under the CPA in Iraq.
There are no bones in ice cream.
If you can answer witn non-sequiturs, so can I!
Not sure about the details of the “ban” you refer to (I suspect you’re not either), but in principle I agree. But I suspect there’s more to it than “banning a labor union”.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:29 am
1. I explained why I asked about Sadr. He is the Shia least connected to Iran. If you want to prevent Iran’s influence in Iraq you could have:
a. left Saddam in power, he hated Iran.
b. removed Saddam, but forcibly installed other Sunnis hostile to Iran. This would be impossible to do democratically, since they are a minority in Iraq. Plus, they would all be ex-Bathists.
c. let a Shia majority government based on Sadr take power. Of the Shia parties, Sadr is least dependent on Iran. Unlike SCIRI and Dawa (think the Iranian version of the Contras) he is not an exile and never left Iran. He has his own popular base of support and does not need Iranian help.
d. Let a Shia government based on SCIRI take control (which seems to be the policy the Bush Admin. is heading towards). But they are the party most connected to Iran.
I assume a and b are out for anyone who supports the invasion. If you don’t like SCIRI, your only alternative is Sadr.
2. “By making the Iranians the fundamentally-friendly nation they should be – and that most of the “Iranian Street” wants to be. By using economic, diplomatic and social pressure to topple the mullahs.”
Sure, any invasion of Iraq would have been much more likely to succede if the Iranian government had been reformed BEFORE we invaded Iraq. This was a point made by various opponents of the war. They said Iran had a broadly popular reform movement. Lets wait a few years, quietly support the reformers, and see if they can change the Iranian government. Then, once Iran is friendly, we can deal with Iraq from a much stronger position. If you want to say the war’s opponents were right, welcome to the club.
The problem with trying to do regime change in Iran AFTER we invaded Iraq is that we have zero leverage. Right now you and Bush have placed us at the mercy of Iran. We bascially have to get down on our knees and offer real concessions that harm our national interest, in order to extract our forces from Iraq.
What economic pressure can we exert? We already ban trade with Iran and the Iraq invasion has certainly not made any other country likely to join us. Diplomatically we have no relations with Iran and after the war, fewer friends and allies to influence Iran. Socially, the Iraq invasion has been a disaster for the Iranian reform movement and has virtually destroyed any ‘soft’ power we could deploy in Iran.
3. “Not sure about the details of the “ban” you refer to (I suspect you’re not either)”
Unlike you I try to only make factual assertions based on evidence. In this case I have my own eyes and ears. I meet two leaders from the Iraqi oil workers union in person at an event sponsored by the United Steelworkers in St. Paul. They described how the CPA under Paul Bremmer overturned nearly every law Saddam had EXCEPT his ban on public sector unions (which in a state owned economy means the same a total ban).
But don’t take my word for it, here is one of the better media accounts.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.harwood.html