Iraq Fact Check Please

[AlanC]

Over on the surveyor's bulletin board, there is an interesting Iraq discussion. One of the points, backed up by a few news articles, was that Maliki's Badr movement is closely aligned with the Iranian Shiites while Sadr has been reaching out and making overtures to Sunnis in and out of Iraq. We are backing the ones with Iranian ties against the Iraqi Shiites; isn't that interesting- if true. Just shows to go you how little we really know...just what they tell us. Hey, I could watch Ms Perino, I know I can get the straight stuff from her.

[paulschlimm]

Alan,

it get's worse. In 2001, Iran was the ONLY country in the region that had open displays of sympathy for the US following 9/11 and had open displays condemning the attacks on 9/11.

In 2001, Iran was openly favorable about our invasion of Afghanistan to force the Taliban out.

In 2001, the Iranian president was Mohammad Khatami. He was not overly successful in improving representation and the rule of law in Iran, but was not shy about trying to. In the end, he was frustrated by the hard-line clerics in the Iranian government.

Side note - he also refused to meet with Sadr in 2003.

In 2002, President Bush lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil.

Opportunity lost, I'd say.

Paul

[AlanC]

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting between Cheney and Maliki- to see what they really say. Some have opined that we don't want Shia and Sunni getting along. If Sadr pulled a coalition together and became the head knocker, first thing he would do would be to kick us out....or ask us to leave anyway thereby undercutting whatever shred of credibility we have left in staying there.

[epaul]

During the buildup (pep fest) to war, I distinctly, clear as a bell, recall Wolfowitz being interviewed on NPR. During the interview, he repeatedly referred to the Shiites as being the secular group in Iraq, a secular group opposed to Saddam and the fundamentalist Sunnis (Saddam was probably the most secular leader the Middle East at that time, being a socialist-type and wearing western suits in person and on public billboards).

Of course, he had it dead ass backwards. And he refused to take any hints from the interviewer that he might have it backwards.

And Wolfie was team Cheney’s most informed NeoCon.

The reports are scary. Frontline and NPR have both been offering up dollops of Team Cheney/Bush’s extreme ignorance (and willful disinterest, especially on Rumsfeld’s part). One fellow interviewed on NPR said he had just finished a speech on the Kurds at a Washington Press Club deal, when (I forget the name, but one of the top advocates of the Iraq invasion, and a key advisor to Bush and Cheney, a top National Review contributer), anyway, the guy finishes his speech on the Kurds, and this promoter and architect of the Iraq invasion approaches the speaker and says, “That was a fascinating speech. Just who are these Kurds again?” The guy being interviewed then said, “and he asked me who and what the Kurds were, and we were only a week away from the invasion. Incredible, sadly incredible.”

Frontline just finished a two-part look at the Bush build up to the Iraq war. The arrogance and ignorance Bush, Rummy, and Cheney display, in their very own words, is incredible. The number of people Chenny and Rumsfeld locked out of the loop is incredible. The very few they chose to listen to is incredible (as incredibly uninformed or biased sources).

Iraq is extremely complicated. And the invasion was prompted, planned, and initiated by men who were not at all interested in knowing or learning anything about Iraq.

And it shows in spades.

Paul

(and the comments about team Cheney/Bush being uninterested in knowing or learning anything about Iraq isn't my ranting (though this caused me to rant). It will be the the sad postmortem history reaches about this mess. History will be clear on this one. These idiots will be hung by their own words and deeds that are on the record. The Frontline piece was amazing. And it wasn't conjecture or guess, it was the very words and recollections of the people who were there- in the room- at the time. Amazingly ignorant, and willfully so, leadership. And dishonest, too. Frontline showed some of the speeches Cheney had his staff cook up, and just how they were cooked.)

[dradtke]

Reportedly, when Bush was told there was fighting between Sunnis and Shia, he said, "I thought they were all Muslims."

[patrick]

epaul said:

During the buildup (pep fest) to war, I distinctly, clear as a bell, recall Wolfowitz being interviewed on NPR. During the interview, he repeatedly referred to the Shiites as being the secular group in Iraq, a secular group opposed to Saddam and the fundamentalist Sunnis (Saddam was probably the most secular leader the Middle East at that time, being a socialist-type and wearing western suits in person and on public billboards).

And I distinctly remember Wolfowitz saying that there would be no problem with Americans invading Iraq because Iraq has no holy sites like Saudi Arabia.

I am by no stretch of the imagination anything near to an expert on the middle east, but even I thought at the time the man was breathtakingly ignorant. Even I knew about Karbala, Najaf, the Shrine of Ali, etc. Simply by reading Smithsonian regularly.

[Supertramp78]

I used to wonder if oil was the main reason for going into Iraq. People used to say no, it was a real perceived threat that drove the decisions. These guys were really scared that Saddam had WMDs and this made the issue a question of speed, not style. We have to cut the head off that snake NOW. We will work out the details later.

now, I don't know. The fact that they knew so very little, while saying they knew everything, just makes me wonder what the real reason was.

[paulschlimm]

And I distinctly remember Wolfowitz saying that there would be no problem with Americans invading Iraq because Iraq has no holy sites like Saudi Arabia.

Your shitting me? Iraq is loaded with pre-Christian, Christian, and Muslim holy sites.

Sure, Mecca and Medina outclass the Blue Mosque and Jonah's Tomb, but really....

Just - wow.....

[patrick]

paulschlimm said:

And I distinctly remember Wolfowitz saying that there would be no problem with Americans invading Iraq because Iraq has no holy sites like Saudi Arabia.

Your shitting me? Iraq is loaded with pre-Christian, Christian, and Muslim holy sites.

Sure, Mecca and Medina outclass the Blue Mosque and Jonah's Tomb, but really....

Just - wow.....

And they did not know about the Shrine of Ali? A famous Hadith:

Our sixth imam, Imam Sadeq(Peace be upon him), says that we have five definitive holy places that we respect very much. The first is Mecca, which belongs to God. The second is Medina, which belongs to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h), the messenger of God. The third belongs to our imam of , Ali, which is in Najaf. The fourth belongs to our imam, Hussein, in Karbala. The last one belongs to the daughter of our seventh imam and sister of our eighth imam, who is called Fatemah, and will be buried in Qom. Pilgrims and those who visit her holy shrine, I promise to these men and women that God will open all the doors of Heaven to them.

They had never heard of Ali? No, not Cassius Clay.

These people knew NOTHING about the middle east. They didn't even bother to ask anyone who did know.

[epaul]

The Neo-Con Bushies basically held the Arabic scholars in our universities in contempt. And they held Arabists in the State Department in intellectual contempt. (irony to be noted).

To the NeoCons, the scholars and State Department Arabist were pointy-headed intellectuals or weak Clintonites, ditherers who always made things too complicated for decisive, clear action. The NeoBrains felt the university Arabists were entirely too sympathetic to Arab issues and sensibilities. (and brain poisoned by liberal thought in general).

The scornful words the NeoBrains had for the university and State Department Arabists are a matter of the record. As is the way they ignored every recommendation they made.

(Rumsfeld cracked many a repeated joke about assigning State Department Arabists to "study groups" and "committees" which were intended to meet and meet and never be heard.) (the arrogant turd)

To get bi-partisan briefly. When one party is in control for eight years, the "brains" in the think tanks of the opposing party get real sour. They are ignored by power and spend all their time pathetically bitching in private or to "friendly outlets" about all the things the "brain dudes" in power are doing wrong and what they would do differently.

Returning now to a balanced view that might be considered slightly partisan, by some:

When NeoBrains got their chance, their day in the sun after all those long games of Risk in the basement and the writing of all those unread editorials in the National Review, it was yabba dabba doo! "Policy Revenge" time.

Sadly for the nation, as far the NeoCon Bushies were concerned, Clinton policies, and any thought or thinkers even remotely related to Clinton policies, were poison. And this ignorant contempt also included all those timid, pointy headed Arabists in the State Department and our best universities. It was the time for "decisive men", men too long wrongly denied power, to act. No more dithering over silly complexities. Action.

Charge!

Oh fuck!

[dradtke]

And McCain seems likely to continue that ignorance. He's stated publicly several times, even after being publicly corrected by Lieberman, that Iran is bringing al Qaeda over from Iraq, training them, and sending them back.

That's a little bit like saying that Protestants in Northern Ireland were going to the Vatican for training in how to fight Catholics.

[Supertramp78]

One of the reasons it is worth the time to figure out how we got into this mess and who was responsible is that there are still lots of people out there that agree with them. This means that in a worse case scenario, the idiots who were behind this might get someone else's ear in the future. If you don't know how the train went off the tracks, you won't see the signs that you are heading off the tracks again.

[Russell Letson]

This ideology-blinded ignorance reminds me of what I read of our Asia policies in the years after WW II: the "old China hands" in the Department of State were seen as being soft on the Commies and were marginalized or cleaned out. The result was ignorance and misunderstanding of Asia, support of colonial regimes, and finally the Vietnam war, in which we supported any bunch of thugs who would call themselves anticommunists. Sound familiar?