Iran's Influence in Iraq
I have been following the ongoing controversy regarding whether the Bush Administration has sufficient evidence that Iran is arming Shia militias in Iraq. I guess my question is, what if they do? Let's imagine that we have uncontoverted evidence that Iran is sending all manner of nasty tools to Iraq.
What is it we can do about it?
The President says that he does not want anyone meddling in Iraq's nascent democracy. I suppose not, but when we invaded Iraq, we violated the notion that Iraq is somehow a soverereign country. We put a free for all in play. Moreover, our continued occupation does little to shore up our position. It is as if we are saying, " We don't want you foiling our attempt to alter the history of Iraq with your own attempt to alter the history of Iraq. This country is sovereign to everyone but us."
Hardly a convincing argument. In fact, we have never found it convincing when we toppled governments, armed insurgents or financed various destabilizations.
And the canard that the Iraqi people want our continued "help and support" inside their country is of little help. If they wanted us there, they wold not be shooting at us, they would not be undermining our security missions, and they would not be telling anyone who will listen that they want us out.
Lastly, the tone of indignation the Administration assumes when speaking of the subject does not play well. As though it is simply unthinkable that a country would try to influence events in a neighboring country. Unthinkable, that a Shia country may take sides in a Sunni/Shia conflict right next door. As if Iran had not been reaching out to the Iraqi Shia since the 1979 Revolution. Anyone who took Middle East Conflicts 101 knows that Saddam was the only bulwark we had against a possible Shia Super State.
And Shia Super States, besides being difficult to say, have never boded well for America.
FYI -- I see we have another carrier group to the Gulf. Rattle Rattle. Rattle.
What is it we can do about it?
The President says that he does not want anyone meddling in Iraq's nascent democracy. I suppose not, but when we invaded Iraq, we violated the notion that Iraq is somehow a soverereign country. We put a free for all in play. Moreover, our continued occupation does little to shore up our position. It is as if we are saying, " We don't want you foiling our attempt to alter the history of Iraq with your own attempt to alter the history of Iraq. This country is sovereign to everyone but us."
Hardly a convincing argument. In fact, we have never found it convincing when we toppled governments, armed insurgents or financed various destabilizations.
And the canard that the Iraqi people want our continued "help and support" inside their country is of little help. If they wanted us there, they wold not be shooting at us, they would not be undermining our security missions, and they would not be telling anyone who will listen that they want us out.
Lastly, the tone of indignation the Administration assumes when speaking of the subject does not play well. As though it is simply unthinkable that a country would try to influence events in a neighboring country. Unthinkable, that a Shia country may take sides in a Sunni/Shia conflict right next door. As if Iran had not been reaching out to the Iraqi Shia since the 1979 Revolution. Anyone who took Middle East Conflicts 101 knows that Saddam was the only bulwark we had against a possible Shia Super State.
And Shia Super States, besides being difficult to say, have never boded well for America.
FYI -- I see we have another carrier group to the Gulf. Rattle Rattle. Rattle.
posted by Jack Reed at 5:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home