Shiite urges U.S. to give leeway in Iraq fight

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10221560/from/RS.1/

BAGHDAD - The leader of Iraq's most powerful political party has called on the United States to let Iraqi fighters take a more aggressive role against insurgents, saying his country will only be able to defeat the insurgency when the United States lets Iraqis get tough.

"The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror," said Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government and whose armed wing is the most feared of Iraq's many factional forces.

Instead, Hakim asserted in a rare interview late last week, the United States is tying Iraq's hands in the fight against insurgents. One of Iraq's "biggest problems is the mistaken or wrong policies practiced by the Americans," he said.

In more than an hour of conversation at his Baghdad home and office, Hakim denied accusations that the Shiite-led government's security forces -- with alleged involvement by his party's armed wing -- have operated torture centers and death squads targeting Sunni Arabs. He also renewed his call to merge half of Iraq's 18 provinces into a federal region in the oil-rich, heavily Shiite south, and he played down Iran's interests in Iraq, saying that the Shiite theocracy to the east wants only what the United States claims to want: a stable Iraq.

During much of the interview, Hakim was critical of U.S. policies toward Iraq, though he acknowledged that U.S. forces must remain in the country as a "guest" of the Iraqi government while it builds its security forces. The Americans are guilty of "major interference, and preventing the forces of the Interior or Defense ministries from carrying out tasks they are capable of doing, and also in the way they are dealing with the terrorists," Hakim charged.

Hakim gave few details of what getting tough would entail, other than making clear it would require more weapons, with more firepower, than the United States is currently supplying. He also urged the United States to take a tougher stand against countries harboring insurgents and their supporters, and called for faster trials of insurgent suspects.

Running for office?
His repeated assertion that the United States was being too weak against Iraq's insurgency, allowing attacks to mushroom, appeared to suggest that any future Iraqi government that included him would share his view. With Iraqis scheduled to vote Dec. 15 for the country's first full-term government since the U.S. invasion in 2003, some analysts predict that Hakim will come from behind the scenes into direct political contention.

Until now, Hakim has opted not to hold office; the highest-ranking member of the Supreme Council in the current government is Adel Abdel-Mehdi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents. But as head of the Supreme Council, which was founded by exiles in Iran as an armed Shiite opposition group to Saddam Hussein, Hakim commands the largest bloc of seats in Iraq's transitional parliament.

In addition, Hakim oversees the party's armed wing, formerly known as the Badr Brigade. Its fighters are widely feared for what even many Iraqi Shiites say are habits of torture and other ruthless tactics learned from Iranian intelligence and security forces. Now officially converted into a private security detail and political group, the renamed Badr Organization is widely alleged to control many command-level and the rank-and-file officers in the Interior Ministry -- police, commandos, intelligence agencies and other branches.

The United States, at times openly distrustful of the Supreme Council's Iranian links and of its armed wing, took the allegations of Badr involvement in a secret Interior Ministry prison that was discovered last week seriously enough to publicly warn the government against allowing factional militias to control Iraq's security forces or ministries.

'Mistaken policy'
In the interview, Hakim, the son of an ayatollah, wore the black turban signifying descent from the prophet Muhammad and the long, close robes of a scholar of Islam. He spoke in a spare, formal marble-floored audience room in his Baghdad home, which until the U.S.-led invasion had been the Baghdad residence of Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

Sitting straight and intently in a high-backed chair, Hakim repeatedly invoked the assassination of his brother, Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim, who was killed by a car bomb in Najaf in August 2003. He evinced distrust of the Iraqi government's principal ally, the United States, even more often.

In Iraq, "there are plans to confront terrorists, approved by security agencies, but the Americans reject that," Hakim said. "Because of that mistaken policy, we have lost a lot. One of the victims was my brother Mohammad Bakir, because of American policies."

"For instance, the ministries of Interior and Defense want to carry out some operations to clean out some areas" in Baghdad and around the country, including volatile Anbar province, in the west, he said.

"There were plans that should have been implemented months ago, but American officials and forces rejected them," he said. "This has led to the expansion of terrorism.

"We have a capacity to move more quickly than currently," he said.

The issue points to a key difference between U.S. officials and some of Iraq's conservative Shiite leaders about what it will take to end the insurgency. Even the top U.S. generals say the ultimate solution is a political one, bringing minority Sunnis into a democracy that without them stands to be dominated permanently by the Shiite majority. But the leaders of many Shiite religious parties, reflecting their years in exile and their bitterness over the killing of relatives and supporters during Hussein's dictatorship, say the endgame is a military one.

Hakim charged that the United States, evidently fearful of alienating Sunnis, was blocking the arrests of Sunni political leaders who had ties to insurgents. "The mixing of security and political issues" was just another U.S. mistake, he said. "Terrorists should know there would be no dealing with them."

Indeed, some former members of Hussein's Baath Party who initially took up arms against U.S. forces and the new Iraqi government have said they have abandoned the insurgency and sought a political role largely because of the effectiveness of what they alleged to be Shiite death squads rounding up and executing Sunni men since the Shiite-led government took office last spring.

Hakim said "the problem is not with the Sunnis, it is with the terrorists. There are Sunnis who have strong ties with us, who speak frankly and in pain, asking for help in getting rid of the terrorists."

Suspicion of Badr forces runs high
Yet suspicion of the Badr forces runs strong among Iraqis, especially since the discovery by the U.S. military this month of a secret prison in central Baghdad containing what Interior Minister Bayan Jabar, a Shiite, acknowledged were at least five to seven detainees who had been subjected to torture.

Hakim said charges of torture have long been drummed up by Hussein loyalists, and he asserted that the U.S. military is often present in Interior Ministry facilities. American troops, he said, had been in the building where the prison was discovered "four times a week."

"These are all baseless allegations," he said. "We say, bring us one single piece of evidence to prove these allegations."

Hakim also made clear he wanted leaders elected in December to move forward toward creation of a massive federal region in the Shiite south, an idea he first broached in August before thousands of supporters in a ceremony in the Shiite holy city of Najaf marking the second anniversary of his brother's assassination.

Some Americans and Iraqis have charged such a state would put much of Iraq, and its oil, under a Shiite-controlled theocracy heavily influenced by Iran. But Hakim noted that the Kurdish-populated north already has such a region, and he contended that Baghdad, with its mixed population, and the heavily Sunni west should form separate regions as well.

The draft constitution voted in this year "approved that Iraq should become regions," he said. "While we want to form a region in the south, we strive to maintain the unity of Iraq."

Hakim said the United States could find "many areas" of agreement with Iran on Iraq, if it wanted to. For example, he said, "from the Iranian point of view, it is in the Iranian interest that Iraq be stable. That is also supposed to be the American intent."

Hakim made clear his own role would remain at the national level, rather than limited to any new Shiite region. Asked twice if he would seek political office directly, he said both times that he seeks only to be a servant of all Iraqis and showed one of his few, small smiles of the night.

Asked how different Iraq would look five years from now, Hakim said the answer depended on the actions of the United States. "For sure, the policies of America will have great influence on whether security and reconstruction are present," he said.
 
Well, I have to admit that if the Shi'ite militias were given a free hand in Iraq, there would soon be an end to the insurgency - because most (if not all) of the Sunni Moslems would be dead! Not something America wants on its conscience, thank you very much... :uhoh:
 
DagoRed said:
They will need to learn to handle the fight alone at some time.
True, but go back and read Preacherman's post. The Shiites were a suppressed majority under Saddam. Now the Sunnis, who were always a minority but who held power under Saddam, are the odd man out. They are even outnumbered by the Kurds. IMHO the Sunnis are stupid to be playing insurgent, because it should be obvious that they will never again control the government. But they are banking on support from Iran. The Shiite majority would like nothing better than to eradicate the Sunnis.

Take away the restraining hand of the U.S. and it'll make Milosovec look like a choirboy.
 
I have always maintained that a civil war in Iraq is inevitable once we pull out. This ethnic cleanser just went ahead and spelled it out for the most obstinate among our doves. Which brings me back to the old question: "Why are we paying through the nose to delay the inevitable?"
 
Standing Wolf said:
Why don't we just break Iraq into separate countries?

Because all factions will then hate us as they would rather fight it out. That's one of the reasons why appeasement is such a moronic doctrine. Sell weapons to both in exchange for oil, and let them kill one another if they have nothing better to do with their time.

Observe that Europeans are peaceful not because of appeasement but because they got tired of the death and damage they used to cause to one another. The same painful education is in order elsewhere.
 
IMHO the Sunnis are stupid to be playing insurgent, because it should be obvious that they will never again control the government. But they are banking on support from Iran.
I thought the Iranians were Shiites and supported the Shiites in Iraq.
 
First, yeah Iran might jump in but it would be on the side of the Shi'ites, not the Sunnis.

Second, for "Sunnis" you might just as well read "Arabs". Culturally and racially, that's what they are. The Iranians/Shi'ites are NOT Arabs, they're "Persians" from a whole different culture/language and of course variant of Islam.

Now. The current situation is this:

If you split Iraq into three pieces and give Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds each their own bit, there will be oil in the Shi'ite and Kurd areas but NOT in the Sunni portion. Geologically their bit is more like Syria: not a drop of oil.

BUT, the Sunnis have a much more educated population and tend to have wealthier individuals. For the education alone, you don't want to try and get along without them.

The Shi'ite section could end up heavily influenced by (if not eventually merged with) Iran. Not a happy thought.

Any independent Kurdish section would get immediately invaded by our "buddies" *Turkey* I kid you not. See, the Kurds are their own separate race/culture that really should have been it's own nation. It got chopped in thirds between Iran, Iraq and Turkey. The Kurds in Iran and Iraq trade with each other and basically maintain clandestine open border crossings not in control of *anybody*. Not a problem for us right now as the Kurds are on our side. For now.

Turkey has seriously abused their Kurdish minority, to the point of banning their language (outright), deliberately trying to "de-Kurdify" Kurdish children, banning their political parties and calling all Kurdish separatists terrorists regardless of whether or not they're actually engaged in terror. It's a serious ongoing human rights problem from hell and naturally, the Kurds in all three portions aren't happy. Turkey fears an independent "Kurdistan" across their border being used as a staging area for terror against Turkey, genuinely understandable given Turkey's behavior.

So: there are a whole lot of reasons to keep Iraq one nation.

Whether or not that's possible is another question...

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds
 
Take away the restraining hand of the U.S. and it'll make Milosovec look like a choirboy
So what? :confused: That'd certainly solve the problem.

The Iraqi government wants us out; they've asked for a timetable. That gives us an excuse to leave - so let's leave and let the Iraqis iron out their differences in their own way.

The world isn't really a very nice place no matter how much we and the Europeans wish it were. Conflict between cultures exist throughout the world and the methods of resolving the conflict aren't always as civilized as we of the West would like them to be. We have a right to intervene in those conflicts only in so far as they impact our security. The security issue has been resolved. Iraq is no longer a threat (if it ever was) and the oil is still flowing from the middle east and will continue to flow after we've left.

Sooooo...
If the shia want to wipe out the sunnis - so what? It is my understanding they've both been trying to wipe out each other since about 50 or so years after the passing of Mohamed.

Eliminating one side or the other eliminates the conflict - well - at least until the surviving side figures out someone else to hate anyway.

Tolerance for those not a member of one's group is an unnatural concept in nature and like it or not man is still an animal with all the instincts of an animal.

Some say civilization has tamed those instincts. I say it has simply constrained those instincts. Eventually the societal/cultural stresses created by the artificial constraints boil over and - well - there are numerous contemporary and historical (going well back into antiquity) examples of what happens then.

So let'em duke it out because in the final analysis:

Darwin always wins!
 
The anti-Darwinian factor though is that we are arming the hell out of the Shi'ites right now. When we leave, all those modern weapons and counter-insurgency training (unconventional warfare) will be absorbed by Iran.

That's not good.
 
CAnnoneer said:
Because all factions will then hate us as they would rather fight it out. That's one of the reasons why appeasement is such a moronic doctrine. Sell weapons to both in exchange for oil, and let them kill one another if they have nothing better to do with their time.

Observe that Europeans are peaceful not because of appeasement but because they got tired of the death and damage they used to cause to one another. The same painful education is in order elsewhere.

I never thought I would be doing this, but Standing Wolf is correct. The logical, safe and best course of action - for the region as a whole as well as the interests of the West - is to have a fractured Iraq (which, after all, is only a country drawn up by Westerners within the last hundred years).

The Sunnis, specifically the active part (ex-Baathists / al-Q wannabees) will never support the US or anything that they see represents it; they also have the support of most of the "Muslim Opinion" in the Middle East - that opinion that objects to allegations that the Quran was flushed down the toilet but remained strangely silent when two Shia mosques were bombed during Friday prayers a while back. Its time for the Sunni areas to be "supervised" by those nations who are supporting them already, directly or indirectly.

The Shi'ites are a more difficult problem. One would have assumed, and it is still probably the case, that they would be closest to Iran; however developments appear to suggest that Iraqi Shi'a militias may be more willing to support / defend themselves against Sunni aggression than to simply surrender themselves to Iranian control - dont forget that, as well as the West disappointing Shia opposition groups after GW1, the Iranians did much the same thing after the Iran-Iraq War and Iraqi Shia faith in Tehran may not have recovered. In any case, while noone wants to see a civil war, personally I can well understand what could happen if the Shi'ite militias were allowed free reign to go after the people who are viciously targetting them (if US or UK civilians or soldiers were being the main target of insurgents as the Shia community is we would see massive action after all). All that aside, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, how is a war between different factions of Islam "a bad thing" for the West? The only short-term consequence is that the price of Oil would shoot up, but if that leads to technological development and us getting rid of our fix for that substance (and coincidentally turning the Arabian Gulf into the backwater it was before oil became important) that can only be a positive.

Finally we come to the Kurds. Regular readers of THR will know my oft-stated views upon that group of long-oppressed people. Basically a Kurdish state would be a safe haven for the required bases in the region; thanks to being surrounded by hostile countries they would be unlikely to reject the support of the West; they also have Kurds in most of the surrounding countries (especially Turkey and Iran) and granting them self-determination would be a massive boost to the credibility of the West when dealing with like groups. You could control the entire region from bases in a Kurdish state, to say nothing of the potential destablization for Iran.
 
Actually I agree to some extent with Agricola. The cultural divide in the region may never allow for anything close to a Western styled democracy. Having said that, it is wrong to reject the notion that the our system should not be promoted or rejected out of hand. We have a widely disparate population in America, but we get along and are content for the most part. Go walk through a mall a few days before Christmas. Every critter known to Man is there and will generally give you a big hello if offered one. Yet we have evolved over 200 years. Some would say we are actually devolving at the moment. The Diversity Cult threatens to tear us apart. That's another story.

I'm not sure that Iraq or the region can be whipped into a peaceful democratic society in a couple of years. How long did it take to pacify America? We are still a presence in Europe, Japan and Korea. It is true that most of Iraq is peaceful and desires peace. I'm not sure that civil war would break out if the Iraqi's were left to their own devices. I am not sure that the Sunni's, at least the rigid ones, would not experience genocide. I am also sure that given the opportunity a power structure and the necessary force to begin to pacify the entire country would appear. The Middle East is a Pandora's Box and the best we can do is sit on the lid as best we can.

Perhaps I agree with Hakim. Let them handle the terrorists. We need to understand they are going to handle them more severely than we would. So what? It is, after all, their country. We could advise them that we will tolerate some, but not all of their behavior. Hell, we are criticised now for anything we do or don't do, so why worry about world opinion in the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top