Via Crooks and Liars, we see this heart warming tale from Al Jazeera:
Former foes Iran and Iraq have said they will sign a military cooperation agreement that will include Iranian help in training Iraq’s armed forces…
“We’re going to form some committees which will be involved in mine clearance, identifying those missing from the war and also … to help train, rebuild and modernise the Iraqi army,” Shamkhani added.
Iran last year offered to train Iraqi border guards, but Baghdad declined the offer.
The last time these militaries met they engaged in a joint eight year live fire exercise. Color me unenthused.
Jon H
“The last time these militaries met they engaged in an joint eight year live fire exercise. Color me unenthused.”
Then again, we’ve exchanged a fair share of shrapnel with the Iraqi military, too.
KC
If we’re creating a free country in which Iraqis make decisions for themselves, well . . .
SRV
Heh. Color Khamenei pink. The shape of things to come. The Dawa and SCIRI parties are going to run the ball now, they know their futures lie more with Tehran than DC. By George, what a brilliant plan.
p.lukasiak
Does this mean we get to put Iraq back into the “Axis of Evil” column?
In terms of stabilitzation of Iraq, and reduction of the need for US troops, this is definitely a good sign. My best guess is that this represents the takeover of the Iraqi military by the Badr and Mahdi militias and their ilk.
Of course, it also means the indirect control of the Iraqi security forces will be going from the US to Iran — which, to put it mildly, may cause some concern within the Bush regime….
Does anyone still think we can “win” in Iraq?
Tim F
So if Iraq votes itself into a tight regional alliance with Iran, democracy wins!
gratefulcub
A shia dominated government could only really have one ally. They know civil strife (read: war) is coming eventually. They need us to stay long enough to get a grip on power. They will need Iran
kl
“Does anyone still think we can ‘win’ in Iraq?”
Don’t you have some MS Word documents to photocopy 20 times?
Nancy
John,
There is a more complete story of this joint interview at BBC NEWS
Jimmy Jazz
Wow, who could see this coming? Oh that’s right. Me.
ppgaz
The Irani-Iraqi nexus is in its, uh, first throes?
Lee
“But Mr Dulaimi insisted that foreign troops were needed to ensure Iraqi security.”
Iran’s reply:
Great Iranian troops are foreign troops, just let us help you out with your security.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Darrell
Wow, doesn’t take much for you lefties to break open a new bottle of your extreme pessimism..Al Jazeera being the source and all.. I suppose this reaction is no different though than the predictions your side made before the war: Hundreds of thousands killed on all sides, Baghdad razed, rise of the ‘arab street’, quagmire, blah, blah.
Also, you lefties told us those Iraqi elected officials were “puppets” of the US. If that’s so, which Rumsfeld puppetmaster gave our Iraqis permission to cut this agreement with Iran?
Lee, I think most decent people would find this development, if true, to be worrisome. You seem to relish in the “fun” of it. Looks to me like some of you lefties are again rooting for disaster in Iraq.. fun to watch, as you say.
metalgrid
Lee, I think most decent people would find this development, if true, to be worrisome. You seem to relish in the “fun” of it. Looks to me like some of you lefties are again rooting for disaster in Iraq.. fun to watch, as you say.
Oh please, even non-lefties, myself for example, get plenty of morbid fascination from studying war, murder and other forms of killing. I love being an observer to conflict (prefrably where I am not involved), as it’s an all too infrequent glimpse into a hidden-in-plain-view aspect of the human condition.
Not because Muslims don
Nikki
Lessee:
Well, pretty much on one side actually.
Nope, don’t remember any lefties predicting that.
Only heard cons talk about this.
What, we’re not there yet??
Jimmy Jazz
No, Allawi was a puppet, but it was quite obvious to anyone paying attention that the big win of the Sistani backed slate was not what Bush had hoped for, and that their interests would begin to diverge from ours very quickly.
Prediction: our buddies the Kurds will start sticking their purple fingers in our eyes very shortly.
gratefulcub
Darrell,
It isn
Darrell
gcub, one can reject the flowers and candy view of Iraq while still seeing that your Iraqi meltdown outlook is far from “reality”. Get a grip
and J Jizz, on what possible basis do you make the claim that Sistani backed candidates were not expected to win a lot of seats? Sistani being the leading cleric, and a moderate, in a Shia majority. A cleric who supported free elections vs a theocracy, and is widely thought to be a threat to hardliners in Iran. Who thinks Sistani’s moderate influence is a bad thing?
Jimmy Jazz
If it’s possible, stop acting like an infant. Thanks.
That’s not what I said. What I said was, it’s not what Bush/Cheney et al wanted. They thought they could install their puppets and go their merry way, but Sistani called their bluff and forced elections. Once we agreed, the result was inevitable. And you are correct that Sistani is “moderate” compared to the Iranian hardliners, but to think that makes him “like us” is wrong headed. I think Jaafari and the rest would like to keep Iran at arm’s length, but when push comes to shove they’ll side with them over us. Not to mention that Iran has probably already thoroughly infiltrated the government and security services.
gratefulcub
Predicting a Iraq/Iran relationship that is being reported somehow makes me a crazy kooky pessimistic lefty?
The Shia see the new Iraq as their path to power, as the oppressed majority for decades. To think that they wouldn
Darrell
Do you have any citations with quotes from Bush administration higher ups expressing that the results of the Iraqi elections were not at all what they had hoped for? Because I would think they would be damn pleased at how it turned out, much to the dismay of all the naysayers on the left.
And another thing, back up you claim that the Bushies were expecting to “install their puppets and go their merry way”… because the link you provide is vague unsourced opinion. Are you seriously so stupid as to think the Bush admin. thought they could get away with installing their ‘puppets’. Yeah, you lefties are soo bright..
gratefulcub
Of course we do, like when Bush said,
Darrell
Look, you’re the one who said those who disagree with your gloom and doom predictions subscribe to the theory of Iraq being nothing but ‘flowers and candy’, so cut the selfrighteous indignation, ok? you’re dishing out condescending insults yourself
The Shia leadership in Iraq has in words and deed embraced one-man/women, one-vote democracy and has told Iran to butt out of their internal affairs. There are clearly very different strains of Shia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Moderate, democratic reform supporter Sistani vs. the mullahs in Iran. Sistani has repeatedly and loudly rejected Iran’s theocratic political model, when he could have easily put Iran into the middle of it. I fail to see any evidence to support your inevitable-that-Iraq-will-meltdown outlook
well apologies if some of us are reasonably skeptical to your pessismistic, and UNSUBSTANTIATED claims, that having ties to US and Israel = a govt. that “would not last”. Where do you come up with this hairbrained either/or scenarios?
BinkyBoy
Actually, a united Iraq/Iran may be just the thing to put a stop to inter-State hostilities amongst all of the various ME States.
How can anyone (Darrell) continue to believe that democracy can be forced in a short amount of time? So far it appears that democracy is happening in Iran, just not overnight, and Iraq gives off the stench of failure each an every day.
Or is that just my ijnner-obstructionist coming out again?
Darrell
Take a good look, because I’ve heard LOTS of lefties say the same thing. They praise our enemies while underming our efforts. Doubt me? Here on one hand we have the corrupt, rigged, closed elections in Iran = “appears democracy is happening in Iran”. Yet in Iraq, where open elections occurred = “stench of failure”
So many of you scumbags on the left *really* do root for failure. It’s who are
gratefulcub
I don’t see ties to iran as pessimistic or doom and gloom. I just think that it is a natural progression. They are going to look to establish and maintain local alliances.
Of course the Shia leadership has embraced democratic elections. They were bound to win. Of course the Sunnis rejected them, they were going to lose. Sistani loved the elections, he got to appoint a large portion of the government. But did they embrace democracy. That is much more complicated than an election. When they have several peaceful transfers of power, when they have several free and fair campaigns and elections, when they develop a democratic traditions, when they face a crisis and stay true to their constitution, then they will have embraced democracy.
I in no way meant to imply, that if you don’t agree with me, that you are a flower and candy man. I apologize for over heated rhetoric.
I also didn’t set up an either or: either us or Iran. We have to accept that the new Iraq is going to have relations with Iran. Not saying they are going to be bossom buddies, just that they will have a tight relationship. Rejecting Iran, and accepting the US and Israel would be a very tough sell to the Iraqi people, or any people of the region.
And just for the record, I don’t believe that nothing good came from our invasion of Iraq. Every action usually has positive and negative consequences. We got rid of SH, that is a positive. Iraq is a war zone, that is a negative. As I mentioned yesterday, there is a wide array of outcomes from this point on, I just tend to see it going one way, and you tend to see it going another. And if I dished out personal condescending insults to you, I apologize, that is not my intent. My intent is to disagree, maybe even ridicule your point, but not to ridicule or attack any individual.
gratefulcub
Darrell,
Not to speak for someone else, but i don’t think that was the point about Iran.
Democratic ideals are coming out in Iran, just not from the government. Their populations is predominately young. They don’t remember the Shah, they just know they don’t like the Mullahs. There is a swelling desire to overthrow the current regime. It appears that the Mullahs will not be able to maintain their control, and will be toppled at some point in the near future. Supporting the Iranian students and reformers is NOT supporting our enemies, any more than supporting the Tianamen Square students is supporting the Chinese government.
These are positive trends in Iran, and in my opinion, the way to foster democracy in the region. I don’t think we can spread democracy through force, but if one nation rises up and demands it, then it could more easily spread.
Darrell
gcub, thanks for your calm response to my somewhat overheated blatherings. I agree that Iraq will have to have several peaceful changes of power and other tests before they have ‘proven’ they have embraced democracy. This past election was a hopeful sign.. no one is saying it’s success is guaranteed, but the US has considerable resources to help it succeed. I just don’t buy your Iraq-going-down-the-drain scenario with the data we have now.. while admitting that as an infant democracy which is still vulnerable. I also don’t buy into your assertion that if Iraq has close ties with the US and Isreal, that would automatically mean that the Iraqi govt. “would not last” as you said. And I don’t buy your assertion that the Iraqi Shia govt “could have but one ally”, Iran. That just doesn’t seem to hold water, and you don’t do much explaining on how you arrive at such conclusions
Re BinkyBoy’s comments, after the last “elections” there in Iran, I see little basis for him for saying that, other than to side with our enemies.. that democracy is moving forward in Iran while going to hell in a handbasket in Iraq. That’s just a wrong and unfair statement. To the contrary, democracy just got stomped in Iran for the time being. Perhaps having listened to the anti-american attitudes of so many leftists, I may have a bit of a hair trigger sensitivity on those type of statements.
p.lukasiak
Prediction: our buddies the Kurds will start sticking their purple fingers in our eyes very shortly.
I’d have to disagree. Iran has its own “Kurdish” problem, and has dealt with it in much the same manner that everyone else (Syria, Turkey, Iraq) who has to deal with the Kurds have done….kill them until the stop rebelling.
In other words, Iranian dominance of Iraq is not what Kurds want to see — so expect to see the US supporting far more autonomy for Iraqi Kurdistan–the kind of autonomy that would allow the Kurds to authorize permanent US military bases in their sector.
Jimmy Jazz
In fairness to Bush, this was the dream of Cheney and Rumsfeld, but I think Bush abandoned the idea in the initial post war chaos when they realized so many of their assumptions were wrong.
gratefulcub
I want to say up front that I am not trying to assess the situation in Iran based on one opinion, but I just had a friend (an Iranian) come back from Tehran. He is a Bush supporter and a supporter of Bush. I asked him,
gratefulcub
The kurds aren
Darrell
Why do you think it’s such a bad thing that we be able to keep a military presence in Iraq in the form of military bases? I think it would be good thing to be breathing down the necks of the despots in that region
As for the Iranian elections, you don’t seem to realize that the Iranian ‘elections’ were a farce, a scam complete with stuffed ballots all approved by the mullahs and their cronies, not unlike the ‘elections’ which Saddam used to have. Given that reality, there is no way to interpret the Iranian elections as in any way reflecting the will of the people, “sending a message to the US” or any other message
Darrell
gratefulcub
I agree with everything you said about the Iranian elections. I was just passing on a story about Iranian attitudes. I never meant to imply that the elections were fair in the least. That regime is not going to move towards democracy, I think the people will liberalize the country at some point.
I don’t think we can have permanent bases in Iraq, AND improve our image in the region. And I don’t think it is good for our self interests to remain something between the great satan and very disliked. If we build large permanent bases in Iraq, that will validate many of their thoughts and fears (rightly or wrongly): the US invaded Iraq because it wanted to steal our oil, and build bases to further humiliate and enslave the Muslim people.
We must change our image. We must separate ourselves from Israel. We have to be seen as a force of good, which for the most part we are. Right now, democracy is seen as American, and American isn’t very popular. I think building bases hurts that goal.
In a cold war realpolitik sense, bases in Iraq would be wonderful. And they would be useful, but they aren’t necessary. We could invade any ME nation with a month’s notice, and they all know it.
So, both choices have positive and negative consequences, and I think the best choice is to pledge today that we will not have a long term presence in Iraq, and then to stand by that pledge.
Have a nice evening, I am heading out, and I fell about 99% sure, that we will run into each other on some other topic in the near future, but knowing us, we will end up back here in iraq;)
gratefulcub
Publicly no, I have no source and no reference, and I shouldn’t have said promised. But, the Kurds have expected some sort of autonomy from their cooperation with us from 91. i don’t have time now to look for sources or stories, so i will consider this an edit of the earlier post, and I hearby remove the US promise of autonomy. (not being smart ass here)
My point remains the same though, they EXPECT some sort of autonomy even if we haven’t promised it with a wink. That is their goal, and the whole situation is uneasy.
OK, for real, I am gone.
p.lukasiak
Why do you think it’s such a bad thing that we be able to keep a military presence in Iraq in the form of military bases? I think it would be good thing to be breathing down the necks of the despots in that region
some problems…
first off, it will provide Islamic terrorists with a recruiting tool.
secondly, although there are advantages to the US “breathing down the necks of the despots” in the region, the fact is that those forces will be used to support the despots we like, and intimidate the despots we don’t like, regardless of the relative heinousness of the regimes in question.
thirdly, the presence of a US base will inevitably result in regimes we don’t like spending more on defense, including research and development of WMDs. We were “lucky” that Bush was lying about Saddam’s WMDs, because the odds of WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists is greatly enhanced if US destabilization of “unfriendly” regimes is successful. (Iraq has provided the template that unfriendly regimes are likely to follow to deal with a US threat — they know they can’t beat the US military one-on-one, but they also know that they can engage in guerilla warfare successfully if they prepare for it.)
Darrell
Out of all the despots in that region, which are you suggesting we would seriously use our troops to support? Not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, not Libya, and certainly not Syria or Iran.. Tell us, which dictatorships would we use our troops to support? Ridiculous.. Condi recently boycotted Egypt (former ‘friend’ out of convenience) until they released Nour.. Bush pressured the Saudis into allowing democratic elections, although women were not allowed to vote. Your view of US military bases supporting “heinous” dictators in that region seems to be cynicism without basis to the extreme.
Furthermore, your position doesn’t acknowledge that US military bases in that region could and possibly would be used to support democratic uprisings and movements in that region. You think the democratic reform protesters don’t know that? Despots would have to think long and hard before violently oppressing on a large scale, democratic uprisings and protests.. knowing that US forces in that region could quickly return the favor in spades
The Bush doctine has made clear there are big changes in US policy in this regards, in which old rules of support of certain tyrants out of convenience no longer apply.. especially when it comes to unelected dictatorships in the middle east. Fruits of this policy can already be seen in Lebanon.
First I’d like to clarify a factual error in your statement. Saddam has had and has used WMD’s. Lot’s of them. Iraq ADMITTED to UNSCOM in late 1996 that they had 3.9 tons of Vx + 100’s of tons of chem weapons (UNSCOM thought Iraq was with that admission understating their stockpile). Inspectors were then ejected out of the country and these KNOWN wmd’s were never ever accounted for. So if Saddam was “lying” about WMD’s, he had only recently hidden them or disposed of them, because not long ago, he most certainly had them, and had used them.
As to your third point, let’s be clear what you are saying.. that we should not threaten or intimidate oppressive dictatorial regimes out of fear that they may develop WMD’s. That’s no different than telling police officers not to carry guns so as not to provoke criminals into better arming themselves. An oppressive regime an remain in power only through violent force or the threat of violence.. so there can be no doubt they will already be developing weapons as best they can.. whether to use them to invade others, or to suppress internal dissent.
Frank
Darrell- I don’t buy the idea that we would be likely to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy protestors against dictatorial regimes that allow us basing rights. Most recently we didn’t do that in Uzbekistan.
Darrell
Frank, I suppose it’s fair to bring up Uzbekistan. However, let’s admit that their crackdown on protesters, although troubling, is a far cry from ‘large scale violent oppression’ which would likely trigger US action one way or the other. And if the US pulls out, you do realize the Soviets and Chinese are waiting in the wings to gain influence there? And we all know what human rights champions those countries are. So how bout some honest acknowledgement about the realities of the situation we’re dealing with over in Uzbekistan.
Because we needed their airbase to fight Al Queda and Taliban in Afghanistan, the left constantly brings up Uzbekistan on human rights abuses.. however in almost every instance, those making the most noise about Uzbekistan are the same people who opposed the toppling of Saddam, whose mass murdering atrocities were far, far worse than anything seen in Uzbekistan.. so you folks making such a fuss over your “concern” over Uzbekistan human rights abuses, unless you also supported the removal of the king of human rights abusers in Iraq, then know you are nothing but a hypocritical lowlife, you really are. Unless you can give any other reason to explain your inconsistent (and dishonest?) position on human rights abusers.