Think Again: Iraq

It's not over yet.

BY LARRY KAPLOW | NOVEMBER 15, 2010

"Maliki Is Iran's Man."

Not quite. Iraq's prime minister, stubbornly independent and impetuous, probably causes as many headaches in Tehran as he does in Washington.

True, Maliki lived in Iran for eight years after escaping Iraq in 1979, when the regime wanted him and tens of thousands of other Islamic Dawa Party supporters for arrest and execution. He helped run a military camp in southern Iran where Dawa men trained for their guerrilla war against Saddam. But they constantly clashed with their Iranian hosts over issues of ideology (for one thing, Dawa refused to accept velayat al-faqih, the Iranian model that places government under clerical rule) and tactics. After about a year, Iran evicted Dawa from the camp and gave the compound, as well as money and training, to a more reliable militia under direct Iranian control, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, now a political party known as ISCI. That group became Iran's malleable proxy against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and grew strong while Dawa foundered. The double cross still irks Maliki and others within the tight-knit Dawa cadres, people close to the party have told me.

Maliki plays the United States and Iran against each other for what he sees as Iraq's or his own interests. Associates say Maliki believes, rightly, that the fighters affiliated with militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that took up arms against his government got their weapons from Iran. The prime minister personally led Iraqi forces in fierce battles against them in the spring of 2008 (his security chief was killed when a rocket struck their command center), aided by U.S. troops. Last year, in the approach to the elections, the Iranians pressured Maliki not to split from the main Shiite grouping (with ISCI) and form his own coalition. He did so anyway. Maliki also resisted Iranian arm-twisting in signing the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States in 2008. And, in turn, he used the pretense of Iranian pressure on his cabinet and parliament to get the Americans to agree to tighter deadlines and limits on their troop presence. I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually turns and decides to tolerate a longer U.S. presence just as a counterweight to Iran.

This year, Iran ended up supporting Maliki for prime minister again -- and brokered his latest alliance with Sadr -- probably for the same reason U.S. President Barack Obama's administration belatedly backed Maliki: There weren't any better alternatives. Iran's old ally, ISCI, faired too poorly at the polls to contend for the top spot, and Maliki was better for Iran than secular contender and American friend Ayad Allawi. But when Allawi failed to form a viable coalition, the United States eventually aided the formation of a new Maliki government and thus forestalled the prospect of a potentially destabilizing ninth month of government gridlock.

The Iranians will continue to influence Maliki. They've got close ties with lawmakers around him, some of whom are probably even some on their payroll. They supply weapons to renegade insurgent groups that can still fire rockets at the Green Zone or throw a city into havoc. And they'll use the same soft power that Turkey and other neighbors employ through vast commercial contacts, strong-arm diplomacy, subsidies to some of Iraq's Shiite religious networks, and their shared geography and heritage. But, in general, they use their overall clout in Iraq to control Maliki to a greater extent than they can use Maliki to control Iraq.

Warrick Page/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: IRAQ, MIDDLE EAST
 

Larry Kaplow is the former Baghdad bureau chief for Newsweek.

JAYDEE001

12:43 PM ET

November 16, 2010

An understatement?

"Despite vast U.S. training efforts, rule of law is still mostly an abstract concept. "

Hell, it's still an abstract concept to a lot of people in the US, else we would never have had the Iraq war. Our constitution was set aside so our political leaders could indulge in a little personal grudge match with Saddam Hussein. Think again? We all know this was an unnecessary war, fought for no just reason.

We were promised it would be a short war - it has gone on far longer than even its strongest proponents could have imagined. And over 4,400 of our best and bravest have died while more than 31,000 have been injured thus far - was the new Iraq worth that sacrifice?

We were told it would be a cheap war - that we should just go to the mall and shop and not worry about where the warmongerts were stashing the cost.

We were told Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of that country - but they cannot even heat their homes in the winter, nor can they generate enough electricity to run air conditioning when the temperature exceeds 100 degrees in the summer.

We were told we would be greeted as liberators - but who should have guessed we would be seen as occupiers, touching off an insurgency?

We were told Iraqi's would embrace their new liberty and democracy - but democracy has never guaranteed individual rights or freedom from oppression. That comes with a belief in constitutional protections and a belief in induvidual riights. Instead, we have factionalism and religious versus secular agendas, and Iranian skullduggery underlying much of it.

Go back in and stitch it back together? Let's get the hell out and let the Iranians earn the right to run their country the old fashioned way - without our interference. We have screwed this pooch enough!

 

DODGESBOO

1:57 AM ET

November 17, 2010

WHY

why cant we just settle all of this. send are men an weman home an call the war over with an never look back again. This war is just not right. It didnt have to start in the first place. Why cant we all just get along. Look at all the kids dieing thats just not right. What if it was all your little loved ones dieing out there how would you all feel about that. I want to know how you all would feel.

 

GUNNEROIF2003

12:14 PM ET

November 18, 2010

No Surprise

Iraq is a Tribal culture that goes back around 6,000 years; it’s all they know and they will go back to that way of life once we’re able to extract ourselves from this mess because one is more comfortable with what they know and it’s worked for over 6,000 years. There were no reasons to invade Iraq; President Bush was being manipulated by his staff, CIA, NSA, and possibly others. He was not smart enough to know that he wasn’t in charge of this country, his staff was. I saw the daily reports on WMD during all of 2003 while I was there and nothing of significance or of use to any terrorist group was found.

To compound things, after the Gulf war in the 90’s our government (Executive Branch, NSA, CIA, etc.) basically reneged on our promises to the HUMINT agents we had in place throughout Iraq. We basically abandoned them and left them to try and survive the wrath of Saddam on their own.

While we were spinning up for the war in 2002/2003, we weren’t chasing Al Qaeda; we were chasing ghosts from Presidents pass. Because we screw over every HUMINT asset in Iraq and none remained, it was very easy for the facts that were presented to the American People which got us in this mess to be skewed.

We had virtually no HUMINT assets on the ground when this war started (2003); when we abandoned them in the 90’s, word got out quickly throughout the middle east that the United States could not be trusted so it was very difficult to recruit spies to help us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, through our leadership we’ve created new training areas for terrorists (Iraq), and have pissed off every Arab in the Middle East and have put Iran on alert because we have them surrounded. On top of this we have made the entire world a more dangerous place for Americans.

We won’t win in Afghanistan because after we leave, like Iraq, they will go back to what they know and with what they are comfortable; a Tribal culture.

And by the way the argument to invade Iraq, that Saddam was a vicious ruler to his own people doesn’t fly because history shows there are a lot of countries even today that have notorious Dictators and our Government picks and chooses who their want to help and who are left to their own demise.

I and four siblings all served in Iraq and three of us were medically evacuated out so we are not arm chair quarterbacking our opinions; we lived through it.

And finally this begs the question which I sure would love to get a decent answer to; why are we not focusing on the ones who hurt us the most? Al Qaeda, the other extremist terrorist groups, and the governments that quietly fund their activities. Democracy is not the answer to every country and culture, if our leadership believes I’m wrong then they are very arrogant and need some history lessons.

 

CANKATX2

8:22 PM ET

November 18, 2010

No Surprise

Our constitution was set tatil aside so our political leaders could indulge in a little red pepper personal grudge match with Saddam Hussein. Think again? We all know this was an unnecessary war, fought for no just kliptc reason.