Who is the Iraqi Army?

Who is the Iraqi Army? That seems like a strange question. What do I mean?

The Bush administration claims the Iraqi Army is a unified force of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who fight together for the centralized government of Iraq. That's complete nonsense.

In fact, the different divisions of the army are segregated by sect. The so-called Iraqi Army fighting in the south right now is mainly the Badr Corps. This is a rival Shiite militia to Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The Badr Corps is connected to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Don't get freaked out, they're theoretically the good guys. Well, at least they are the largest political party in Iraq and the ones we are supporting. Here's the problem -- they're not the good guys at all. They ran death squads and torture chambers out of the Interior Ministry throughout the period of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

And get this, out of all the parties in Iraq, the one most closely linked to Iran is -- the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and their militia partners in the Badr Corps.

So, who is the Iraqi Army? The ones fighting Sadr's forces right now is the Badr Corps -- a Shiite militia with closer ties to Iran than Sadr.

Why are we backing the most pro-Iranian group inside Iraq? Two possible choices. 1) We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground in Iraq. 2) We don't really believe Iran is a threat to Iraq (or to us).

I understand that this is confusing to the average American. The only reason I understand it is because the preeminent expert on Iraq, Juan Cole, explained it to me in this interview (it's a little long, but in about twenty minutes Prof. Cole explains exactly who is who in Iraq and why our efforts are insanely counterproductive).

So, I'm not frustrated by the fact that the public isn't up on all this. I'm frustrated that our media hasn't even bothered to try to figure it out (by the way, one easy way would have been to do what we did -- ask Prof. Cole). The press has bought into this fiction that we are fighting against Iranian proxies.

Whenever Bush, Cheney or Petraeus says we are being bombed by Iranian backed militias, the press dutifully writes that down and never really questions it. Has anyone confirmed that Sadr is actually getting help from Iran? More importantly, has anyone looked into where the Badr Corps' sympathies lie? When is the last time you even heard of the Badr Corps in the mainstream press?

Has anyone done an investigation into who's in the Iraqi Army? How does it run? Do the Iraqi troops really fell like a unified force? (The best piece I've seen on it is by Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone and he shows clearly that they are nowhere near unified.) Are the divisions mixed or segregated? Where do the different sects patrol? In their own area or in other areas of Iraq? Who controls the Iraqi Army? And what is their purpose?

If you look into these questions, you'll find that the core of the Iraqi Army is simply another Shiite militia. In essence, we are supporting one Shiite militia over another. Worse yet, we're supporting the militia with more ties to Iran.

If you don't believe me, and for some bizarre reason you don't believe Prof. Cole, then by all means, please investigate and find out what's actually going on. In other words, I am encouraging the press to actually do their job.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like it's easy to do reporting out of Iraq. These folks are literally taking their lives into their hands by doing so. But it's one thing to say the situation is unclear. It's another to parrot government talking points because you don't know any better.

The press keeps talking about how they blew it in the lead up to the war, but then they act like they have learned nothing from their mistakes. One of the principal problems before the war was that the media unquestioningly accepted government suppositions as if they were true -- which is exactly what they're doing now.

These basic questions must be answered: Who are we really fighting? What is their goal? Who is on our side? What is their goal? And, oh yeah, what is our goal? Why are we backing one militia over another and how does that serve American interests? And how is any of this leading to "victory" in Iraq? And the one no one bothers to ask anymore - what the hell does victory in Iraq really mean?

Young Turks on You Tube

Comments

[Durango]

Have the media talk to people who know something about the region or who speak the language, or God forbid, live there?

Why would they do that when they can talk to Pat Buchanan, apparently an expert of all topics? Or David Brooks?

Have reporters who come from the region. Speak the language, understand the unique history and culture of Iraq. Why would the media want to do that when they can get reports from Andrea Mitchell?

Or simply rewrite the daily briefings from the White House. Who doesn't believe that bimbo?

To their immense credit I saw a report from Iraq by an Iraqi in the NY Times. (He traveled to downtown Basra without finding any presence of the Iraqi Army. Just the Mahdi Army)

But I HAVE NEVER SEEN A REPORT FROM AN IRAQI or Arab, on the broadcast news. NEVER!

[mbaty]

So we're supporting the Iran-backed militias, while at the same time drumbeating a possible military interaction with Iran? Sounds fishy at best, and we all know how much some profiteers would love another war--no bid contracts anyone? Get out your lizard brains and start shouting, "terrorists!" and "Al Queda!" and "Osama bin bla blah!" Let's trample out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored!
The entire middle-east religious culture is completely misunderstood by most Americans who simply can't relate. I can't tell the difference between a Shia and a Sunni or a Kurd or whatever, and they probably can't tell the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant.

[Boobaloo]

mbaty: So we're supporting the Iran-backed militias, while at the same time drumbeating a possible military interaction with Iran?

Yup.

Not only that we've also helped enshrine Sharia Law into the Iraqi constitution to appease the Shi'ite factions.

That means American lawyers with the American government have created the foundation of another Muslim Theocracy, which replaced the Iraqi Secular dictatorship that we destroyed.

Women in Iraq are now reduced to the same level of suffering and oppression as the poor women of Afghanistan.

Welcome to Bush & Co version of Democracy.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

The Badr Corps is also a Shia death squad infamously known as the Wolf Brigade.

[mydogshakespeare]

BushCo already has "achieved victory" in Iraq. Damn Cenk, don't you remember "Mission Accomplished"?

By the simple act of invading and "breaking" Iraq's political, economic, and social infrastructure (not to mention roads, bridges, and buildings), we have "bought it", or more specifically, we have bought a responsibility that will require lots of money to migrate from, e-hem, somewhere, into the pockets of BushCo allies and benefactors for years to come.

What's more, we aren't fighting the "war on terrror" AGAINST the terrorists. Instead, our policies PROMOTE their increasing numbers and motivation to attack the developed world, thus creating and sustaining future money shifting opportunities for generations to come.

[iburl]

Thanks for trying to bring substantive analysis to this insane war.

[dadw5boys]

Your story answers all your questions.

How can we ever leave Iraq if Iran is ready and able to take over?
We can't .
Why would we support those close to Iran?
We don't want to leave ever! or at least as long as the oil holds out.

[Synoia]

"What constitutes victory in Iraq, and if we don't have that clearly defined how do we know when we've won? Or even lost for that matter?"

Our Oil companies own 80% of the oil revenues. The Iraqis own the 20% left. The US army is there to shoot any Iraqi stupid enough the get betwen the oil companies & the oil.

Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.

Clear enough definition of victory? Get it? Don't like it? So?

Yours
Dick

[SifSkade]

Much of the mainstream Fourth Estate is guilty of an epic fail on the war in Iraq and several other Bush administration policies. Wasn't there a time when the press used to investigate the accuracy of White House (or campaign) press releases, rather than mindlessly Ctrl-V'ing them, verbatim, into their pieces? Well, we need it back.

[Liberal2]

Let's face reality, shall we? There is no way to "win" in Iraq. The problems of the (so-called) Iraqi people are so deep and go back so far in history, it would take McCain's 100 hundred year to resolve them. The only workable solution is permanent and complete division of Iraq into three countries.

We need to publicly admit Bush and Cheney, no matter what their reason: greed, stupidity, arrogance, etc., placed the US and Iraq on a path of total disaster. There is no "honorable" way out. The lives and religious beliefs of the three factions are such that death is an acceptable choice. And taking out American soldiers and a few of the other factions just makes the choice of death all the more enticing.

Whenever Bush, Cheney or a spokesperson rises to present a position on Iraq, every person in that audience should rise to shout, "Liar!" over and over again.

[Whinger]

Given the opportunity the Iraqi people would shout with one voice, yankee go home!

[RossalGondamer]

Great Post-

Simple solution really,
just tell the American media consumer they are supporting the Badder side.

[thatvisionthing]

Scott Ritter puts the responsibility on us, the people. A year ago in "Calling Out Idiot America" he came up with a quiz on Iraq for us to take:

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/20070323_calling_out_idiot_america/

"If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional. "

I flunked.

[thatvisionthing]

Scott Ritter puts the blame on us, the people, for supporting policies we know nothing about. A year ago in "Calling Out Idiot America" he came up with a quiz on Iraq for us to take:

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/20070323_calling_out_idiot_america/

"If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional. "

[nellie]

I heard your excellent interview with Juan Cole. I'm glad to see you address it here. We get so little accurate information on Iraq, and we have so little discussion of the complexities involved in this occupation. Thanks for adding to our understanding.

[rmreddicks]

"One of the principal problems before the war was that the media unquestioningly accepted government suppositions as if they were true -- which is exactly what they're doing now."

Which begs the question - Who owns the media? Well, the answer is corporations. Which begs a second question - Who runs the government? Well, the answer is corporations.

The reporters (journalists?), like all fine workers, are just doing their job.