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?
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
members of the iraq army in basra are shedding their uniforms, picking up their u.s. guns and joining "the enemy".
what a farce.
Grendl, When GWB stood on that aircraft carrier and I saw the mission accomplished sign, I knew then that Iraq became the next Korea. The Bush administrations goal has always been to control the middle east oil fields. There victory was to have thousands of troop protecting Opec's interests. The Bush and Saudi families have been able to steal billions of tax payer dollars to support the Industrial military complex which they are a part of. To them we have already won and the lives of our troops and Iraqi civilians are just collateral damage needed to gain enormus wealth. Haven't you noticed that Bush is always smiling and joking when he talks about Iraq.
Bushco should have to account for every taxpayers dollar spent in Iraq. Most of that money goes to big buisness. Not to the soldiers, not to the Iraqis. I'll would bet that the Bushs will become the richest family in America. This war is about wealth and greed, not WMDs or democracy or what ever they come up with next. Victory to them means steady cash flow.
I understand fully the ulterior motives of this administration in prolonging this war. I understand its all about lining their pockets, and imperialism, and all that.
But they can't say that officially. They have to operate under the auspices of trying to preserve and protect our democracy. And therefore they have to account for the billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars, and thousands of lives lost, and ruined due to this war.
Thats why they must be asked. Because their answer for the record is crucial, and if its a bullshit answer, that's ammunition for the donkeys in November. They can't come out and say, when asked why we're at war, hell because its profitable.
Great conclusions, Kenny! My basic guideline, when it comes to MSM reporting, is to believe the exact opposite of what they are reporting, and as it turns out, I'd be much closer to the truth.
"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)."
Cenk, that is the doctrine of false choice and it is surprizing coming from you.
Perhaps we are building a functional relationship with people who might have divided loyalties but who are not outright antagonistic to us. Accepting that Iran is far better positioned than us to fight a proxy war then perhaps we are hoping to gain some influence and to build a mutualistic relationship with the Iranians.
In short, as Michiavelli would no doubt have said, if someone is going to win no matter what you do and no matter how much you dislike them, then support them before your lack of support antaginizes them.
Just don't be naive enough to think that we are going to get Iraq's oil. That is just not going to happen on Iran's watch.
"Just don't be naive enough to think that we are going to get Iraq's oil. That is just not going to happen on Iran's watch."
Pardon me for, ROTFLMAO !
I'm thinking ya got it quite backwards, not only will we (the United States) control Iraq's oil fields, we'll control the Iranian oil fields too. All the prayers of the whole Supreme Iranian Council to Allah will change that fact. The Iranian arrogance has led to there own undoing.
"In short, as Michiavelli would no doubt have said, if someone is going to win no matter what you do and no matter how much you dislike them, then support them before your lack of support antaginizes them."
You got that part exactly correct, the Iranians should have taken your advice.
Whoops:
Should read: All the prayers of the whole Supreme Iranian Council to Allah will *NOT* change that fact. The Iranian arrogance has led to their own undoing.
Pretty dumb strategery, as if it was ever a conscious decision.
It amazes me that American's don't realize that Iran win's no matter who win's.
Heckuva job, Bushie. Mission accomplished.
Who is who and what is what in Iraq? Who cares? The occupation is illegal and immoral and must end now.
In other words-the Iraqi Army isn't Iraqi; it's divided into factions. The whole damned mess can & will fall apart for any reason & any pretext. The surge isn't working either. There may be a way to settle & end a civil war without 1 faction winning & dictating the peace terms to the other factions. But the USA has no clue of how to do it.
***Conservative Repub, ALERT*** That's interesting information on the Iraqi Army. I know when I left Iraq in late 2005 the police and military were not yet integrated with multiple factions of Shiites and Sunnis. I know that some units are integrated today but am not surprised by the information you provided.
The press IS stupid. Part of me thinks its a reflection on how dumb our society is when it comes to international affairs. Many people reading this post still won't understand many of the concepts you discuss in it.
I will offer the following: We know of Iranian involvement by the use of certain munitions. Perhaps you remember the press struggling to explain EFP's (Explosive Formed Penetrators) in the middle of last year? That munition technology, as is used in Iraq against our forces, comes from Iran.
But imagine Jay Leno doing a "Jay-walking" segment and asking about EFP's, Badr Corps and the like. It makes me weep for this country.
It's the result of decades of underfunded public education, that has dumbed down the American public to the level of a five-year-old. Many believe in an imaginary friend in the sky, and haven't learned anything from history to gain perspective. Moreover, they believe any "authority figure", no matter how ludicrous the argument is..
There is a reason why great societies have vanished in history. Look at the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans.
you are wrong on efps. if Iran has them we sold them to Iran. the were first made by the cia.in good old USA. try again.
Is this your big "gotcha" moment? OK. Since you didn't get the context of "comes from" in that line, I'll explain it...real slowly for ya.
I have no freakin' clue who first designed EFP technology. But the technology has been around since WWII so how about you "try again" with the CIA thing. Please don't object to that last statement cause you'll look stupid when people see you don't know that there was no CIA during the WWII era.
I do know, from my experience in Iraq, that the only country bordering Iraq with EFP's is Iran. And we know that because Hezbollah (Iran-based terrorist organizati
The press IS doing its job. Corporate American Media fosters what Corporate American Oil and the ArabAmerican Oil Corporation deem suitable. Any semblance of a Fourth Estate's role in the Constitution
simply disappeared when Corporate America was convened in secret at the White House.
You got to be kidding.Th
Dear Brother Cenk,
Another excellent essay, it asks some important questions. I would proffer as a partial answer, that because there never was any intent to leave when we went in, the need for taking sides is quite irrelevant, as a matter of fact, it has worked to our advantage to play both ends to the middle. Truth in fact be told, if anyone wishes to hear it, we (the United States) will be in Iraq as long or longer the we've been in Korea, and at some point in the near future we'll have to take down Iran.
From what you point to in your piece, that can be the only out come. That's my take and I'm sticking to it.
Agape.
" ... as a matter of fact, it has worked to our advantage to play both ends to the middle."
No ... it hasn't. Unless you consider pissing away 3.7 BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK somehow "our advantage". It was also wrong to become the de facto protector of South Korea and it is wrong for us to remain in Iraq for even one more day.
And the notion that we have any right whatsoever to even contemplate taking down Iran is exactly what's wrong in American thinking. It wasn't our place to "take down Iran" when we installed the Shah, and it's not our place to do it now. How many more times do you suggest we make the same stupid mistake before we learn?
Spending more than the rest of the world combined on our military is insanity. Nobody on earth is a threat to us until we cultivate that very threat ourselves. We should stop doing that.
And we should leave Iraq ASAP
8
So then my dear Huffington Post friend 8, once again we agree. Should , could, would, makes no difference to the reality of what the old cold warriors that are in control of our war machine have on their agenda.
They, only know the old way, not a better way, and that's what we are left with, for better or worse. Agape.
I've asked the question dozens of times on this blog and no ones been able to answer it.
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?
We reached a point in Viet Nam when no one knew what the hell we were fighting for. The indigenous population hated us for what we did to their country, the world hated us for what we did to their country, and we hated ourselves and treated the soldiers we sent like dirt.
And we're doing exactly the same in Iraq today. There's no endgame, no bunker wherein the enemy's leader may blow his brains out. We have no clearly defined enemy over there, and Mr.McCain wants us there for another hundred years? Why? Maybe we can invent some.
This war has been a travesty from day one. What should've been a hunt for the men responsible for the attack of 911 became escalated into a holy war, not by countries in the Middle East, but by the Bush administration. And now McCain shows us he's just as ignorant about the enemy as Mad King George is. Why aren't Barack and Hillary lambasting him for that gaffe btw? Its not just the medias job, is it? He slams the left on foreign policy, why do they go soft on him when he says such moronic things as Iran is training Al Qaeda?
Excellen point, grendl. I keep wondering when either Hillary or Obama will call McCain on the Shiites training Sunnis (Iran training Al Quaeda terrorists) statements he made. It certainly couldn't be called a gaffe because he did it multiple times, until Joe Lieberman (!) actually had to pull him aside to straigthen him out. When they were travelling in the Middle East, no less. So bad, it almost makes the current president look knowledgable in comparison (now that's scary).
"Victory" is getting the oil that we invaded Iraq for. What does it take for people to realize this fact. To divide and rule is a very old strategy. Both Bush and bin Lade stated, "Do not destroy the oil." Iraq has water, too. The oil is right under the ground, evenly distributed and readily able to be shipped or piped out in at least seven different directions. There are huge unexplored areas where oil has not even been located in Iraq because oil exploration stopped in 1991.
The "endgame" is wearing down the Iraqis and putting them in the grave or on a reservation. Would Bush kill for a hundred trillion dollars worth of oil? His supporters would kill for less than that.
Vietnam was about a theory of military containment and money for defense contractors. KBR was involved. So were all the weapons makers. The "war-profiteering" is a bipartisan policy. JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Its all about the money. The Cold War was morphed into a war against terror that keeps creating more potential terrorists and international enemies.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
