Why is General Petraeus Helping Iran?

Someone should ask General Petraeus today why he is working so hard to help Iran. This is not to suggest he is some sort of enemy of the state. I suppose he is following orders, but why doesn't he question his wildly counterproductive and conflicting orders?

I hear him bemoaning Iranian influence in Iraq all the time. Yet, no one has helped Iran more inside Iraq than he has. We have lent the full force of our military might to the political faction and Shiite militia most closely associated with Iran.

Granted there aren't a lot of good guys in the different Iraqi militias (on the other hand, they don't have much reason to think we're swell, either). But why have we decided to back the most pro-Iranian militia in the whole country?

The Badr Corps is linked with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the largest party inside Iraq. The Badr Corps also happens to be the militia with closest ties to Iran. They also happen to be the militia that ran those feared death squads during the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. And get this - they are also the ones that want to split up Iraq instead of keeping it unified.

All of these objectives seem to be diametrically opposed to what we want in Iraq. So why have we thrown all our military muscle behind them? This is not just a rhetorical question. I'm actually curious as to what the answer is. Why are we helping ISCI and Bard Corps split up Iraq and allowing Iran to gain even greater influence inside Iraq?

I hope Gen. Petraeus isn't going to pretend that the Sadr's Mahdi Army has closer ties to Iran. That is demonstrably false. If he does that, then you know he is just Dick Cheney's puppet trying to stoke hostilities with Iran based on false premises. But beyond that, if we want to fight Iran so badly, why are we helping their top allies in Iraq?

I would love it if we actually used Congressional hearings to ask a real question for once and if General Petraeus, for once, gave us a real answer.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

"All of these objectives seem to be diametrically opposed to what we want in Iraq."

'SEEM to want' is the operative phrase, Cenk. Excellent post.

It's actually quite simple to grasp - ONCE you understand the MOTIVATION driving those who continue to LIE about our presence in Iraq - OIL: $20 TRILLION - yes, TRILLION - dollars worth of known, easily-accessible oil reserves just waiting to be tapped and sold. This is a HUGE, HUGE incentive for all the armed actors in Iraq. Both those who want to keep Iraq united, and those - like America, its covering LIES notwithstanding - who want those oil profits going to western corporate shareholders and who will spend any amount of OUR taxpayer debt and any number of our volunteer military's lives to get it, with Congress's passive permission.

An illustration of that hidden motivation was just given by Joe Biden in his excellent opening statement in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. WHY else would we, as Biden just pointed out, "spend LESS in SIX YEARS in Afghanistan than we spend in THREE WEEKS in Iraq."

Think about that. That imbalance is beyond comprehension, when the 9/11 "enemy" is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN in the Afghanista­n/Pakistan area, and not in Iraq. Beyond comprehension, UNLESS, that is, $20 TRILLION in oil profits is driving the agenda, for the handful of political operators in the White House who know the real score and have been allowed by Congress to call the shots.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

And clearly a divided-ag­ainst-itse­lf Iraq SMOOTHS the way for western corporations to move in and profit from Iraq's lucrative natural resource (see the recent Kurdish deal with Hunt Oil of Texas). A unified, nationalist Iraq will nationalize its oil - and keep the profits for the Iraqis. That's why we side with the unelected, separatist al-Maliki and the Badr "Organization" militia - al-Maliki, like Chalabi, is down with piracy, as long as he gets his cut. [Separatists will enable or ignore the "bottom-up" division of Iraq promoted by the Americans as "political reconcilia­tion."]

Al-Sadr, however, has not yet been bought, and so any democratic, populist movement in Iraq that empowers him must be suppressed with the help of the American Army. [Looks like Crocker today was even making an effort to smear al-Sadr as sold out to Iran, to try to turn his (Iranian-hostile) supporters against him.]

Sadrist militias must be labeled "the enemy," "radical," "extremist," or "gangs." Because the Sadrists won't be bribed or threatened into selling out their nation's future to the American occupiers.

What STUNNING, BREATHTAKING MENDACITY was being used to peddle LIES to our Senate Armed Services Committee today. KNOWING lies - because any time a Senator got close to the truth, the spinning began by Petraeus and Crocker to keep it hidden. How can our legislators sit still for this?! It's pure Pravda - sickening, sickening deceit told to, and uncomplainingly accepted by, the United States Senate.

[bronceye]

Remember when fux news (at election time) kept ear banging us that the troops were solidly behind the war because they didn't want their children to have to go to war there?

[mouselion]

You have to base the answer to your question on shallow thinking, the circular logic of "support the enemies of your enemy".

Saddam was a Baathist Sunni. The Baathists persecuted the Shias under Saddam, so the U.S., in the neo-cons eyes, needed to be in political bed with the Shias in Iraq (because they are the enemy of our perceived enemy -- the Baathist party). Never mind that the U.S. used this same inane logic to prop up, aid and abet Saddam Hussein, since he was the enemy of our enemy, Iran. Then, of course, you have al Qaeda in Iraq emerge, the same kind of logic used again in that situation. We're being both the enemy and ally of almost everybody over there, practically simultaneously (with the exception of al Qaeda in Iraq, of course, it's clear they've got to be the enemy -- because of their name).

[LeftRight]

"Because you see, al Qaeda in Iraq, they're, they're just like al Qaeda, in Iraq!"

the shrub, date not remembered­......

[research]

You got it!

The enemy of my enemy is a possible Ally, not necessarily my friend.

[Ron]

General Betrayed Us is just another Bush appointed spokesperson for this administration, and if he fails to do what they want, when they want it, he'll be replaced like the others before him were. Don't count on anything but the same rhetoric aimed at continual conflict until this administration is replaced.

[muslimarabdude]

because he is a brown-nosing water-boy for the criminals in the WH who are also influenced by zionist israeli-firsters trying to stir up another war front - this is obvious to anyone who understands the ME --- another question is why are all the politicians' questions along the lines of "the american tax payer is fed up... blah blah.... the iraqis should be paying their share.. blah blah" are they just stupid? or or posturing?? of course its the latter since the "tax payer" has not had any qualms about spending on bombs that have destroyed a country and has pulverized anything and everything that make human existence as we know it to be possible (for those of us who do not live in war zones)

[LeftRight]

"Wait, you say that Badr is backed by IRAN??? SH*T!!!! I read that as IRAQ!!!"

There's the closest you will EVER get to a response to your question, Cenk.....

[MagisterLudi]

Divide and conquer is an old policy. England did a pretty job job of managing its colonies using this policies.
Playing on Sadr's fears can have a beneficial effect. Petraeus is playing a deep chess game.
It is important to play on the fears of the various warlords and tribal leaders to achieve objectives. If only the previous Iraq occupation admnistration had the brains to do this early on. Sadr appears to be genuinely concerned: a good thing.
Hopefully Bush and Cheney and the naive do-gooders would stay out of this and give Petraeus a chance to do some some hardball bargaining­...

Who knows, maybe this would speed up the withdrawal under the next President.

Something for this blogger to think about

[larry278]

Something went wrong with the UK's divide & conquer when the UK established Iraq after the UK beat the Turks in WW I. About the only the factions in Iraq united was when the tried to drive the UK out of Iraq. The factions resumed fighting each other after the Brits pulled out. Iraq's factions are trying to feed on the USA now & also drive the Yanks out. Since the USA has torn the hell out of Iraq, Iraqi's either feed on the USA or starve. If & when the USA pulls out-Iraqui factions (with the aid of outside forces) will go back to killing each other & trying to get control of something in the region now called Iraq. Parts of Iraq could be added to Iran. The Kurds might organize a Kurdish state & scare the hell out of any country with a Kirdish minority. Since Iraq already has a civil war, it would continue if the USA left Iraq.
Now, Gen Pete....wh­at are we trying to do in Iraq; what have we accomplished; what do you hope to accomplish; why is it worth trillions of US dollars, 4000 dead US troops, countless maimed US troops, Iraqi dead & maimed?

[TexasDem0]

General Petraeus is helping Iran because like everyone else promoted by the criminals in the Bush Administration, he places loyalty to this gang of criminal buffoons above loyalty to the Constitution he swore to support and defend. Apparently, his promotions are more important than honesty. Other people’s deaths are an acceptable price to someone without a conscience.

[darcy]

You really don't know the answer, Cenk? It's simple. The neocons want war so they can continue the transfer of wealth into the elite few by giving our tax dollars to contractors; plus, I think it's part of the plan to turn the U.S. into a feudal society. The criminals in the WH and their friends are dangerous lunatics, and if Congress doesn't stop them, America will cease to exist.

[23000Days]

Every previous democracy was ultimately dissolved or destroyed by the people, responding to the hubris and idiocy of the party in power.

Why should we think it will be different this time?

[Imabachi]

It'll continue to exist, in name only, but society will be reduced to a medieval level in which most Americans will be reduced to ignorant, (have you noticed the Republican non-support of public education?), groveling, kowtowing, unhealthy (Republicans hate unions, and any kind of social programs), fundamentalist serfs living in a ravaged, (water, soil and air chemically poisoned; nuclear sites contaminated with deadly radioactivity for billions of years), not to mention the effects on our species of global warming/climate change, and depleted environment and finally, to be brutally ruled by robber barons.

[desmirl]

The problem with the congresscritters is that they don't want to ask hard questions. They know that they are creating theatre--nothing more, nothing less--and that NO REAL DECISIONS will result from the testimony given today. The MIC runs this country (into the ground) and when honest people go to DC, they ge co-opted by the money that stems from waging wars against people who don't stand a chance against our military.

[Stevo]

Hey, these guys don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, how do you expect them to know the difference between Sadr and Badr? Three months from now Condolezza Rice will say, "No one could have predicted that Badr would be worse than Sadr."

[nancytheragingliberal]

Stevo, Clever, I loved your Post and it goes without saying that Cenk is right on, once again. It is over for this country,as we approach 3 trillion dollars in W.'s Daddy War, his Vanity War. This man is a criminal, along with the rest of the thugs in the WH. I don't believe anything coming out of the two puppets' mouths today.

[Stevo]

The sad thing is, I'm actually not kidding around. McCain confused Sunni and Shiite AGAIN. Bush clearly doesn't know the difference between the two and never even pretended to care. Comments about Al Qaeda working with Saddam or with Shiite Iran just belie their utter ignorance, stupidity, and reckless disregard for the truth. If these "leaders" do not know the difference between Shiite and Sunni, how in the world are they going to know the difference between competing Shiite groups? Obviously, they can't be expected to know that difference. Badr, Sadr, 9-11 plotter -- they're all the same as far as these idiots are concerned.

[gsuescum]

This whole war is just one huge cluster-f**k!

The people running it are complete morons!

The people allowing it to continue should be locked up.

This is just beyond comprehension.