Moskie

Link to the article: Iraqi president seeks Iran's help

So I'm trying to wrap my head around the implications of Iraq receiving help from Iran to stabalize the violence in Iraq. I know it's a broad question, but what are the possible outcomes of this relationship? Is it definitively dangerous to us for Iran, whose ambitions have clearly been counter to our own, to help Iraq, who is growing more and more tired of our own inability to provide stability? Could we possibly accept Iran's help without fear of Tehran successfully using this a leverage to gain something we don't want them to get?

I assumed that one goal of the goverment we've been attempting to form in Iraq was to be one that would steer away from being a fundamentalist-driven organization (such as the one in Iran). But instead he have a formed a government that, after being in existence for just a few years, has turned to Tehran for help. That puts Iraq in bed with just such an organization, and seems directly counter to what we were aiming for. I think if we suggested 3 years ago that Baghdad would be getting (or needed) Iran's help, it would have been scoffed at. Yet here we are...

Then again, maybe this is the common cause that brings the U.S., Iraq, and Iran (plus Syria?) eye-to-eye.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Mojo_PeiPei

The probable outcome of this is at best a Shiite puppet bitch state for Iran. It's not that Iran is growing tired of our inability to cause stability, they are the ones fueling it. Who do you think supports the various militias? Iran. Do you not think Iran, a Shiite Sharian country does not have agents amongst the SHiite majority in Iran? In the government bloc the United Iraqi Alliance, a bloc which holds 140 seats of the 275 seat parliament, many of whom were exiles from the 80's and proteges of the Iranian revolution. In addressing the militias you have the Badr militia which is about 20,000 strong and has strong ties within the Iraqi security forces, they are not listed as a primary concern for US personnel but they are a group that is fueling the sectarian strife. Then there is the Al-Sadr Mahdi army which is a concern for the safety of US forces, has known operational ties Iran. Tony Blair has even leveled charges against Hezbollah, an Iranian supported terrorist group, for killing 8 British soldiers. Iran in Iraq is a bad thing any way you slice it; right now they are a major part of all the problems. If we ask for there help they will only further their influence, which in turn would only fuel sectarian violence.

America might be wise to consider some type of action against Iran if this continues.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

I'm really not 100% sure what to think. There is so much confusion revolving around Iran's collective intent. It's still perfectly obvious to me that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and they are seeking to find a more stable solution for energy. The thing is: it's not a stable nation y any means yet. They are still proned to religous sectarian violence and even zealotism (is that a world?), though not as much so as some of their neighbors. The biggest problem Iran has is the worst PR ever, being completly outclassed by the western propoganda machine, which is still in overdrive trying to convince the world that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and needs to be stopped. Neeways, how will this effect Iraq? Well, that's really more up to the western propoganda machine more than anything else. Iran could effect violence levels in Iraq, though probably not as much as an invading military. I think the biggest problem would be the people of Iraq calling for a theocracy....which I'm honestly not sure is a problem at all. Democracies are not any less likely to be extreemist than theocracies so long as the democracies aren't able to seperate church and state (I doubt that will happen in Iraq for a long time). I do think that Iran has a lot more in common with Iraq than the US, UK, or UN, Uknow? If anyone understands their culture, it's the culture next door, even if they were at war for a while before I was born.

I t could help, it could hurt. We'll just have to wait and see.

Seaver

Iran is not hiding their attempts to influcence Iraq. The realities are, however, that Iran wants a friend. They realize that if Iraq stays a democracy they will still, at least in part, befriend Iran. The Shia majority will show itself as tying closer to Iran than any other of the neighbors.

This is not an entirely bad thing. Iran is opening up, there are various modernization movements that continue to grow while the old theocracy supporters grow old and die. The ties between Iran and Iraq will surely inflame the Sunnis, however the Kurds have a long history of being funded and aided by Iran. If you look at Iraq, they have no neighbors who you'd perticularly want them talking to. Saudi Arabia is hands down the worst country of the bunch, ruled by Wahabbist ultra-conservatives. Syria is ruled by the Ba'ath party, which was the old Saddam regeim. Turkey is a pseudo-modernist country with a history of wholesale slaughter of Kurds.

Hopefully, after all the tourmoil, Iraq will become a stable democracy. More than likely, if successful, this will cross the borders and strengthen Iranian modernization movements.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Moskie

Just to be clear, I suggested that Iraq was growing tired of our inability to create stability. I'm sure Iran, on the other hand, is revelling in it.

But at the cost of appearing even more bullheaded than we already do? I would understand if the U.S. were to express deep reservations towards this relationship, but to take action against it (instant troop withdrawal?) would amount to threatening the soverignty of the Iraqi government. It's a delicate situation, and the last thing the U.S. should do is strongarm more than we already have.


I take issue with that. I think Iran's motives for seeking nuclear energy and Iran's motives to help Iraq are one and the same: grandstanding. This is putting them on the world stage. Does Iran need nuclear energy to survive? I would guess not; there has to be a path of lesser resistance for them to have/produce the energy they need. Does Iran need to help Iraq? Again, I think not, and I extremely doubt they're just being altruistic. They want something, and as of now, I think it's just attention.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Willravel

Iran is developing nuclear power because they understand economics: opportunity cost. Iran's reserves of oil are somewhere in the 133 billion barrel area, and at the current rate of 1.7 billion barrels per year. That will last maybe 70-90 years, depending on how quickly other nations are able to either slow down consumption by reserving or alternatives. Iran 1) doesn't want to be using up it's best and most profitable export and 2) doesn't want to base it's future on something that won't last the century. That's not grandstanding, it's smart economics. Also, nuclear power is a lot more efficient and it produces a lot less air polution.

As for why Iran wants to help Iraq: who was that that started the Iraq Iran war? Hmmmm....was it the same country that invaded Iraq and is now personally modling the new government and has hundreds of thousands of troops learning to hate Middle Easterners? Yes, it's the USA. The US is massively dangerous to Iran. Actually, we're dangerous to the whole Middle East, but right now all our guns are aimed at Iran. So why would they want their neighbor to become our lap dog? It's not altruism, it's self preservation. Iran can't afford to have a neighbor hate them again.

Moskie

I have trouble beleiving that Iran's current plan with nuclear energy has something to do with what their energy situation will be 90 years from now. It seems like there's too many immediate conflicts to worry about, and given how situations in the middle east have changed over just the last few decades, 90 years from may as well be a thousand years. I mean, if Iran was really concerned about being able to produce nuclear energy within, say, 10 years, you'd think they'd be more delicate and meticulous about it, and work to create a situation where the world is OK with them developing nuclear energy. Instead they just cause a big stir about how they aren't being allowed to generate it *now*, this very instant.

I think I disagree here to. You said it yourself: the western proganda machine is trying to convince the world that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons... but it has yet to do so. You aren't convinced, I'm not conviced... so how is the western propagana machine succeeding?

So, actually, I'm thinking Iran is doing well on the PR front. The west is playing right into Iran's hands when western countries continually cause a fuss about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran comes off as the victim, as far as I'm concerned.

And let's not forget how good Ahmadinejad looks in his business casual button down, khaki pants and sand colored jacket. I ain't kiddin'.


But I do agree with what you said about why Iran wants to be on the Iraqi government's good side.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Willravel

They're being defensive because the preiously mentioned western propoganda machine almost exploded with information about how Iran was breaking treaties and developing nuclear weapons. They do have immediate problems, and while half of them have to do with zealotism and such, the other half is about the thick black stuff under their feet that keeps the US military coming back for more. If you were sitting on oil, that caused conflict after conflict after conflict, wouldn't you be trying to switch to something more reasonable? Also, once Iran developes nuclear power, they can sell the surpluss to their neighbors, like Iraq. Others will see how succesful Iran is and eventually the Middle East can do nothign but export oil to the idiot countries that insist on placing the entire stability of their economy on something that'll run out soon.

They can, legally, produce nuclear power without breaking any agreemnts or treaties with anyone.
Ask Seaver or IL, or matthew or Ustwo, or any other conservative. Actually, even a lot of centerists and liberals think that Iran is eveloping nuclear power. I had my articles ready for them to come with their guns drawn after making the very comment you are speaking of.
Well yeah, they are the victim in the eyes of those who are good at finding out we're being brainwashed. For the rest of us, Iran is the devil and should be bombed before they nuke our cities and convert us all to peganism (even though Islam isn't peganism, it's Abrahamic like Christianity...and Iran isn't tryign to convert anyone)
That's true. He's kinda a badass, espically after that great letter to Bush.

aceventura3

The conflicts in the Middle East have a history dating back centuries, long before the US existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I know that, but the people alive now have not lived for centuries, they have lived in the time when the current western powers have meddled and even helped to start wars. It's something to bear in mind. Imagine the difference in your mind between the revolutionary war an the war on terror. One is probably a lot more prevalant in your thoughts.

Mojo_PeiPei

Will whats all this "propaganda" nonsense you keep talking about? You try and make it sound as if the US or the West in wrong when they point to the facts that Iran has been violating the NPT treaty they signed.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

Iran was not clear about uranium imports, conversion, and enrichment, BUT there is absolutely no proof that they are developing nuclear weapons. The supposed breach, they never actually broke any agreements. It was just suspicous behavior. Iran is not required to allow the IAEA inspections of a new nuclpear facility until six months before nuclear material is intruduced into it. Iran wasn't even required to inform the IAEA that facilities existed. Enrichment is not a violation of the NPT. All signs point to them developing nuclear power. That doesn't stop the propoganda machine from insisting that they are developing nuclear weapons, and they are a danger to everyone who loves freedom, or some such nonsense. President George W. Bush insisted August 31, 2006 that "there must be consequences" for Iran's defiance of demands that it stop enriching uranium. He said "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran." Bush is picking another fight with a country that's simply trying to switch over to nuclear power. That's the propoganda.

roachboy

what does iranian involvement with the devolving situation in iraq mean?

regionally, the motives would seem self-evident: iran does not want a vacuum in iraq. who would? what good would come of it? the dangers to iranian stability that could follow from a successful anti-colonial war in iraq are quite great-this simply because it is not at all obvious what relations obtain between the various shi'a militas in iraq and iran. it is not at all obvious that there are any shared interests--and further it is not obvious what kind of support the present regime in iran really has internally--and given that, the problems iran might face in the context of a vacuum in iraq could be considerable.

what iranian involvement means from the american viewpoint is almost comic. think of the amount of shit the americans will have to eat in order to cajole iran into playing along--this is another backdraft from the cold war period--from the installation and support of the shah through arming iraq during the 1980s to the more recent penis-waving conflicts over iran's nuclear program. it is a humiliation for the bush administration. and one coherent index of the role of the administration's "public diplomacy" efforts is that it is not seen for what it is in the states itself. delusion is preferable in this context, it seems.

if iran plays nice, it will be for its own purposes. it seems pretty clear that the nuclear program is an element in iranian desires to be understood as a regional Power and being in a position to maybe develop nuclear weapons (not at this point perhaps, but as a spin-off at some later date, surely) is a signifier of being part of the Collosal Penis Club of international power.
more cold war rules to the international power game, you see. iran would stand to benefit greatly in terms of status were it to participate in the decolonization of iraq.

what else does it mean? well, it means that the bushwar is a catastrophe of a very large magnitude and that there are no good options open and that cowboy george is in a position of having to flail about looking for another plan that will enable the americans--and the american right in particular--to not face something of a waterloo in iraq. were it not for the continuing human cost of this debacle, this would be funny in a way that would almost make you think there was some kind of larger-scale justice in the world. but there is this human cost, and it is quite a large cost and it will continue to augment and so it is not funny.
it is profoundly not funny.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

One more try.

There has never been a peaceful generation in the Middle East since humans have occupied the area.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Swing and a miss. There have been, but it's not really relevant to this discussion.

aceventura3

I am not aware of any.

The history of the area is of key importance to the question in the OP. Iran will only help Iraq if there is a strategic power advantage. Iraqi leaders need help and will accept it from Iran to solidify their power base within their own boarders and try to prevent neighboring countries (ironically including Iran.) from taking advantage of their "civil war". The fight for power in the area will be a reality with or without US involvment, not unless the folks involved are willing to forgive and forget. We know that ain't happening.

Sorry for taking another swing. You don't have to tell me I missed. One day I will accept the fact that all the problems in the world are our fault.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

wow, ace....so fill me in...how is it that the debacle in iraq as it stands at the end of november 2006--3 years into a war undertaken without anything approaching an adequate rationale by the bush administration, launched without anything seemingly like a rational plan for anything beyond the "they will greet us as liberators and strew the streets with flowers beneath our feet" fantasy central to the wolfowitz doctrine (now head of the world bank,which apparently the kind of award you can get for unthinkable incompetence if you are adequately well-connected within the conservative establishment) and that has now obviously deteriorated into civil war--a function of the simple fact of american occupation, its inept planning, its disastrous execution---how this links at all, in any way, to what you imagine is the eternal history of violence in the region?

no wait, i have a guess: "o those arabs are just violent crazy people. the american debacle in iraq simply provided them with an occaision to express their violent craziness yet again. therefore the american debacle in iraq plays no meaningful role in the unfolding of civil war in iraq because those crazy people would probably have had a civil war anyway because they like that sort of thing."

even if that is not exactly what you had in mind--though it makes sense in a kinda noxious way of your posts to this thread--what is obvious is that the central motor of your "view" of this fiction you call "the history of the region" is geared around one empirical factor: the defense of american conservatism and all it stands for even in the face of a disaster for which there is no-one---at all---anywhere---to blame BUT american conservativism in the personae of those glory-covered figures of the bush administration. whose statues will no doubt litter parks around america eventually, once the erasure of the present and its replacement with some schizophrenic conservative-friendly narrative happens.
"donald rumsfeld: defender of freedom everywhere, a well-meaning fellow who stumbled into the eternal chaos of the middle east blah blah blah....we won that war too"


try again, ace.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Well let's break this down then. How long have humans lived in the Middle East? Well, migration out of Africa durring the Paleolithic Period, which was about 200,000 years ago. So that's suggesting that in the 200,000 years man has occupied the Middle East, there has not been one generation of peace? I hope you know how silly that sounds. Plaese don't make me go through the histories of Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, Syria, Israel, Persia, Rome, etc. Trust that anyone who says that there has never been a generation of peace in the ME is exaggerating to try and make it seem as if peace is impossible there.
So we had nothing to do with the Iraq/Iran war, then? Are we to abandon history because not all of it is favorable?

Only the sith deal in absolutes...

aceventura3

For the moment I am going to assume you have a knowledge of ME history, and ask aquestion to help me put things in perspective since I am so far off base.

Has there been peace during any generation in the ME since the death of Muhammad?

Don't misunderstand the point, and I did not intend to single out the ME in terms of violence and history. There has not been peace for any generation in the US since Columbus first set foot on the "new world". Peace is not easy. I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible but for those who do, I think violence first started with Cane and Able and has since never has there been a pause.

Some cultures are more forgiving than others, but I don't thin ME culture is one of the more forgiving ones. don't you at least agree with that?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

All you really need is an eneyclopedia, but yes I am familiar with the history of the Middle East
Between 632 and now? Not really. The thing is, 1400 years isn't much compared to 200,000 years. It's a huge exaggeration to say that "there has never been a peaceful generation in the Middle East since humans have occupied the area." But yes, the ME hasn't been very peaceful for a while, at least not skipping a generation.....But wait a minute....Revolutionry War (1776), War of 1812 (1812), Mexican War (1846), Civil War (1861), Spanish-American War (1898), WWI (1914), WWII (1943), Korean War (1950), Vietnam War (1959-1975), Gulf War (1990), Iraqi Freedom (2003)...it doesn't seem that our fair country has enjoyed even one generation of peace!
Well, I'd delete my last point since you condeeded on it before I made it, but it was just so much fun to type. Yes, human nature includes violence against our fellow man.
I don't think it's fair to generalize like that. Some Middle Easterners are indoctrinated zealots that would willingly strap bombs to their chest because they believe that God wants them to kill. Of course, those are the exception, not the rule. I think that as long as people are treated like shit, they'll be pissed. Back to your question: the Middle East is made up of dozens of different cultures. I would not want to lump in Istael and Lebanon into the same culture (and the Jewish people have lived in the ME for a lot longer than the Muslims). I think that any culture can become barbaric if entangled in group think, and yes, a lot of the Middle East is in group think right now. Of course, we're all in group think (yes, even me!), so I don't know how much of a difference this will make if Iran decides to help Iraq.

aceventura3

I glad we have agreement so far. Next question - or just a statement - We know there was not peace during Muhamad's life time. Before he was born can't we trace wars back through the Roman Empire, Alexander, and even as far back as the golden age of Egypt? Were there gaps in violence and war, I doubt it. But hey what do I know, since I am so, so far off base in making extreme statements.


The reason I don't pet polar bears at the zoo is because I generalize. I agree it is not fair to friendly ploar bears to generalize like that. But who said everything has to be fair.

Getting back to the question in the OP. Iraq is asking for help from a polar bear. It looks good from a distance, but as soon as it has you in its claws

I think that was Chaney's fantasy, not mine. After taking Sadaam out, I did not care how we were greeted. The rational for the war has been debated over and over. Some don't agree with the reasons others do, but there were reasons and justification.
People in general are violent. The weak get screwed.

Again you may disagree, but it is better that the fighting occur in Iraq than here.

I am looking forward to the next Democratic Pary President. I think the party leadership in congress have already started changing thei positions on the war and immediate withdral. I think we are see a more moderate stance, don't you agree. So perhaps they don't disagree with Bush as much as you think.

Now you have Iraq looking to Iran for help because Iraq is in fear of being left high and dry when Bush leaves office. That will be the biggest mistake ever.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

i dont think that iran is being approached for that reason, ace.
iran is being approached via proxy on behalf of the united states. the debacle in iraq is unfolding in about the worst imaginable manner and the administration is desperately trying to figure a way to stabilize the situation in order to give it some room to consider any alternative--as it stands, what it looks like is happening is a militiary defeat. and this morning, the main shi'a block within the government pulled out in protest of the prime minister (i forget his name) going to jordan to meet directly with bush. i am not sure what this means, but what it looks like is that the iraqi puppet government is about to collapse, and with that who knows what will happen.

the americans are obviously seen as a colonial presence that is being reduced to a colonial faction in a civil war context. this is really not good. as the power center, such as it is, implodes, the situation will only get worse, so the americans are looking for ways to spread the occupation functions out and by doing that reduce the impression that they are a colonial force. this is the central reason for the overtures to iran, so far as i can tell. this reading is in line with elements of the baker commission recommendations that were leaked to the press before the election, and which got much more attention internationally than they did in the states (what a shock)....

so i think your whole take on the situation is off.
except for one thing: i have no particular faith in the democrats as offering anything like a coherent alternative to the bush people on this one. as i have been able to put things together (this is provisional) there is very little room for manoever in iraq. the debacle is close to total. the only surprise in it really is the lack of political repercussions in the states. but then again, folk are noticing that in the states it is the xmas commodity hoarding season and that americans are shopping while iraq burns.
consumption uber alles: american corporate television is all about that logic.
maybe this is an interest that explains why there are so few political repercussions: the information you get from television is geared around protecting retail.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Why are we evn talking about this? What does it matter of human nature can lead to violence? I think we already take that into account when figuring the relationship between Iraq and Iran. Just because there may not have been peace for a generation in the past few hundred years doesn't mean that Iraq and Iran can't peacefully coexist.
You don't pet polar bears at the zoo because you're not allowed to. There are lerge fences between you and the bears, as well as secutiry.

But again, what does that have to do with Iran and Iraq?

aceventura3

I think I already stated that history shows that the motivation of Iraq to help Iran is not pure. Unless you define the word "pure" in terms gaining a stategic military power advantage.

My primary reason for not petting polar bears at the zoo is because polar bears are dangerous. So even if they allowed me to pet the polar bear I wouldn't. It seems your logic has those reasons reversed, as is the logic being used by Iraqi leaders thinking about seeking help from Iran. Iran should not accept help primarily because Iran will take over Iraq if they can. Sadaam would have never allowed Iran get involved in Iraqi affairs, now the he is gone (the fence), they want to "pet the polar bear at the zoo".

Come on - use your imagination. I love colorful analogies, they make reading fun and requires creative thought.

Time will tell.

The US will leave Iraq in disgrace.
Iraq will seek and get help from other ME countries including Iran.
War will continue and spread in the ME.
Democracy in Iraq will fail
Isreal will be attacked.
The US will have to take military action to finish the work we don't have the will to finish today.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace:
when you say:

"we dont have the will..."

what on earth are you talking about?

the notion of collective will is a theoretical construct.
in political theory, it gets used in fantasy scenarios that provide allegories for the formation of states.
for rousseau, the will appeared to be an actual operational category, but his explanations of it never made any sense to me.
hobbes at least treated it as a fiction, a result of the setting-up of the sovereign. look at the frontespiece to "leviathan" sometime and you'll see the whole of the theory of will.
it is a picture, ace.
it is a metaphor that delineates something of the imaginary relationship between subjects and the images of unity the generation of which is a primary ideological function of the state itself.

but it does not exist, it is not a capacity:
unless you imagine there is some sort of seance linkup that connects people in the states thinking really really hard a sequence of lovely, rosy thoughts about a fantasy iraq to the military, which following the logic of the discourse of the will can only be a collection of meat puppets that twitch about and do things because they are animated by the really really hard thinking undertaken at these seances.

but where are these seances?
do you go to them?
what are they like?

as for leaving iraq in defeat, i also do not know what you are talking about: you seem to think that i would advocate a simply pullout, when the fact is that you have no idea what my position on this might be.
and that would be because i dont have a firm position on this matter. i dont think we are getting adequate information.
the tactical situation is in flux, even as seen through the fog of "public diplomacy."
the overwhelming incompetence of this war in iraq has resulted in a situation that appears to leave no good options open.
and this AFTER a significant period of tightly organized support--so following such coherence as there might be in your theory of the will, the period immediately following the invasion should have been one triumph after another.
but it wasnt.

instead, you have a cold hard reality. the war in iraq is a horrifying debacle. it is a horrifying debacle that conservative voters bear responsibility for, because they put this nitwit administration into power, and managed--somehow--to keep it there for a second term of overwhelming incompetence.

conservatives like to talk about taking responsibility. well it doesnt seem like conservatives themselves are any good at it. you cant even face up to the reality created by an administration that you support. instead of even looking at it, you prefer to advance a crackpot pseudo-history narrative whose sole function is to let the bush administration off the hook conceptually for what it has done in and to iraq. period.

i dont know ace: it seems to me that this is enough of a disaster that the only way the conservative apparatus could possibly even begin to own up to what it has wrought would be an act of ideological hara kiri. "we thought we were doing the right thing, but it turned out that we are a menace and so we are dissolving ourselves."

but wont hold my breath waiting for it...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

Iran is seeking to "help" Iraq the way Iran "helps" Lebanon.

Khomeini's descendants are seeking to consolidate an islamic fundamentalist, shiite-dominated, nuclear-powered, israel-free hegemony in the heart of the middle east.

What the hell else would they be doing in Iraq? Sponsoring job fairs for their good buddies the sunnis??

SirLance

Succintly put. Spot on.

Iran is supporting the insurgency, what better way to increase their influence? Appears to be working, too.

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

Moskie

But if it's so readily accepted that Iran is behind (some of) the insurgent attacks, why are members of the Iraqi government seeking support from them? I don't think anyone in the Iraqi government actually supports these attacks, so why ask for help from the ones behind them?

Those questions are almost rhetorical... the answer is simply, I suppose, because Iraq is so far lost, that they are are left with no other options. The U.S. and the "coalition of the willing" are failing so miserably, it has come to this. I was hoping for a more optimistic assesment, but I don't think there's a good way to spin this.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

roachboy

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr156.html

well, folks, i dont understand why this appears to be the case, but you seem to take for granted as given what people doing actual research do not.
but maybe you have actual information to support the assumption that iran is directly involved in iraq at this time that the author of the study linked above--who is a pretty conservative kinda guy, btw--does not?

i'd be interested in seeing it, if there is any.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mojo_PeiPei

Guess my hard work was a kill shot...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

mojo: interesting.
thanks for posting the paper.

i assume that this was written for a poli sci class?
i ask because political science has genre features that historians do not share and since my training is as a historian, i come at it from that direction.

you are trying to do a whole lot in a single, quite short paper: the argument is more a dissertation or book length one.

in this short form, you run into many of the problems that follow from trying to derive a general structure from within complex individual case studies.

first, the paper relies heavily on an associative logic: basically, you make a quite detailed case concerning hezbollah/iran linkages insofar as lebanon 1982 is concerned. but once you set that up, you engage in a kind of flip logically--for example, to say that iran supported hezbollah directly in the early 80s does not mean that therefore hezbollah can be understood as "iranian terrorism"....and the linkage you set up between hezbollah and a "radical faction of the iranian revolutionary guard" is not strong enough to make the equation stick.

but it does set up what the paper turns around, which is the assumption that all shi'a groups operate in some kind of direct connection with all others simply because they are shi'a. and iran, having the largest population of shi'a population and (obviously) a shi'a dominated political regime (which is internally FAR more complex than the paper can allow for, given its length)functions as the culmination of this logic. this appears to be heavily reinforced by the source material that you chose to use...which sounds (via the echoes that show up in the paper) as if they mostly operate within the logic of the present policy as shaped by the "war on terror"---which is a simplifying machinery before it is anything else. perhaps this power of simplification explains its appeal.

so you end up with a kind of term substitution exercise in which shi'a militant organizations end up getting equated with iran as over against the interests/actions of the us.
it's correlate is the notion of terrorism, which does not allow for much in the way of detailed analysis of particular social-historical contexts more or less by definition.
so via these choices, everything gets flattened into everything else.

when you get to iraq, and iran's role in it, you run into trouble as a simple function of the breadth of the paper's scope. you discuss the nuclear program as an element in iranian foreign policy in general and then make some general references to its implications in iraq, but the paper has to stop and so it does.

anyway, historians are pedants.
i probably am one too.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Superbelt

Absolutely there has.

Ever hear of the Tulip Era? A period between 1718–1730 during Sultan Ahmed III.
There were others.
Now. Name me a 12 year or longer period of peace among the nations of Europe since the death of Jesus.

aceventura3

I had not heard of the "Tulip Era". But assuming you define a generation in terms of 20 to 30 year groupings and further assume a generation lives 60 to 90 years, the generation that was born during the "Tulip Era" experienced their share of warfare right after the "Tulip Era" ended.
If you read what I wrote you know I was not suggesting European culture is less violent than the people in the Middle East. All humans are prone to violence and war. If you live in a community or group of people that is weak, you either need strong allies (and something your allies want that you can provide), or devine intervention. If you are weak and you make an allience with your known enemy, they will take you over or destroy you. Given that war is a fact of life for humans, we need to get used to it and stop pretending we can negotiate peace with out having the real threat of force and the "will" to use force when needed.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Superbelt

I've always considered a generation to be about 15 years, actually.

Moskie

Can this not devolve into a semantics argument? Or one riddled with metaphors about polar bears? It doesn't really get us anywhere.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

docbungle

If Iran isn't helping now, they more than likely will be soon.

I don't understand those of you who think this is such a horrible thing. It's not like the U.S. is helping Iraq in any meaningful way. And yet, we have the audacity to say: No, do not accept help from Iran.

We broke it, we can't fix it, but you can't accept help from anyone we don't approve of. Never mind the fact that we are nearly powerless in this situation.

I can see the collective middle finger from here.

__________________
Bad Luck City

aceventura3

Since this comment seems to be a persoanl shot at me I guess I am obligated to respond.

If you don't like my writting style ignore what I write.

My exchange with Superbelt was informative to me, I learned something I did not know before and it lead me to take another look at the definition of "generation".

If you don't see the importance of what is happening in the ME as it relates to the generational experiences of the people currently in power I think you are missing an extremely important aspect of the impact of potential alliances. Ahmadinejad was born in 1956. He was a student in Tehran when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, and he about 26 during the 1980 war against Iraq. He is part of a generation that has experienced more violence than most, and the use of chemical weapons against his people by Iraq. He is part of a generation that harbors hate towards the US and Iraq. It is possible that he is able to forgive, but is it probable? I think the "polar bear" is on the hunt.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Moskie

Understood. Not trying to single you out, those just tend to be examples of how an argument can go that seem... insignificant to me. As soon as the word "generation" was being thrown around, I knew there was going to be back-and-forth over how many years constitutes one. The conversation could easily lead to us getting worked up over that, which could be avoided in the hopes of us discussing something more concrete and relevant.

Same thing with metaphors like the polar bear one... we could keep tacking on qualifications that seemingly make the metaphor more appropriate, when we could instead be furthering our understanding by talking about the topic at hand in its own terms. Someone will start screaming something like "but what if the polar bear had rabies??!?!" and I just have to roll my eyes and ignore the conversation, because nothing is really being said.

So, I do understand the importance of an actual "generation" experiencing peace throughout their lifetime, but asking "Has there been peace during any generation in the ME since the death of Muhammad?" begs for there to be an unnecessary discussion over what a generation actually is.

Believe me, I appreciate all the insight of this thread. It's eye-opening for me on many levels. I'm just trying to keep it away from lowbrow bickering.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

hiredgun

I'm a little boggled by this.

Your position is beyond ironic in that it basically boils down to: "We've done tons of horrible things to this man and his people. Therefore he can't be trusted."

More importantly, do you really think that the determining factor in US-Irani relations is Ahmedinejad's personal capacity for forgiveness?

aceventura3

Moskie just commented on getting bogged down with semantics. So I am not sure how to respond without offending me, you or him especially since this is when I would usually use an analogy to help clearify matters. But I will try so no one suffers to much.

My position is that, if for what ever reason, someone hates me or a friend, and then they say they want to help me or a friend. My first response is distrust. I am not saying I wont accept what appears to be a positive gesture or encourage my friend to, but I would be more careful than usual. I am surprised that you seem to suggest that you would respond differently or that you think my position is some how odd. I think this is a reality. I think there are many everyday occurances were anyone would personally respond in the same way.

Amedinejad is the representative leader of his country. He is the mouth piece for millions of people. So the issue is not simply about Amedinejad because I think he is representative of the majority of people in his country. It is true however, that if he has the capacity to forgive and move forward, and he doesn't get removed from office, I would take that as a positive sign for the entire country.

However with Amedinejad, all you have to do is read what he says when he is not "speaking" directly to the world media. To date he has not done or has he "said" anything that would make want to trust him. Can you think of anything?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."