Iraq - Why Unrest Now?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Question - with the date of 30 June set as a hard date by POTUS publically, why are the factions going to the mats now, with less than 3 months to go? Why not wait and see how it plays out, then if not satisfied call for terrorism?

Whoever is planning to take over can't do it until the US is gone and the fastest way to get rid of the US is play along.

[brownapple]

It's not about Iraq, and it's not about taking over. It's about keeping US troops where they can be attacked.

[NousDefionsDoc]

So its simply in order to facilitate killing troops?

[Footmobile]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Question - with the date of 30 June set as a hard date by POTUS publically, why are the factions going to the mats now, with less than 3 months to go? Why not wait and see how it plays out, then if not satisfied call for terrorism?

Whoever is planning to take over can't do it until the US is gone and the fastest way to get rid of the US is play along.

It seems to be a real hard question to answer if you really think about it.

There seems to be no real reasoning behind stirring up all this shit now, other than to kill US troops. It must be very apperant to the various factions in Iraq (former regime elements, local militias, and terroists) that we will not leave until the job is done, which will be many years down the road.

It's not like we are pulling our troops out on June 30th. We'll still be responsible for the security of the country.

Sounds like some of these groups may have exposed themselves and intentions a little too early....Hopefully we can take advantage of it.

[Surgicalcric]

Maybe its just taken this long logistically to get everything and everyone who are willing to fight in country. From what I have been hearing on the news the Marines are capturing foreign fighters from Iran, Syria, Egypt...

[ghuinness]

I have read reports that the guerrilla's are predominantly imports
from Syria and Iran.

What I can't figure out is why the Sunni's are collaborating
with the Shiite's. From everything I have read, the Sunni's
have strong input with the government members selected
and the Shiite's don’t. So why would the Sunni's take action
at this time?

Could it have something to do with the Kurds in the north?
They recently protested and joined their Kurdish counter-parts
in Syria. Iran is in flux and the Shiite's are losing their hold,
could it be driven by Iran and Syria not wanting the Kurds to get stronger? I believe the protesting occurred late March.

Just my .02

[echoes]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
So its simply in order to facilitate killing troops?


Edited to say: After reading more of this thread of NDD's, I realize I am not qualified to even have an opinion.

Holly

[Solid]

A news report mentioned that the Japanese hostages were to be released after one of the insurgent religious leaders ordered it. Perhaps all of this is simply a show of force by the various religious leaders to show who rules Iraq? Such a show while the US et al. were still in town may be aimed to provoke the US to conceed more power to the Mullahs constitutionally, thereby securing themselves power in a 'new Iraq'. This method would be instead of seizing power unconstitutionally after the US departs, which would mean that the new govt. would lack global legitimacy, be rife with power struggles, and may cause the US to return?

Just trying to think outside of the box, I guess.

Solid

[Surgicalcric]

Originally posted by ghuinness
...What I can't figure out is why the Sunni's are collaborating
with the Shiite's...

That old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind.

[ghuinness]

"With their quasi-independence secure, Iraqi Kurds have begun to be the vanguard of Kurdish rights across the Middle East. This move poses serious potential problems for the United States in Iraq, and in U.S. dealings with Damascus, Ankara and Tehran.

The Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group without a state. The vast majority live in a region that spans northern Iraq, southeastern Syria, northwestern Iran and southeastern Turkey."

Just to follow up on my point, this is the comment which got
my attention from Stratfor a few weeks ago. This is the
only reason I can think of as to why the Sunni's and Shiite's
would join forces.

Respectfully submitted.

[Valhal]

I believe the violence perpetrated by the Shiites is a power play amongst themselves. Sadr is a minor Cleric with Iranian backing trying to ruffle Sistani's feathers.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm listening. The Kurds are Sunnis are they not, religiously speaking?

My understanding is that the Iraqi Kurds are not as tight with the Iranian ones?

I am getting rumors that the Japanese thing may have been staged by the victims. Either as a PR stunt to show the HTs as not such bad guys or something went wrong with a plan to get publicity. Nothing definite yet.

Solid, I'm digging ya'. Another idea - it may be to provoke retaliations and repression by the US-led IPG for agit-prop as well.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Valhal
I believe the violence perpetrated by the Shiites is a power play amongst themselves. Sadr is a minor Cleric with Iranian backing trying to ruffle Sistani's feathers.

Ok, but what about the Sunnis?

[Valhal]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Ok, but what about the Sunnis?

The warmer spring weather is making them itchy. :)

Shooting from the hip I'd say the higher the body count the better Kerry's chance for election, also maybe because there are many troop rotations happening now. Easier to hit us coming into country(?).

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Question - with the date of 30 June set as a hard date by POTUS publically, why are the factions going to the mats now, with less than 3 months to go? Why not wait and see how it plays out, then if not satisfied call for terrorism?

Whoever is planning to take over can't do it until the US is gone and the fastest way to get rid of the US is play along.

My understanding is that we are handing over only some governmental functions in June. We're not leaving in June. Am I wrong?

[ghuinness]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm listening. The Kurds are Sunnis are they not, religiously speaking?

My understanding is that the Iraqi Kurds are not as tight with the Iranian ones?



I am probably way off base, but to me that's like saying an
Irish Catholic is the same as a Roman Catholic. I can think
of a few that would strongly disagree about being the same.
That's my interpretation.

With respect to the second part, I have to steal from Surgicalcric's
prior post: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I have to disagree with the idea that the uprising is against
the USA. Timing makes no sense to me. If we hand over authority
June 30 I expect we would gradually reduce forces. They want us
gone now and using tactics which, unfortunately, have typically
caused us to leave conflicts in the past. We are in the way, we
are not the target. IMHO.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Probably not wrong there RL. But if they are handing over anything, why not wait and see what happens, then crank up the terrorism?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Probably not wrong there RL. But if they are handing over anything, why not wait and see what happens, then crank up the terrorism?

Because there are infidels to kill now. Why wait?

[Pandora]

Is the timing for ceasefire attempts also relevant in that this is Easter weekend?

[ghuinness]

This is the entire Stratfor briefing I was referring to earlier - FYI.

Pan-Kurdish Nationalism
March 19, 2004 1510 GMT

Summary

Kurds staged a rally in northern Iraq on March 18 to protest recent clashes between Syrian security forces and Kurds in northeastern Syria. After securing self-rule in Iraq, the Kurds are trying to act as a vanguard for their ethnic brethren beyond Iraq, beginning with Syria. This development is critical because it could hurt U.S. plans for Iraq and relations with Iran, Syria and Turkey as well.

Analysis

Thousands of Iraqi Kurds demonstrated March 18 in support of their fellow Kurds in Syria outside the building of the Kurdistan Regional Government Council of Ministers in As Sulaymaniyah. Clashes over the past week between Syrian forces and Kurds in the northeastern al-Hasakah governorate left 24 dead and 100 wounded.

With their quasi-independence secure, Iraqi Kurds have begun to be the vanguard of Kurdish rights across the Middle East. This move poses serious potential problems for the United States in Iraq, and in U.S. dealings with Damascus, Ankara and Tehran.

The Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group without a state. The vast majority live in a region that spans northern Iraq, southeastern Syria, northwestern Iran and southeastern Turkey.

This is not the first time the pan-Kurdish banner has been raised. What is different now is that they have entrenched themselves in Iraq.

The often rocky partnership between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Jalal Talabani, that was forged in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War has matured into a strong alliance in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. This is a huge difference from the not-so-distant past when rival Kurdish leaders were willing to fight to the death of the last Kurd in order to stake their claim as leaders of the nation.

The KDP-PUK partnership has even written Kurdish autonomy into the interim Iraqi constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law. This has been made possible by the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and Washington has not hesitated to use the Kurdish card as leverage against other states in the region -- in this case, Syria.

U.S. pressure on Syria has created a situation in which many Syrian groups opposed to Damascus become so emboldened as to begin acting against the state. One such group is Syria's ethnic Kurdish community. The recent unrest in the al-Hasakah region in northeastern Syria is a manifestation of the Kurds' increased confidence, which has been precipitated and augmented by Kurdish gains in Iraq.

Iraqi Kurds, particularly those from the geographically adjacent KDP, are now trying to take up the Kurd cause in Syria. In the short term, there is little danger of this spilling over beyond Syria. The Kurds are hyperaware of the delicate nature of their relationship with Turkey and Iran -- where anti-Kurd campaigns are carried out with relish -- and are equally cognizant that their chances of preserving their autonomy within Iraq are fully dependent upon the good graces of the United States.

But Kurdish efforts against Syria are likely to do nothing but intensify. The United States has worked with Turkey, Israel, Libya and Jordan to put Syria in a vise and will settle for nothing less than Damascus's complete capitulation. So long as the Kurds do not cause problems in Turkey, the United States will turn a blind eye to events in northeast Syria -- and might even assist with some intelligence assets.

This does not mean the Kurdish issue is one that Washington can control. Anything that empowers the Kurds makes the Sunnis and Shia of Iraq nervous at best, and Washington is well aware of what Tehran and Ankara think of Kurdish autonomy, much less independence. Washington also knows full well that while the Kurds are useful -- even loyal -- allies, the region's real powerbrokers remain Ankara and Tehran.

It is too early in the process to say where current Kurdish posturing will lead, but it is certain to complicate matters for the United States as it seeks to finalize the deal with the Shia in Iraq and Iran, force Syria to yield to its demands and placate Turkey -- where one-fifth of the population considers itself Kurdish.

[ghuinness]

NDD, you posted the question.

May I ask, what is your theory?

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm not really sure. It looks to me to be positioning, with a few ancillary events thrown in.

In the case of Sadr's Shi'ites, I think that is simple criminality in protest of the arrest of his minion, the closing of the paper and Sadr's own potential arrest for the murder of the cleric. He appears to me to be nothing more than a young criminal hood in a Mullah's robes, but he has ties to hizbollah and Iran, so he must be dealt with.

Another thing that occurred to me is perhaps they have been given a glimpse of post 30 june and don't like it.

I'm a little frustrated because I don't know as much as about the area as I wish I did, and I can't seem to figure out what they are thinking. They seem to be fairly simple in their strategic approaches most of the time, then they throw in something that makes absolutely no sense to me.

The FARC do it as well.

Maybe its just stupidity. Or maybe it is simply a war of attrition as far as they are concerned like GH said. I can understand the Shi'ites, but not the Sunnis.

I have no doubt they are trying to force a US pull out-back by:
1. Barbaric incidents on tv in order to influence the will in the US.
2. Destroying the coalition by going after the weaker members in their own territories.

I think they will try something in the US in Sep/Oct in order to influence our elections, but I find it hard to believe they actually think it will work.

Very confusing mess.

[Solid]

According to you and Bard E. O'Neill, the clearest reason for these attacks, regardless of timeframe, is to provoke over-the-top and non-surgical responses from the governmental force, thereby alienating the population and forcing them onto the Insurgent's side.

The timing is slightly strange though, right?

Solid

[NousDefionsDoc]

Becareful with Mr. O'Neil, he's a little dated and doesn't seem to know the ME. Just my opinion.

yeah, that's a very frequent scenario, especially with a democratic government like the US as the target and the homefront divided. The Arabs ahve also used it against Israel, so that may be where part of it is coming from. Good thinking.

[ghuinness]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

Very confusing mess.

On that I agree. There are a few events occuring that
make me wonder.

"On april 8: 1459 GMT - Iraq's interior minister said April 8 that he will resign his cabinet position. Nouri Badran, a Shi'i, told journalists in Baghdad that his decision is in keeping with the wishes of the U.S.-led coalition that wants a Sunni in the position. Badran said top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer had told him that the coalition "cannot accept" an imbalance within the leadership. "The solution is for you to step down from your position,� Badran quoted Bremer as saying. The other security position, the defense ministry, is also led by a Shi'i. "

I have tried to follow who we selected for the Iraqi Governing
Council, but I can't keep all the players straight without a
chessboard. I think this resignation was part of the "ceasefire"
negotiation. Makes me wonder what else is being negotiated.
I haven't found any other information. What is it about
the composite of the IGC that is so disliked? Is it that
the US has not pushed one Iraq?

This was posted early Jan:

"..Ethnic Kurds have submitted a bill to Kurdish members of the Iraqi Governing Council pushing for the IGC to declare a federalized Iraq before the scheduled transfer of power begins in June. This push does not sit well with ethnic Turkmen and Sunni Arabs, who fear being incorporated within a larger Kurdish autonomous region and recently have begun to protest, at times violently..."

I can't find what happened to this proposal.

I think there is a lot more to this uprising and I fear it is deeper
rooted than a few radicals.

[Solid]

NDD: Thanks for the advice on O'Neill... It's hard to critique these experts without a larger reading base.

Why are they kidnapping Chinese nationals?

Solid

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Solid
According to you and Bard E. O'Neill, the clearest reason for these attacks, regardless of timeframe, is to provoke over-the-top and non-surgical responses from the governmental force, thereby alienating the population and forcing them onto the Insurgent's side.

The timing is slightly strange though, right?

Solid

Not really. The roads are flooded with pilgrims, the 7th was the anniversary of the formation of the bath party, the 8th was an Iraqi holiday "Iraqi Freedom Day", the 9th was the 1st anniversary of the toppling of sodamn insanes statue in Firdos Square, also from the 9th thru the 11th is the Shi'a Arbaeen Commemoration, which is why all those pilgrims are clogging the roads. Today of course was Easter. Lots of special dates all coming together, streets full of people making it difficult to engage without collateral damage. Lots of reasons to start now, and then you have June 30th and the US Election. They may have been emboldened by Spain's reaction to the Madrid bombings too.

[Solid]

Good call.

[ghuinness]

Originally posted by ktek01
Not really. The roads are flooded with pilgrims, the 7th was the anniversary of the formation of the bath party, the 8th was an Iraqi holiday "Iraqi Freedom Day", the 9th was the 1st anniversary of the toppling of sodamn insanes statue in Firdos Square, also from the 9th thru the 11th is the Shi'a Arbaeen Commemoration, which is why all those pilgrims are clogging the roads. Today of course was Easter. Lots of special dates all coming together, streets full of people making it difficult to engage without collateral damage. Lots of reasons to start now, and then you have June 30th and the US Election. They may have been emboldened by Spain's reaction to the Madrid bombings too.

Not sure if I agree, sort of, but for different reasons.
Dates make it convenient to shuttle in resistance from Iran and Syria under the guise of pilgrims.

Latest info from AP about Iran and Syria:

here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040412/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_abizaid_syria&cid=1514&ncid=1480)

[ktek01]

Originally posted by ghuinness
Not sure if I agree, sort of, but for different reasons.
Dates make it convenient to shuttle in resistance from Iran and Syria under the guise of pilgrims.



Thats true, also makes it more difficult for coallition forces and private contractors to move around safely. The pilgrims slow them down, and makes it easier to hit them.

[Airbornelawyer]

All of the factors identified above, as well as a few others not mentioned, played a role, but at least with regard to the so-called "Sunni Triangle", no factor really played a central role.

Besides factors already mentioned - the Kurdish mini-uprising in Syria that has Ba'athists there worried, the confluence of religious and secular Iraqi holidays, the ramp-up of pressure on al-Sadr, the lesson the terrorists took from 3-11, the jockeying for position in the lead-up to June 30, US electoral politics (or at least how it is being covered in the Arab media - there are also a couple of factors not mentioned.

One of the big ones, especially in the Shi'ite south, is the troop rotation. In one sense, the terrorists missed an opportunity: 3-11 exposed weaknesses in the coalition. Had such an attack come earlier, it might have affected many coalition members. As it is, most of these countries, including Spain, had already started or completed troop rotations before 3-11. This ranged from minor partners like El Salvador and Latvia to bigger players like Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands (which has actually undergone its third rotation). Some of these countries might have rethought their contributions had a 3-11-like attack already occurred, and rotated their first contingents back home without allowing for a follow-on. As it is, almost all reconfirmed their commitment to keep the forces they had just deployed.

But on the other side of the equation is this: throughout most of Iraq are troops only recently arrived in country, so they are being tested. All but the Ukrainians have responded aggressively. Unfortunately the Ukrainians have one of the largest contingents -a separate brigade with three mechanized infantry battalions - so while their pulling out of al-Kut proper and returning to their bases outside the city might have been tactically sound, it was a propaganda victory for al-Sadr's supporters. Luckily, US, Ukrainian and Iraqi forces quickly retook the city, mitigating the damage.

In Fallujah, also, a troop rotation had just begun, with the Marines moving in, so a test of our resolve was on the horizon.

But back to my "no factor" premise. At least as regards Fallujah, the attack on the Blackwater contractors was nothing new. Terrorists and insurgents in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" have been attacking and killing US forces, Iraqi police, civilians and foreign aid workers on a low level pretty much incessantly for the past year. These four more were really only different in the sense that the savage brutality of the terrorists and the local mobs was televised worldwide. It was our response that escalated it into a major campaign.

In a sense, the "why now?" question should be asked of President Bush and GEN Abizaid - i.e., why now, instead of weeks ago when terrorists, many apparently operating out of Fallujah safe havens, killed hundreds of Shi'ite pilgrims in coordinated strikes, or months ago, when that Iraqi judge issued the sealed warrant for al-Sadr's arrest, or any number of incidents? I don't mean to sound like I am armchair generalling. The fact is, the coalition has been actively conducting operations throughout the past year - operations which had been quite successful in reducing the threat to American forces (but leading the terrorists to shift their focus to softer targets like Iraqi police and civilians and foreign workers). But there has been a sense that we have been trying to keep a lid on things, playing whack-a-mole with the terrorists, and just hoping we could get through to the transition, and get more Iraqi forces on the streets to reduce the burden on the coalition and give the occupation more of an Iraqi face. A number of our coalition partners have gone out of their way to portray their missions as almost entirely humanitarian, and de-emphasize the combat aspect, which may have led them to not deal as aggressively with some armed factions like al-Sadr's militias. The coalition, especially the Americans in Baghdad, treated this as a problem to be dealt with later, after the other problems had been addressed. "Later", unfortunately, arrived at the same time as those other problems showed they still needed addressing.

At the end of the day, this was a fight we needed to fight, and we are fighting and winning, as near as I can tell. The media and the Democratic Party solons are doing their best to turn this into another Tet, in both senses (i.e., a flawed Vietnam analogy because that is all they can come up with, and yet another attempt, like Tet '68, to turn a potential victory into a defeat). I guess, what it comes down to is this: the reason it is happening now is that we are making it happen now. We are seizing the initiative. I hate to sound too cheerleaderish, but we are KATN, not the terrorists. The only ones who can defeat us here are ourselves.

[ghuinness]

AL

I was waiting for you to show up with some enlightening
view.

Thanks

[Ockham's Razor]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc


I'm a little frustrated because I don't know as much as about the area as I wish I did, and I can't seem to figure out what they are thinking. They seem to be fairly simple in their strategic approaches most of the time, then they throw in something that makes absolutely no sense to me.


I think you are wrong about not knowing the situation. It was you who stated a while back and I'm paraphrasing here "the Southern part of Iraq is already basically under Sharia Law." For the most part.

Whilst, the crminal and jihadi aspects are also obvious reasons to attack now, I think when you say they saw what the June 30th handover might mean and they don't like it. I think there are enough people (not the majority perhaps) on the Shia side who do not like the compromises made in the consitution and might be worried that the hand-over date will simply make it harder to change than if they act now.

Honestly, I don't think they understood how strong our resolve would be. I remember hearing that Saddam passed around copies of BHD to his people in the run-up to the war. Now, I have nothing to support that, but it is somewhat understandable because for quite some time people have thought that if they inflict enough damage to US troops and it gets enough press, the public will force a pull-out.

In my estimation, if that is what they were thinking, they made a grave miscalculation. Though, I could also be very wrong.

[Airbornelawyer]

This is a bit of a gross oversimplification, but among the Shi'ite Arabs of Iraq there are basically three political factions:

1. Those who want some sort of secular democratic system ("separation of mosque and state"). They have a variety of motives, some good, some bad ("take the power away from the mullahs and give it to... me"). They include politicians such as Ahmed Chalabi, Raja Habib al-Khuzaai, Ahmed al-Barak, Wail Abdul Latif and Iyad Allawi.

2. Those who want a system that preserves the preeminence of Islam. They don't mind democracy. The people can elect whomever they want to organize schools and run jails, and to raise the taxes to fund them, as long as Islamic judges get to decide what curriculum is taught and what is a crime. Grand Ayatullah Sistani is just the most prominent voice for that viewpoint.

3. Those who want an Iranian style system where religious leaders run things as sort of a Shi'ite vanguard of the proletariat. Moqtada al-Sadr is the most prominent of these voices. This is not a popular position, even among Iraqi Shi'ite clerics, who generally reject the late Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini's political philosophy. But al-Sadr and people like him make up for unpopularity by militancy and money. They are funded by Iranians and, like good Bolsheviks, know how to make up for their relatively small numbers.

Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and its armed wing, the Badr Brigades, shares this viewpoint but has been more pragmatic, working within the IGC and waiting for the Americans to leave. Al-Hakim also probably hates Moqtada al-Sadr, since al-Sadr's people likely killed not only Ayatollah al-Khoei last April, for which an arrest warrant has been issued, but also al-Hakim's brother, Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim last August. Al-Sadr was also reportedly behind the attempted assassination of Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim's uncle Grand Ayatullah Sayyid Sa'id al-Hakim.

One thing which may affect the timing of al-Sadr's uprising, and our response, is his relationship with these other factions. We need to bring him down, but not at the cost of strengthening SCIRI or Sistani to too great an extent (getting rid of al-Sadr will inevitably strengthen them; the question is to what extent).

Another factor in the timing and the attitude of the parties in categories 2 and 3 is that there have been a series of local elections to town councils and the like in parts of Iraq, especially the predominantly Shi'te Dhi Qar province (around an-Nasariyyah), and secular parties have beaten Islamist parties in most of them.

[NousDefionsDoc]

THAT'S knowing the situation. You have to know who are the players are and what their relationships are to each other. That's the part I don't know in that AO. Good stuff AL. I'm learning.

[Sacamuelas]

Great post AL. me lernin too:D Thanks

[Sigi]

I can't fathom how someone can be this intelligent, yet write in such a way that helps me better understand the situation. Thanks for the info, AL. I'm also learning.

[DunbarFC]

Very interesting post AL

Appreciate you taking the time

[Airbornelawyer]

A little extra reading:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2004/clergy/clergy.htm

The United States and Iraq's Shi'ite Clergy: Partners or Adversaries?, by W. Andrew Terrill, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, February 2004.

[Airbornelawyer]

From CSIS, here is a chronology of events in Iraq since May 1, 2003 (as of April 6, 2004): http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_lowintesity.pdf

And more of CSIS' Iraq analysis: http://www.csis.org/features/iraq.cfm

[Roguish Lawyer]

Thanks, AL. Great stuff.

[ghuinness]

1919 GMT - A chemical bomb plot that could have killed 20,000 people has been uncovered, Jordanian officials claimed. The plot, believ ed to have been planned by a Qaeda-linked militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, allegedly targeted the General Intelligence Department, the U.S. Embassy and the prime minister's office.



This was actually posted this weekend. I think this ties into
why al-sadr's uprising started. I have run a few searches and reports imply the weapons originated in Syria. There were also reports last week (didn't get much press) about Syria starting
to capture and torture Kurds. Count was 1000 and arbritray capture would continue.

I understand and have read everything AL posted, but I am really starting to believe there is more to this than a rogue cleric and some tribal conflicts. To me it looks like Syria and Iran are using al-sadr as a pawn and a distraction.

my .02

[NousDefionsDoc]

I read somewhere where the Jordanians also thought the King was targeted - quote was "decapitate the government of Jordan".

Now, can you imagine the King dead from a terrorist attack and Jordan without a leader? Jordan is about 60% "Palestinian" from what I have seen. I would imagine they would rush to fill the vacuum. Talk about destabilizing the region.

What do you think AL?

[Airbornelawyer]

Syrians working with Iranians? Ba'athists working with Islamic fundamentalists? Don't you read the New York Times and your daily Democratic National Committee talking points? That doesn't happen.

This, BTW, was one of the biggest pieces of idiocy from the antiwar Left - that Ba'athists like Saddam wouldn't work with Islamists like al-Qa'ida - since as amply demonstrated with Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ba'athists had been working with Islamists for decades. There are differences - while Syria is predominantly Sunni Arab, its Ba'athist ruling elite is dominated by members of a small religious sect, an offshoot of Shi'ism called the 'Alawis - that many Muslims consider apostates.

Muqtada al-Sadr is a pawn of certain factions in Iran, but Iran's main horse in Iraq is SCIRI. SCIRI has, perhaps, been too accomodating to the IGC and the CPA for the tastes of some Iranians, so more money and weapons have been funneled to al-Sadr's Jaysh al-Mahdi. Neither al-Sadr nor SCIRI, though, is especially popular among Iraqi Shi'ites. Al-Sadr's people are acting like good Bolsheviks, though, using their militancy and propaganda to project greater strength.

One of the main critiques Iraqis have of the US-led coalition is its failure to adequately police the borders, allowing Syrian and Iranian agents and fighters to infiltrate. Of late, we have been more aggressive along the Syrian border - witness this weekend's engagement between Marines and militants - but this is another area where it appears we do not have adequate resources. Wasit province, which includes a portion of the Iranian border that is the main route from Iran into the heart of Shi'ite Iraq, is in the hands of the Ukrainian 6th Separate Mechanized Brigade, which does not have the resources or the ROEs to aggressively deal with the threats in its zone.

As I noted, the proximate causes of the recent unrest were more accidental (the killings in Fallujah don't appear to be part of the Syrian game plan) and opportunistic, but the build-up of tension does fit the Syrian and Iranian goal of keeping Iraq unstable. And I wouldn't be surprised if those high-profile Shi'ites going to join their brethren in Fallujah included a fair number of Iranian agents.

As for Jordan, is the king were killed, my guess is the JAF would rally around Prince Hassan bin Talal, his uncle and the late King Hussein's Crown Prince for three decades. Prince Hassan has been not-so-subtly pushing himself as a candidate for an Iraqi throne (the Hashemites of Jordan are close cousins of the Iraqi royal family, whose most senior princes had been killed by the Ba'ath), but would certainly prefer the Jordanian throne. He has good relations with the West, the JAF and the Jordanian elites.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Programs HERE! Get your programs HERE! Can't tell the players without a scorecard - programs HERE!

[ghuinness]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Syrians working with Iranians? Ba'athists working with Islamic fundamentalists? Don't you read the New York Times and your daily Democratic National Committee talking points?

Negative, although I do use the NYT as a measuring stick.
If they like something, I avoid it. If they hate it, I search it out.
Thanks AL.

NDD - LMAO :D