Why people are confused on Iraq...

[Judge]

Simply put - many in the media seek to create a false impression:

>>>>

Why Isn't al-Qaeda Iran's Sunni Enemy In Iraq? [Steve Schippert]


That question, naturally, is rhetorical. But it seems to escape Selig Harrison in today's Boston Globe. In an op-ed column titled 'Working with Iran to stabilize Iraq,' Harrison suggests that an overly aggressive US posture-and primarily its support for the growing Sahwa al-Iraq (Iraq Awakening Movement)-is an obstacle that prevents Iran from partnering in seeking a stable Iraq. Iran, we are to be led to believe, would otherwise be a constructive American partner there.


Pay careful attention to how Harrison describes the not-exclusively-Sunni Awakening Movement.

The burgeoning US-sponsored Sunni militias so far number some 90,000 US-equipped fighters who are each paid $300 a month. This is euphemistically called the "Sunni Awakening." The militias pose a growing challenge to the dominance of Maliki's predominantly Shi'ite army, with its authorized strength of 186,000. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the key Shi'ite leader backing Maliki, has repeatedly complained that "weapons should be in the hands of the government only, and the government alone should decide who gets them. The alternative will be perpetual civil war."

Two things on this:

1. Who "euphemistically" calls Sawha al-Iraq the "Sunni Awakening"? While it is in fact predominantly Sunni, it has Shi'a members as well, especially in the mixed areas like Ramadi.
2. The Awakening movements have primarily engaged in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is the Sunni group bombing and murdering Iraqi Shi'a targets, not the Awakening movements and/or Concerned Local Citizens (CLC's).

So if Shi'a safety and influence is the concern, why has Iran not condemned al-Qaeda in Iraq? Why go after the Awakening movements? Again, the question is rhetorical-except for Harrison, apparently. That Iran condemns Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda, and not Sunni al-Qaeda killing Shi'a Iraqis, should be telling for all the obvious reasons.
The op-ed goes on:

Iran's former deputy foreign minister, Mahmoud Vaezi, told me that arming the Sunnis "suggests to us that the US is deliberately seeking to keep them strong enough to undermine al-Maliki and contain our influence. It will be impossible for us to cooperate in stabilizing Iraq if this goes on. If you shift power to the Sunnis, then some Shia groups will say, 'If we can get more power through terrorist tactics, why not?'"

In order to take this at face value-as Selig Harrison apparently does-one is required to believe that Iran has not already been training these groups in terrorist tactics and skills in Iranian bases, deploying them back across the Iraqi border, supplying them with arms and cash, and supporting them with IRGC human resources.


Not that Iran would support terrorists and terrorism, of course; but these fully autonomous and independent Shi'a groups in Iraq might decide on their own to follow such a path. Or so sayeth Iran.
Most of us have been to the puppet show and seen the strings. But individuals like the writer in today's Boston Globe are still seemingly in the audience applauding the show and selling tickets to passers-by outside.
The marquee outside the theater flashes "Iran, Iraqi Partner in Peace" and "Bush, Petraeus Seeking Civil War" and "Iran Says Terrorism Unfortunate, American Made." Go ahead, grab a ticket and see the show.


Just watch the puppet show knowing it's been nominated as fiction, not as a documentary.

[eric_t12]

it wasn't too long ago the sunni were on the exact same path, but now they're our allies...
?

i suppose this is good though, because its much easier giving money to non-governmental militias who are of the same religion as the Kingdoms around there - they are easier to deal with than the more democratically-elected Iran...

[Frenchy]

Ya pays enough money, anyone will be your bestest friend!

[AZXD]

Why should I care what some thinks about Selig Harrison and his writings.

Who is Steve Schippert and why is his opinion of Selig Harrison so important ??

[eric_t12]

from azxd's link -

Musharraf may resign soon

LMAO!

oooookay! i guess milosevic did resign shortly after he kept power, but that's another story, who cares if for their own time they were both dictators...

[Judge]

You shouldn't... maintain that state of bliss if you wish... and it's not his opinion that's anymore siginificant, it's the facts he presents in correcting an intentionally misleading story...

Originally Posted by AZXD

Why should I care what some thinks about Selig Harrison and his writings.

Who is Steve Schippert and why is his opinion of Selig Harrison so important ??

[AZXD]

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Why should I care what some thinks about Selig Harrison and his writings.

Who is Steve Schippert and why is his opinion of Selig Harrison so important ??

Steve Schippert

Steve Schippert is a "co-founder of ThreatsWatch.org and of the Center for Threat Awareness where he serves on the Board of Directors. As the Managing Editor of ThreatsWatch, Steve writes analysis and commentary that has also been published at National Review Online, The Daily Standard and FrontPage Magazine. He writes regularly for National Review Online at The Tank. Steve served in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 1985 to June 1993, including service during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait."

Schippert is also a blogger with the U.S. Department of Defense's Bloggers' Roundtable.

Steve Schippert - SourceWatch

Most milbloggers, but not all, support President Bush's Iraq war effort, and virtually all say they are pro-military. Many feel that "the truth" about operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has been distorted by what they deem the "mainstream media," or "MSM" in blogging terminology.

FOXNews.com - 'Milblogs' Present Iraq War From Military Point of View - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News


Selig Harrison

Selig S Harrison, ICAS Fellow, is Director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Selig has specialized in South Asia and East Asia for fifty years as a journalist and scholar and is the author of five books on Asian affairs and U.S. relations with Asia, including Korean Endgame: A Strategy For Reunification and U.S. Disengagement, published by Princeton University Press in May 2002. He has visited North Korea ten times, most recently in September 2006.

Selig served as South Asia Correspondent of the Associated Press from 1951 to 1954, in New Delhi, returned as South Asia Bureau Chief of The Washington Post from 1962 to 1965, and served as Northeast Asia Bureau Chief of the Post, based in Tokyo, from 1968 to 1972. From 1974 to 1996, as a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he pursued investigative assignments every year in a variety of countries, especially those where he worked as a journalist, such as India, Pakistan, China, Japan, and the two Koreas.

His reputation for giving "early warning" of foreign policy crises was well established during his career as a foreign correspondent.

***

Selig is frequently invited to testify as an expert witness before congressional committees and lectures at the National Defense University, the National War College and the State Department's Foreign Service Institute. At the same time, his outspoken, constructive criticisms of administration policies often appear on op-ed pages of The Washington Post, the New York Times, and International Herald Tribune. He has appeared on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer," "Nightline," and other TV programs as well as National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition."

Selig is the author of five books:

Selig S. Harrison Biographic Sketch

[AZXD]

[Frenchy]

Why people are confused on Iraq...

Five years...4000 troops dead...3 Trillion dollars..No confusion here!