>> We've already "won" of course. We freed the Iraqi Shi'ites.
>
> What do you mean we "freed" them. Were they enslaved? Was our original
> mission to "free" them?
The Shi'ites are the longest repressed religious sect in history. Their
repression began at the same time as the Prophet's death. Shi'ite is a
shortened form for "Shi`at `Ali" or, The Followers of Ali (one of
Mohammed's sons).
The Mahdi, for whom all the Shi'ites are waiting to return, was the
only Imam who "survived" the wars and slaughter (he was supposedly
hidden by Allah). He was just a boy, and was hidden in a well...think
Ann Frank here.
That's what they've faced since the Prophet's death. The death
(disappearance of) the last Imam began their under-class status in
Islam which lasted unbroken until 1979.
Ruhollah Khomeini was the first man in a millennia to successfully
"free" them. And when I say "free" I mean he has imposed a totalitarian
Sharia Law upon them. Which Shi'ites, much like the Sunni salafists,
seem to equate with utopia.
But, even so, Khomeini's totalitarianism is also an empowerment for the
Shi'ites. Much as marxism was an empowerment to the revolutionary
proletariat.
Immediately after he consolidated power in Iran, he began to look
towards Iraq, home to the second largest population of Shi'ites.
Iranian radio was filled with speeches and clamorous rallies calling
for the "liberation" of the Iraqi Shi'ites (which radio broadcasts are
picked up quite plainly inside Iraq).
Khomeini forced the issue by claiming the Shaat al-Arab water way
(which is situated on the Iran-Iraq border).
Saddam Hussein responded (1980) with a concerted military push into
Iran. Initially successful, the military operation bogged down into a
deadly stalemate. By most accounts Khomeini welcomed the war,
especially since on paper he had the superior military force.
An eight year war ensued.
Much has been made of the assistance the United States provided Saddam
Hussein during this period.
Much less has been made of the vast financial assistance provided to
him by Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia which completely dwarfs what the
United States offered. Then also, Russia, France and Germany were most
instrumental in direct military assistance (the Russian designed T-80
was the Iraqi Main Battle tank, for instance). The United States
provided only very limited financial assistance, some satellite
intelligence photos, about 20 unarmed Bell Helicopters, and may have
facilitated some dual-use sales which enabled his chemical weapons
programs. The other nations did all the heavy lifting in support of
Saddam's war effort, not the US.
All of these states plainly recognized the clear and present danger of
a widespread Khomeini Revolution in the Middle East.
By 1982, when the Iran-Iraq war had clearly bogged down, Khomeini sent
2500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Lebanon to found the Revolutionary
Group that would later be known as "Hizbullah." Ruhollah personally
approved the name (which means "Party of God"). Khomeini was the
Supreme Jurisconsult to Hizbullah, just as he was Supreme Jurisconsult
to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran has always been the chief
source of funding for Hizbullah.
The Party of God is a revolutionary group, modeled on the Soviet
international revolutionary system, and even has a politburo. Khomeini
felt he needed to establish it in Lebanon because of the civil war
there (which tangentially involved the growing Shi'ite population), and
because of the emergency caused by the Israeli Operation: Peace for the
Galilee.
Also in 1982, Khomeini established SCIRI (Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq) with Iraqi refugees from the war. Their
leader was Ayatollah Bakr al-Hakim. Revolutionary guards equipped and
trained these refugees to wage insurgency, and were then infiltrated
back inside Iraq. Saddam is now on death row for how he dealt with a
failed coup attempt by a group (Badr Brigades) connected to SCIRI.
When Ruhollah Khomeini died in 1989, Ali Khamene'i succeeded him. In
short order, he had assumed all of Ruhollah's mantles: Ali, today, is
Supreme Jurisconsult to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Supreme
Jurisconsult to Hizbullah, and, it seems, Supreme Jurisconsult to SCIRI
as well.
Ali has the same ambitions as Ruhollah, and he seems closer to
realizing these than ever before.
It is your duty to build the atomic bomb for the Islamic Republican
Party...our civilization is in danger and we have to have it."
---Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, 1979
"We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive
use of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons. From now
on, you should make use of the opportunity to perform this task."
---Ali Hashemi-Rafsanjani,
addressing the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards
October 6, 1988
And make no mistake, he was eagerly awaiting the collapse of Iraq as
the UN Sanctions drug into their fourth year. The timbers of Saddam's
regime were audibly creaking under the weight and corruption by 2003.
The only thing keeping Saddam afloat was the heavy financial investment
in Iraqi oil development, his greatest benefactor being Beijing.
Followed closely by Russia, France and Germany. Since 1999 they had
pumped about $34 billion into his coffers, not including the money he
acquired through the Oil for Food fiasco.
But the best thing Saddam had going for him was his rapprochement with
Hafiz al-Asad. He formed an agreement (1997), that took full effect
after Asad's death, for the para-sanctions pipeline between Syria and
Iraq. This may have been his purpose in instigating sweeping religious
reforms in Iraq in 1995. After that time, it would be incorrect to
think of Iraq as a secular government--even Ba'athist Party meetings
"were interrupted for payers."
Syria is the primary strategic ally to Iran (Besides Beijing), and to
facilitate such, al-Asad claimed to be from a tribe that has Shi'ite
roots. The Iranian relationship to Damascus was so important to al-Asad
that he had sided against Iraq during the war. This was a sore point
with Iraq for a long time after the war. But, once UNSC Res 687 had
taken its toll on his regime, he saw the need for burying the hatchet.
He made peace with al-Asad.
After he settled the long standing differences with Damascus, Saddam
made a great effort at rapprochement with Iran, as well. How successful
he was, or might have become, is entirely moot today--all because of
OP: IF. Albeit, he felt confident enough that in the summer of '02,
when OP: IF was quickly becoming a certainty, he attempted to buy some
Shahab III missiles from Tehran. Khamene'i demurred, since he too knew
that OP: IF was a done deal.
But Khamene'i stood to achieve his goals. either through rapprochement,
or through waiting until Saddam fell from power. Once Hussein's crazy
sons took over, Tehran would certainly win Iraq.
All this was known to the Bush administration when they made the
decision to invade Iraq.
So, the short and the long answer to your question is:
Yes, Operation: Iraqi Freedom was launched with the goal of freeing the
Iraqi Shi'ites.
As the name "subtly" implies.
>
>> All they can do to address that fact is to kill. Mostly pointlessly.
>> Early on the Iranians took a direct hand by blowing the shit out of
>> their main opposition in Iraq (al-Haikim and al-Khoi, for
>> instance)--leaving the impression that they are in control.
>>
>> And, while they may control much of the insurgency, they control not a
>> square inch of Iraq.
>
> I think you exaggerate here.
>
> How many square miles do we control?
It's listed in the almanacs in kilometers:
437,072.
Anbar Provence and Sadr City are problematical because of the militias.
But let's get serious: The One Oh One and the First Marines go wherever
the fuck they WANNA go.
>
>>> Now, how do you plan to win? Be specific. I have not seen
>>> *one* plan that gives us a realistic chance.
>>
>> Iran is a close as she's ever been to collapse since the '79
>> Revolution. It may take years yet, but it might never happen if the US
>> doesn't continue to engage her in places like Iraq.
>
> It might never happen at all. We are not having much of an effect on
> Iran by our presence in Iraq. We can barely control the green zone.
In the fucking press, dummy. But the fucking press doesn't care what's
happening in Iran.
They're content to go along with the fiction that Ahmadinejad is the
head of the Islamic Republic of Iran, when he is nothing more than an
agent of and mouthpiece for Ali Khamene'i (who decided that he could be
"elected" in the first place).
>From January to June of last year, Tehran never issued a single
paycheck to its transit workers (All municipal workers are State
employees in Iran's largely state-run economy). There was a riot by
these workers late last summer that had to be broken up by Iranian
militias which are controlled by the Qods Force. Mine workers had
similar problems, and evidently several were shot while attempting to
strike (Allah forbid they strike to receive their fucking paychecks).
Even $70.00 barrels aren't enough to save that inefficient system set
up and controlled by the Mullahs.
There are demonstrations, strikes and riots all over Iran on a fairly
constant basis.
Largely unreported in the press.
>
>> If you are going to address the Global Jihad, you have to defeat Iran,
>> and there is no practical way of confronting Iran directly.
>>
>> This was known long before 9/11.
>
> Sure, that much we agree on.
Then you must be aware that 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers traveled
through Iran on their way to the US? And that Iranian Republican
Revolutionary Guards stamped their passports in a special way so that
they couldn't be detained as they traveled through the county? And you
must be aware that Hizbullah is known to have been watching for their
arrival in Iran at the time?
Sure you did, because all of that is covered in the 9-11 Commission
Report.
It seems that Tehran must have fully aware of the impending 9/11
attacks on the United States.
Perhaps you've also read Timmerman's book, or you've discovered on the
net that:
On July 26th 2001, a man named Reza Zakeri walked into the CIA station
in Azerbaijan. He claimed to be a senior security officer with Iran's
MOIS, Section 110. He suspected that he had fallen out of favor with
MOIS Ministry Officials and wished to defect. In the next few days of
his debriefing at a CIA safe house in the area, he claimed to have
knowledge of an impending attack by Iranian terrorists who had been
trained as pilots and were heading to the United States to hijack and
fly commercial airliners into American targets.
Which targets?
In a basement office at MOIS headquarters, he said, were blown up
pictures of the World Trade Center, the White House, and scale models
of the the Capitol, the Pentagon, and Camp David. When were these
attacks supposed to take place? 20 Shahrivar he said. The CIA
translator mis-translated this to September 10. But the mistake was
later corrected: September 11.
As head of security for MOIS operations, it was his job to set up
security arrangements for a meeting with Sa'ad Bin Laden and Hashemi
Rafsanjani, and another between Bin Laden's son and the Supreme Leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Several meetings took place during the year preceding the 9/11 attacks.
And sometimes, according to Zakeri, included Ayman al Zawahiri,
considered a co-founder of so-called "al-Qaeda."
For whatever reasons, CIA admits that the meetings with Zakeri took
place in Azerbaijan, but they dismiss(ed) him as an unreliable
informant. He failed his polygraph test, for instance.
Or perhaps you're aware that after Operation: Enduring Freedom, as many
as 3,000 "al-Qaeda" escaped into Iran. And that Iran has variously
denied and then confirmed their presence?
Or that it has been reported that Sa'ad bin Laden is, or was, a guest
in Tehran. And that is it believed that he supervised "al-Qaeda"
attacks on Saudi Arabia (2002-2004) from there?
And that it is also reported that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri
are said to be also hiding inside Iran?
>
>> In the Cold War, there was no "exit strategy," of course.
>
> It was not a war of choice, either.
This was not a war of choice either, Cochise.
>
>> The strategy was engagement.
>>
>> It was understood that the idea was to defeat the enemy by attrition.
>> Thereby achieving a default victory.
>
> And how can the enemy in Iraq be defeated? Attrition will not work. I
> was hoping someone would have something concrete.
Attrition will DEFINITELY work.
It's the United States VS Iran, for crying out loud.
Why is it always assumed that only America can lose?
>
>> A default victory can be as good as any victory.
>
> I don't see how there is *any* default victory to be achieved here. The
> only way we come out of this smelling good is if Iraq becomes a secular
> Democracy. We can avoid *some* of the worst stink if Iraq ends up a
> stable democratic, but Islamic, state. That does not appear likely
> either, and still no one has set forth *any* plan for which this is a
> believable outcome.
A "secular democracy" in Iraq is, and always was, out of the question,
I'm afraid.
>
> Seriously, NL, can you proffer *anything* that might work to assure a
> stable democratic Iraq?
Read up, and we'll talk again sometime.
--
NeoLibertarian
