I didn’t thought that will ever happen even in my dreams but it is, the biggest American Allie in the ME are criticizing the US and it’s policy in Iraq.
US policy handing Iraq over to Iran: Riyadh
US policy in Iraq is widening sectarian divisions to the point of effectively handing the country to Iran, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal has said.
I thought the “collaborators” in Iraq were America’s biggest allies in the M.E. Or the Jooz in Israel.
Pingback: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Iraq: American Policy in Iraq
Nothing like a bit of contructive criticism.
Other than supporting elections and the establishment of a democratic government, I’m not sure what else he wants us to do specifically.
Did I miss something?
I think it might be more practical if the Saudis put pressure on their sunni brethren in Iraq to participate in the democratic process that is shaping their future. Their interests will be better represented, and provide more balance against the pro-Iranian groups, if they were to actually participate in the physical and political rebuilding of the country.
If they remain on the outside, and continue to provoke violence against the majority in Iraq, they will continue to polarize the country.
The thing I’ve gleaned from Al Faisal’s comments is that Saudi Arabia is still playing power politics in Iraq…the same way the US did in 1991 when it chose not to depose Saddam and chose not to support the Shi’a rebellion lest Iraq be broken up and Iran become the regional power. Saudi Arabia is concerned with the weak influence of its natural allies the Sunni Arabs and the waxing power of the Shi’a (whom it thinks will be most inclined to Iran).
The thing is that there are as many Saudis (at least) entering Iraq to “fight the infidel” as there are Iranian stooges in SCIRI (to whom I suppose the Minister is referring when he says Iran “pays money … install their own people (and) even establish police forces and arm the militias that are there”).
Fighting Iranian influence is a problem, but fighting Saudi and Syrian influence has been frankly the bigger problem over the last 2 years.
If the Sunni Arabs keep choosing to tolerate supporters of the insurgents in their midsts, my greatest fear is not a breakup of the country, but that we will start seeing ethnic cleansing of Sunnis by the Kurds and Shi’a who will get sick of the continuing violence.
If the Sunni Arabs participate in the next election to the degree it appears they might, then SCIRI’s influence will be weakened. I suspect its influence will be weakened anyway as many Shi’a are none too happy with the way Muqti’s goons and the Basra Brigade had been behaving. But if the Sunni’s react to not getting everything they want in the next election, there will be trouble…not for the US or the Shi’a or the Kurds or Iran or Saudi Arabia.…trouble for the Iraqi Sunni Arabs.
But for Saudi Arabia, the people they should be complaining to are the Palestinians in the West Bank/Jordan and the Syrians–that is, the SUNNIs in other countries. Iran’s attempts to influence Iraqi politics is a surface issue and will be debilitated by freedom of speech and press.
Iran has its own internal problems right now with the Kurds and Baluchs who want various things and Persian young people who would like to not live in the 17th century. Faisal is worried about Iranian influence in Iraq? What about the influence of a democratic Iraq in Saudi Arabia and Iran?
CMAR 2 –
That’s a fairly interesting post, as far as CMAR2’s posts go. I happen to broadly agree with a lot of the facts as he has stated them.
You do, CMAR2, leave out the role of the US at the moment, and the fact that roughly 80% of Iraqis don’t want the US in Iraq on a permanent basis. Nationalist Sunnis and Shia (like Sadr) certainly don’t. And people like Sistani and SCIRI don’t either. They are using the US as a tool in their fight against the nationalists, until their own capabilities are up to the task. Don’t confuse their support with genuine well – meaning.
You greatly underestimate the ability of Iran to influence Dawa and SCIRI, parties that were forged IN IRAN to fight against Hussein. Their ties are deep, and really, you are just fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Why, the last trip Hakim took to Iran included a stop to Khomenei’s grave, so that he could pay his respects.
I believed that the influence of that total imbecile that you have as a president would have been debilitated by a free press. Boy, was I *ever* wrong. If anything, the press facilitated his grip on power.
Militarily you are wrong as well.
The Sunnis are the real fighters. I don’t doubt that the Shia could eventually be whipped into a fighting force, but as it stands right now, if the US were to leave, and Ifb the SCIRI / Dawa Shia wanted to press the issue – the ‘Sunnis’ would make mincemeat out of them. On the other hand, by using the US as proxy in the meantime, and consolidating their strength, the SCIRI types might be able to make a contest of it in the future.
The Kurds are a different proposition. They are also a bunch of tough bastards, but they are unlikely to do much in a civil war. Why? Well, Kirkuk apart, they have few interests in the rest of Iraq. My guess is that they would march on back to Northern Iraq or Kurdistan, as you like it, and prepare to deal with the problems that would rumble over from the Turkish border. Or, in a better scenario, eat pistachios in the shade while the Arab Iraqis fight it out. The reason they are together with the US at the moment is because they think that they will achieve their independent state this way. Otherwise, they simply have no interest in the rest of Iraq.
As long as the US continues influencing the events on the ground in Iraq, the ‘political process’ is a sham and merely serves to rubber stamp the aims of the Americans. Of course, now that Hussein is gone, the door has been opened in the long run for the Iranians to tinker with things as well.
Joy.
You do, CMAR2, leave out the role of the US at the moment, and the fact that roughly 80% of Iraqis don’t want the US in Iraq on a permanent basis.
Then they are in agreement with the Americans. As you have pointed out in the past the US is there because it is in their interest…they have to be. Except for the troublemakers, I don’t think the Iraqis want the Americans out more the the Americans do.
You greatly underestimate the ability of Iran to influence Dawa and SCIRI
No I don’t. I believe they will see their power erode for that very reason (or they will publically separate themselves from Iraq).
I believed that the influence of that total imbecile that you have as a president would have been debilitated by a free press.
Perhaps then you ought reassess Bush rather than the power of a free press?
The Sunnis are the real fighters…the ‘Sunnis’ would make mincemeat out of them.
No. Your wrong about that. The Sunni Arab terrorists have made a big bang by simply by having no conscience. Sistani’s influence cannot be underestimated in this case. He has used his considerable influence among the Shi’a to prevent massive reprisals (Basra is an exception). The Sunni Arabs are outnumbered 3–1 by the Shi’a. The Shi’a are beginning to gain a firm control of military and police force (because the Sunni have not participated). Nope. If it comes to that. The Sunni Arabs will take the worst of it.
The Kurds…
Wrong again. The Kurds are staying part of Iraq because it is most in their interest considering the hazards of going it on their own. They have serious interests in Mosul and Kirkuk which are also large Sunni populations and will never be safe if the are still hostile. So they will work with the Shi’a Arabs to kick the Sunni Arabs’ collective butts if it comes down to that. (Consider also that the Sunni terrorists likely do not have the sympathy of 50% of the Sunni Arabs)
As long as the US continues influencing the events on the ground in Iraq, the ‘political process’ is a sham and merely serves to rubber stamp the aims of the Americans. Of course, now that Hussein is gone, the door has been opened in the long run for the Iranians to tinker with things as well.
Hmm..nice. You’ve managed to carve out a position where you can have it both ways. If the Iraqi government votes to do something the US likes, then it’s a puppet. If it does something the US doesn’t like, the US has “lost control”. Meanwhile, you can cover your eyes to the obvious democracy being practiced there.
cmar -
Not really. The alliance between the SCIRI types and the US is temporary at best. In the long run you’re screwed. In the meanwhile, they do just enough to keep the Americans and the guerillas at each other’s throats. If the SCIRI Shia were strong enough to fight the insurgents on their own, they would tell the US to take a hike.
Numbers isn’t everything in warfare. To think so is terribly naive. By your rationale, Iraq should have lost against Iran, which has 4 times the population … yet it won.
I’m off for the weekend. I’m afraid the rest of your spanking will have to wait till Monday ;)
Numbers isn’t everything in warfare. To think so is terribly naive. By your rationale, Iraq should have lost against Iran, which has 4 times the population … yet it won.
Saddam had a large, reasonably well-supplied military. Iran did not. It was also engaged in a two-front war against its own internal uprisings and religious crackdowns. Do you really believe the Zarqawiists and Ba’athists have that advantage over the Iraqi military today? The only thing they’ve shown to be better supplied in so far is ruthlessness.
Oops! I said:
No I don’t. I believe they will see their power erode for that very reason (or they will publically separate themselves from Iraq).
I meant “publically separate themselves from Iran”
Training, weapons, and motivation are force multipliers.
The civilian casualties in an Iraqi civil war based on ethnic divisions would be atrocious. It would be a conflict of brutal ethnic cleansing.
I agree in part. Most alliances are temporary. We helped the Soviets in the early ‘40s, and opposed them in the late ’40’s and beyond. Reverse for Germans. How hypocritical — eh?
Of course if democracy does not lead to any stability or prosperity, the mullah types will continue receive support, even if the poeple chafe under the yoke. If security/economy improves, the chafing will become less tolerable and voila — elections!
There are plenty of moderates in the south who did not vote last time, and aren’t pleased with what they see as Iranian backed militia domination.
The mullahs numbers will recede. Sunni political participation will further decrease their government influence.
bruno the pensive monkey
“bruno the pensive monkey”
There is always one prick in the crowd to interupt the most enlightening discussion I’ve read on here in a long time. Now go away and let the adults talk.
I’ll agree with that Jon, That’s the best that I’ve ever read on this blog. I’ve never taken anything to seriously on this blog, but that’s some damn good discussion going on there. I’m not going to ruin the mood here…
Good work guys! :-)
Pingback: NewsTrolls ~ NewsTrolls Threads Community