Who is the Muslim Brotherhood? Why it matters.

28 January 2007
What will Happen if the Muslim Brotherhood Takes Control of Palestine?
Dr. Mamoun Fandy, Asharq al-Awsat (translated by MEMRI) Judeoscope

Scholar and Columnist Dr. Mamoun Fandy: ’If the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e., Hamas Wins in Palestine - They Will Set the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at the Top of Egypt’s Political Pyramid’

In an article in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, titled "What will Happen if the Muslim Brotherhood Takes Control of Palestine?", Egyptian-born scholar and columnist Dr. Mamoun Fandy [1] writes about the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt and Syria. [2] According to Dr. Fandy, the rise to power of Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The following are excerpts from the article:

"Palestine, as a Symbol, Remained the Monopoly of Arab Nationalism - Until Hamas Came to Power"

"Israel occupied and is still occupying the land of Palestine. Nevertheless, Palestine, in the symbolic sense, remained the monopoly of Arab nationalism - until the Hamas movement came to power. After the rise of Hamas - which, it must not be forgotten, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood organization - the terms of the discussion on the [Palestinian] problem changed from pan-Arab nationalist terms to religious terms, in the Muslim Brotherhood version [of the religion].

"The struggle today has become a struggle over who will capture Palestine as a symbol - the Muslim Brotherhood, as represented by Hamas, or the nationalists, as represented by Fatah. The struggle for the liberation of Palestine as a territory has dropped to second place: [It has become less important than] the struggle to liberate the symbolic Palestine from the [control of the] pan-Arab nationalists and transfer it - this holy of holies of Arab politics - to the Muslim Brotherhood.

"What, in effect, is the significance of the Muslim Brotherhood’s conquest of Palestine as a symbol?

"For 50 years, the Arab people gathered behind the nationalist [pan-Arab] slogan ’No voice is louder than the voice of war’ - [which refers to] the use of external [issues, such as the struggle against external enemies] - for defending the domestic [that is, for the defense of the regime at home]. In addition, [during] these 50 years, the Arab governments were extorted by some Palestinian leaders, who exported the Palestinian tragedy to [those government] in order to incite their peoples."

"Giving a Religious Character to the Palestinian Problem Will Transform It from a Resolvable Territorial Struggle to a Religious Struggle That Cannot Be Resolved"

"At that time, the incitement was nationalist [in character], while today - after the Muslim Brotherhood has conquered a significant part of the symbolic Palestine - the incitement has become Islamist, and the domestic has become commingled with the external. This is because the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological discourse is not based on the separation of the domestic and the external; this is because their ideology transcends the borders of [particular Arab] states. Hasn’t the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that he had no objection to having [even] a Malaysian Muslim rule Egypt, as long as it was not ruled by a Coptic Egyptian? Likewise, the Muslim Brotherhood conquest of the symbolic Palestine means giving the [Palestinian] problem a religious character - and herein lies the danger.

"First of all, giving the Palestinian problem a religious character will lead to a Malaysian Muslim having more rights in Palestine than a Christian Palestinian. Likewise, it will transform [the Palestinian problem] from a resolvable territorial struggle into a religious struggle that cannot be resolved... With regard to the regional level, I would like to explain why giving the Palestinian problem a religious character is dangerous for two important countries in the Arab world, [namely] Egypt and Syria."

"Whoever Reads the Egyptian Press Today Cannot But Notice that Egypt is Living in the Muslim Brotherhood Era"

"The success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine means turmoil in Egypt. Egypt is today witnessing a fierce battle pitched between the ruling National [Democratic] Party and the banned Muslim Brotherhood party, and it appears that the battle is going to the Muslim Brotherhood. In light of the storm of responses to Egyptian Culture Minister Farouq Hosni’s statements about the hijab, [3] it became clear that [the number of] Muslim Brotherhood [supporters] inside the National Party might be greater than [the number of] members in the banned [Muslim Brotherhood] organization [itself], and that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated into all Egypt’s state apparatuses.

"The Egyptian press is perhaps the best reflection of this infiltration: The front and back pages of Egypt’s government papers belong to the ruling party, while the 20 inside pages of every paper belong to the Muslim Brotherhood - and they do what they want with them, [via] their correspondents, theoreticians, and propagandists. Whoever reads the Egyptian press today cannot but notice that Egypt is living in the Muslim Brotherhood era."

"The Muslim Brotherhood Has Taken Over Egypt’s Domestic Arena"

"As was clarified to me by a member of the National Party, ’There is [only] one party in Egypt, and that is the Muslim Brotherhood.’ For more than 30 years, the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining control over Egypt’s domestic arena, its streets, its institutions, and its press, and nothing stands between it and [full] control, except for foreign issues, the first of which is the Palestinian problem. If the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine [i.e. Hamas] wins, they will set the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at the top of Egypt’s political pyramid; when [Hamas leader, Palestinian Prime Minister] Isma’il Haniya comes to Egypt, he will go to the Cairo branch of the Muslim Brotherhood offices, instead of meeting with the senior officials of the Egyptian state. Likewise, we will hear Haniya defending from Gaza the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, bestowing upon them the legitimacy of the Palestinian problem - which in the Arab mentality is above all criticism."

"Syria is a Candidate for Takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood"

"Syria particularly is a candidate for takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood. The legitimacy of the ruling secular Ba’th party in Damascus is supported by two Islamist crutches: Shi’ite and Sunni. The first is embodied by Hizbullah. (In a way unprecedented in the history of Syria during the era of Assad Sr. and Assad Jr., Syrians today wave the picture of Hassan Nasrallah along with that of their president.) The second crutch is the Hamas movement, represented by [movement] leader Khaled Mash’al, who resides in Damascus.

"If the Palestinian problem is given a religious character, in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideas, Assad will lose both of these crutches. He may fall, and Syria will fall with him, into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, who went through blood-soaked periods during the era of Assad Sr., and who doubtlessly aspire [to capture power] in Damascus. Perhaps today the Syrian regime is gaining tactical advantages by means of Khaled Mash’al, but these [same advantages] may, in the short or medium term, [end up being] a reason for its collapse."

"Al-Jazeera is the Channel of the Muslim Brotherhood"

"The Muslim Brotherhood has at its disposal trans-border media, from newspapers to satellite channels, which have taken over the minds of millions - not only in Egypt and Syria, but throughout the entire Arab world. These are media that are tried and [ideologically] guided, that level accusations of heresy and treason against those who disagree with them...

"’[Al-Jazeera] is the channel of the Muslim Brotherhood," said Muhammad Dahlan, a sworn Fatah man, as he described Al-Jazeera TV, which is today incontestably the biggest Arab news channel. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over the symbolic Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood channel [formerly Al-Jazeera] will serve as a propaganda outlet for the new religious symbolism of the Palestinian problem.

"Al-Jazeera wastes no time, and it is already propagandizing for [Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader] Mahdi ’Akef and the [Muslim Brotherhood] organization, at the expense of the Egyptian state; for [Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader Ali Sadr Al-Din] Al-Baynouni and his party, at the expense of the Syrian state; and for the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria at the expense of the Algerian state. If you watch a debate program presented on [Al-Jazeera] by a [certain] non-Muslim host, you will be amazed at the supreme effort he makes to defend the Muslim Brotherhood, and you’ll think that by the time the program is over, he will be reciting the Muslim oath of allegiance. [4]

"The Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the symbolic Palestine will not liberate the land of Palestine - not before the Muslim Brotherhood subjugates the entire Arab world to its rule. The Muslim Brotherhood prefers to eliminate the nearby enemy [the existing Arab states] in order to prepare the means for facing the distant enemy [Israel]..."

Judeoscope is a collaborative space open to all whatever their ethnicity or religion. To submit news, articles and announcements, write us at contact@judeoscope.ca. Judeoscope gives preference to papers written in English and French but will consider texts in Spanish, German, and Hebrew.

Hilary on stage. The last act of the Boomers?

A long wave running, rose from the post war mid-nineteen-forties and crashed through every aspect of the American culture.

It is a time far enough away, that it is now necessary to explain which war, but a post-war generation of a mostly rural country one hundred and fifty million now is cresting to a population of three hundred million.

It has been a generation of change, much of its own making and much by chance. The Boomer generation last agreed on "what, who and why", when the oldest of them were still in high school.

They have gone from graduation to retirement, deeply split and divided by acrimony, politics, religion and culture.

Hilary Clinton is the iconic Boomer, representing all that defines unites and divides them, and nothing unites them more than the spotlight, center stage, large big and brash.

The Boomers in a climax of blues, could never quite get it right. They may not still. That may be the job of another generation.

It may be smart politics for a Barack Obama to remind a divided nation that the Boomers did not get it together and that job now belongs to those next on deck.

That may be enough of a thought to sober a lot of old stoners.
______________________________________________________________

Boomers get worry lines

By Ellen Goodman, Washington Post
Published January 27, 2007

BOSTON - Somehow I do not think that Barack Obama gets up in the morning, brushes his teeth, looks in the mirror and says, "Wow! A fresh face!" It doesn't happen at 45. At 45, you count the crow's feet and measure the circles under your eyes.

While you are inspecting your not-so-fresh face, you remember that when Mozart was your age he'd been dead 10 years. Albert Einstein published the big theory of relativity at 36. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence at 33.

I say this to add a dose of reality to the chatter about the man slated to announce his candidacy for president on Feb. 10. Obama is indeed this year's designated "fresh face." But on the flip side, those who are not questioning whether the Illinois senator is too black to be president are asking whether he is too green.

That's not green as in tree-hugging. That's green as in inexperienced and/or young. Even his little daughter once asked, "Are you going to try to be president? Shouldn't you be the vice president first?"

The last time age was a presidential issue, you may recall, was when Ronald Reagan was running against Walter Mondale. The 73-year-old Reagan quipped, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." Obama has his own retort ready for anyone who asks about his political resume: "Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience."

But I find it bewildering to hear so many Americans worrying that a man who is middle-aged, by any demographic measure, might be too young. The question - "how green is Obama?" - may say less about the senator's youth than the country's age.

In 1960, the average age of Americans was 29. Today it's 36 and climbing. In 1960, the life expectancy was 69. Now it's 77. More to the point, the baby-boomer generation that is forever setting the agenda has begun turning 60.

Most of the green-talk is indeed from boomers. Is it possible that the same generation that famously didn't trust anybody over 30 when they were 20 doesn't trust anybody under 50 now that they are turning 60?

One of the charms of the boomers is how they are managing to age without getting old. My favorite factoid comes from a Yankelovich study showing that boomers define "old age" as starting three years after the average American is dead.

But the side effect of feeling forever young is that boomers may regard their juniors as perennially too young. It's seen in the generational lament about the adult children who can't get launched. It's also seen in the boomers' defense of their primary place in the pecking order.

Remember, the average age of the Senate is 62. That's when you round out 89-year-old Robert Byrd and 42-year-old John Sununu. If the Senate is clogged with incumbents, consider the Ivy League. The Harvard faculty has more tenured professors over 60 than under 50.

Obama was technically born at the tail end of the boom, but places himself politically outside the "psychodrama of the baby-boom generation" which he describes as "a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago." The "new generation" of network anchors leading the green-talk - Brian, 47; Katie, 50; and Charles, 63 - are all older.

Well, it's a shock when the people you went to high school with start ruling the world. It's another rite of passage to acknowledge juniors as your superiors. But boomers are now turning 60 with a life expectancy of 82. It's an early sign of memory loss to forget that at 45 you were wise or foolish, or both - but you weren't young.

That master of the last word, Oscar Wilde, said, "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." He figured that out at 39.

An Escalation in Middle East Intrigue - wu wei

This was posted by Wu Wei on the previous thread:

If this article is true, it would be the most important step in the War on Terror since going into Iraq.

The article is a week old and from a supposedly "nonpartisan" magazine. It focuses on Bush's new Iran policy, but part of that is something even more important. The article claims that all the players, including Israel, the Saudis and the US(?), have taken sides in the Sunni / Shiite conflict. So if this is true, and the alliance is as solid as the article claims, we may have moved into a World War III like situation where various nations are lining up against each other.

There is good and bad news.

The bad news is that some in the Administration are saying that our raids have not yet find the evidence against Iran which we expected.

Contrary to some initial reports that American troops had found damning maps and documents on the detained Iranians, some U.S. government sources indicate that the Hakim raid did not produce definitive proof of Iranian involvement in supplying Iraqi militants. "They are trying to walk this back," one U.S. official said. "There are no smoking guns about Iran in Iraq," said another knowledgeable U.S. source. "That's the problem. Sort of like the WMD."

The good news is they confirm that Bush IS getting tougher on Iran.

U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified, say that the Iran policy has expanded from focusing chiefly on Iran's nuclear ambitions to challenging Tehran's suspected misbehavior across the Middle East. Indeed, one source said succinctly that the new policy is geared to "confront Iran in every way but direct armed conflict, using all means short of war." ...

Under the new policy, the United States will aggressively seek to expose and confront Iranian networks thought to be supplying radical proxies in Iraq, U.S. sources involved with the policy said. In addition, the U.S. is doubling its naval power in the Persian Gulf, considering covert ways to counter Hezbollah in Lebanon, and sending Patriot missiles to jittery allies in the Gulf. Bush administration officials are "projecting a lot of confrontation with Iran," says one American source privy to the administration's Iran policy debate who asked not to be further identified. "But they don't mean to signal war. They don't mean war. It's war by other means.

Controversial, but good news IMO, is them saying "confront Iran in every way but direct armed conflict, using all means short of war... It's war by other means" Maybe Bush has finally realized there are other ways to fight besides invasion & occupation, the same ways our enemies like Iran use.

The other good news, and one of the "other means", is that the Saudis supposedly are so scared of the Iranians that they have switched sides. In fact the article even talks about the emerging Washington-Saudi-Sunni-Israeli alliance with Jordan and Egypt also included. Some evidence:

Clawson cited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's very positive public reference about the Saudi role in helping to promote peace. "It was extraordinarily unusual for an Israeli prime minister to refer to three helpful countries" -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. "That was no accident. It was carefully worked out language." The Israeli media recently reported speculation about a rare meeting between Israeli and Saudi officials.

Dick Cheney's Christmas flight to Saudi Arabia sounds like part of this. The Saudis are already taking action, according to the article, in fact the Saudis are said to be the one secretly supporting Fatah in the civil war in Palestine!

Among the steps the Saudis now appear ready to take, according to Clawson, is to significantly fund Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has faced an upsurge in intra-Palestinian violence incited by Hamas, which is supported by Syria and Iran.
Here is more about the alliance

The first is the emergence of a Saudi-led coalition of Sunni Arab governments, plus Israel, all of which are alarmed at Iran's flexing of power in the region and, in particular, at Tehran-backed Hezbollah's efforts to bring down the government in Lebanon. In addition, this loose coalition fears Iran's possible role in supporting militant proxy groups that threaten to destabilize other countries, specifically Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Shiite groups in the Gulf States, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

"Did I say something wrong Ollie?" Kerry at Davos.

Kerry says US ‘a sort of international pariah’

DAVOS: Massachusetts Senator John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become “a sort of international pariah.”

The statement came as the Democrat lawmaker responded to a question about whether the US government had failed to adequately engage Iran’s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues, speaking during a World Economic Forum panel discussion that also included Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s more moderate predecessor as Iranian president. “When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said. “So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East _ in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”

Protests on the Washington Mall Sponsored By...

United for Peace and Justice is the chief sponsor and organizer of the Washington protests.

From FrontPagemag.com:

United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) is an anti-war coalition consisting of more than 1,300 local and national groups joined together "to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our [American] government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building." The coalition's Unity Statement denounces "the 'pre-emptive' wars of aggression waged by the Bush administration" in its "drive to expand U.S. control over other nations and strip us of our rights at home under the cover of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy."

In an effort to diminish the potential calamities that might result from what UFPJ characterizes as America's aggressive pursuit of world domination, the coalition has launched a Nuclear Disarmament Campaign. "The world," it says, "is destined to find itself in a state of perpetual war so long as the United States maintains its bloated nuclear arsenal. Nuclear disarmament must become a core issue on the global peace movement's agenda."

UFPJ was officially created on October 25, 2002 in the Washington, DC offices of People For the American Way. Its initial membership consisted of approximately 70 organizations. Prior to UFPJ's founding, the anti-war movement had earned a reputation as a hodgepodge of radical elements. All the large-scale peace demonstrations to that point had been held under the auspices of International ANSWER, an organization aligned with the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party; Global Exchange, headed by the longtime pro-Castro communist Medea Benjamin; and Not In Our Name, a project organized by Ramsey Clark and fellow leaders of the Revolutionary Communist Party. United For Peace and Justice was created explicitly to put a milder face on the anti-war movement, although from its inception UFPJ shared with the aforementioned groups a passionate hatred for the United States and for capitalism.

The Co-Chair and principal leader of UFPJ is Leslie Cagan, an original founder of the Committees of Correspondence (a remnant organization created by the American Communist Party upon going out of business) and a strong supporter of Fidel Castro since the 1960s; Cagan proudly aligns her politics with those of Communist Cuba.

Unrelenting Criticism and Self-Doubt

Here's a good read from the Wall Street Journal; something to think about.

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat - Profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

From Henniger, some of the reasons:

• Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.

• The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.

• The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.

• The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

---

Unrelenting criticism and self-doubt. It's killing us.

The Guardian interview of a Shia death squad leader

'If they pay we kill them anyway' - the kidnapper's story


In the second of two remarkable dispatches from behind Baghdad's front lines, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad meets the commander of a Shia death squad

Saturday January 27, 2007
The Guardian

Fadhel is a slim, well-muscled 26-year-old Mahdi Army commander with a thin goatee beard and smoothed down hair that looks like a flat cap. One day last month he described how he and his men seized a group of three Sunni men suspected of killing his fellow Shia. "I followed the group for weeks and then one of them crossed the bridge to Karrada [a Shia district]. We first informed a nearby Iraqi army checkpoint that we were arresting terrorists then we attacked them and put them in the boots of the cars. We only have six to seven minutes when we grab someone - we have to act quickly, if he resists we shoot him."
In this case, he said, the men were taken to Sadr City, the Shia slum to the north-east of Baghdad, where they were interrogated by a "committee" which ordered their execution. "We ask the families of the terrorists for ransom money," said Fadhel. "And after they pay the ransom we kill them anyway."

Kidnapping in Baghdad these days is as much about economics as retribution or sectarian hatred. Another Shia man close to the Mahdi Army told me: "They kidnap 10 Sunnis, they get ransom on five, and kill them all, in each big kidnap operation they make at least $50 000, it's the best business in Baghdad."

One day as we chatted in a small squatters' community to the east of Baghdad, Fadhel showed me his badge - a square laminated card that identified him as a "Amer Faseel" or "platoon commander" in charge of a unit of around 35 fighters. He is particularly valuable to the Shia militia because he grew up in a predominantly Sunni area south of Baghdad and still has an ID card registered in the Sunni town of Yossufiya. "I can speak in their accent, so I can come and go to Sunni areas without anyone knowing that I am a Shia."

It was these qualifications plus his military experience - he was a corporal in the Iraqi military police - that earned Fadhel the role of commanding a "strike unit". His main job is kidnapping Sunnis allegedly involved in attacking Shia areas. It is men like Fadhel, responsible for the scores of bodies dumped on Baghdad's streets daily, whom the US troops pouring into Baghdad will have to bring under control if they are to have any hope of quelling the city's civil war.

Fadhel is also called Sayed, a title given to men who descend from the Prophet Muhammad. Over glasses of hot sweet tea, he told me how his family of farmers, originally from the Shia stronghold of Najaf, had resettled in the 70s in the heart of the Sunni area south of Baghdad where he went to school with Sunni and Shia kids.

A year after Baghdad fell, his family had to move again; the area had become a hub for Sunni extremists who started evicting Shia families a year earlier than their comrades in Baghdad. After a neighbouring Shia farmer was killed they packed up and moved to Baghdad: "We had 15 donums of the best land, I was born there and worked there all my life. They told us you Shia are not from here, go away."

Fadhel and his family found themselves in the squatters' compound in east Baghdad. He and his brother joined the Mahdi Army and fought against the Americans in Sadr City and Karbala. Now he lives in a small rented flat in Dora, once a mixed Sunni area but now one of the main battle fronts in this sectarian war. To gather intelligence, he set out to make Sunni friends: "I live with them, pray like them, I even insult the imams and the Mahdi Army."

Fadhel and other Mahdi Army commanders describe an intimate relationship with Iraqi security services, especially the commandos of the Iraqi interior ministry. He says the Mahdi Army often uses these official forces in conducting its own operations against Sunni "terrorists".

"We have specific units that we work with where members of the Mahdi Army are in command. We conduct operations together. We can't ask any army unit to come with us, we just ask the units that are under the control of our men.

"The police are all under our control, we ask them to help or inform them that shooting will take place in a street and it involves the Mahdi Army, and that's it."

In one operation Fadhel took part in last summer, Iraqi interior ministry commandos attacked a Sunni area in Dora called "Arab Jubour". The raid involved 28 pickup trucks, he told me. Of them 16 were ministry of interior, the rest Mahdi Army.

The new Bush plan to secure Baghdad gives a major role to the Iraqi army and police units in securing Baghdad. Few in the city expect that these predominantly Shia forces will seriously challenge their fellow Shia.

As the discussions for the new security plan were continuing, an Iraqi Shia official who belongs to another party told me: "We know that Moqtada [al-Sadr] and his men are responsible for all this mess but what can we do? We can't attack them, we can only talk to them. Its like having a mentally ill relative - you can't just throw him in the street."

Fadhel and other Mahdi army officers also describe a complex relationship with Iraq's Shia neighbour. Iran, which backs a rival Shia faction to the Mahdi Army, secured a PR success when Mr Sadr upon his arrival in Tehran last year announced that the Mahdi Army would defend Iran if attacked by the US. One Mahdi Army commander told me: "The Iranians are helping us not because they like us, but because they hate the US."

The help comes in different forms. "We get weapons from them, mortar shells, RPG rounds, sometimes they give us weapons for free sometimes we have to buy. Depends on who is doing the deal," said the same commander.

Fadhel told me that back in November he escorted a small truck filled with weapons from Kut, on the Iranian border, to Baghdad. "We get the weapons in trucks, we take a letter to the Iraqi army checkpoints and it's all fine."

Like many of their Sunni counterparts, the Mahdi commanders boast that they could wipe out the other sect and gain total control over Baghdad if the US left. "We control most of Baghdad, our main enemy is the Americans," said Fadhel. Then he paused for a second and continued: "Also we can't trust the other Shia factions. Imam Ali says 'God please protect me against my friends and I will take care of my enemies.'"

"How much longer do we have to play Wounded Elephant on the Euphrates?"-Trish

The other night, Trish posed this question. "How much longer do we have to play Wounded Elephant on the Euphrates?" Did the arrogance of the Bush Administration and a misunderstanding of American history doom the venture? Was it ignorance of Iraq and the Middle East and a naive goal? The US people were asked to support a war and I believe they would have, but what kind of war?

The mantra after 911 was the long generational conflict. If the Administration knew that to be true, then they should have known the best way to win a long war was to sequence a linear campaign of demonstrably singular wins. A Roman style destruction of one enemy after another would work just fine. WWII was an example where The US systematically crushed one Japanese held island after another. Enormous losses were tolerated because they were followed with victories. The victories offset early losses and humiliations.

“My way or the highway” pushed potential allies away and events pealed active allies away, one at a time. "Old Europe vs. New Europe" delivered with a gleeful smirk may have been fun, but it established a policy of creating division, reluctance and outright rejection from a growing community opposed to the Bush way and it escalated into outright hatred. Instead of creating forward momentum, which would have brought new allies to the front, the Administration created adversaries. The most glaring example was the dismantling of the Iraqi bureaucracy and the Iraq military.

At one time the Administration estimated that about 400,000 people, mostly military personnel, lost their jobs when Saddam's military apparatus was dissolved in May 2003.

Initial plans for the interim defense force called for bringing about 30,000 Iraqi troops back to active duty. They were drawn from regular army units. This interim defense force was used primarily with coalition joint patrols and border patrols.. In a January 2006 interview between Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor of the Council of Foreign Affairs and L. Paul Bremer we see this surprising exchange:

"In your new book, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope, you’re quite candid about the differences you had with Secretary of Defense [Donald H.] Rumsfeld and the Pentagon leadership over troop levels in Iraq, which you felt were too low. And in May, 2004, just before you departed for home you sent a personal message to Rumsfeld, again saying the troop levels in Iraq were inadequate. The troop levels since then have been about the same and the insurgency still continues. What is the problem with getting more troops into Iraq?
Well, the disagreement here is a view that I had while I was there that our primary responsibility was for law and order. In particular, in the aftermath of the invasion, we had not cracked down on the looting, which set an example on our apparent unwillingness to enforce law and order. On the other side of it, military people in our government argued that, first of all, they believed they had enough forces to accomplish their mission, and secondly, that adding more forces would, in their view, make the situation worse because you’d have more soldiers on the street and in their Abrams tanks. That’s a respectable view but I just don’t happen to agree with it. So, that was the key argument: Do the American troops actually need more troops—and by the way, I never heard a military man while I was there say he needed more troops. And the president had said and still says if they ask for more he will give it to them. So those are the two sides of it.

Since then, the insurgency has continued at the same or higher levels. Of course, now the sovereign Iraq government is in charge and the quality of the Iraqi troops, I guess, will be the deciding factor.
Yes."

The declared mission understood by the Administration was "law and order", and not military victory? Why did they think Americans would accept the role of policing Iraq? That does not sound like a war. That does does not ring in my memory as the stated goal, but to the man responsible on the ground, the goal was to establish law and order. How would that have worked in WWII? The metaphor proposed by Trish may be apt.

24 comments:

1. 
   xxjiangsSat Jan 27, 01:50:00 AM EST

   This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

   ReplyDelete
2. 
   2164thSat Jan 27, 01:58:00 AM EST

   The deletion was a bot advertisement.

   ReplyDelete
3. 
   BarrySat Jan 27, 02:13:00 AM EST

   2164th: Did the arrogance of the Bush Administration and a misunderstanding of American history doom the venture?
   
   That's a two-pronged question, like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The first question implied by your question is "Is the venture doomed?"
   
   If the answer is yes it is doomed, then prolonging the agony is criminal, we're losing at least a soldier a day, and concurrently pointing fingers in a blamestorming session while they die is grotesque.
   
   If the answer is no it is not doomed, and there's a way to salvage the war, and that plan is being put into action, then blamestorming becomes irrelevant, because the players and strategy become completely different. In that event it does nobody any good to blame Rumsfeld or Bremer or Cheney or Wolfowitz or the 2003 force levels or the 2005 rules of engagement.
   
   Only if the war is not doomed to fail, but there is no plan to salvage victory, or there is a victory plan but no motivation or leadership to put it into place, are we at liberty to assign blame. And that blame would rest squarely on the president if he did not present a plan to the American people. He knows all these calculations, and he has crafted a plan. But the majority of the American people believe option A is the case, and that the war is already lost.

   ReplyDelete
4. 
   2164thSat Jan 27, 02:21:00 AM EST

   This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

   ReplyDelete
5. 
   2164thSat Jan 27, 02:22:00 AM EST

   barry, your point is well taken.In 2004 after the election Bush responded to a question from a reporter.
   
   "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."
   
   The same thing applies to credibility.He probably spent most of it and even a good plan may be held hostage to that sad political fact of life.
   
   Welcome to the elephant.

   ReplyDelete
6. 
   rufusSat Jan 27, 03:29:00 AM EST

   You all know that I had my little hissy fit a few weeks, back, so I have to be careful, here; But, I think things are turning around, somewhat.
   
   It may just be a head-fake that Maliki is doing all the right things all of a sudden, and Moqtada, almost definitely, is engaging in "Hudna," and, obviously, Some of the Iraqi troops still aren't worth killing: however, some pretty smart people with knowledge on the ground are saying the we "just might" pull it off.
   
   Some of the Iraqi troops do seem to be performing pretty well, and we have kicked some pretty serious ass in some battles, recently, and the rules of engagement do seem to be being improved. Witnesses say that many "Insurgents" are deserting the "cover" of Baghdad and running for the hills. They WILL be easier to identify and kill in the less populated areas.
   
   Mookie's boys really do seem to be laying low. The Marines do report getting more help from the local Sheiks. Bush is, finally (why he took so long is unfathomable,) starting to stand up to the Iranians.
   
   I don't know; it seems like Americans just have to put themselves into a "Crisis" in order to function. I'm not saying this is "Valley Forge," and we just crossed the Delaware, but, just, maybe, this isn't a good time to be immobilized by despair, either.
   
   We should know more in a few weeks. If Maliki maintains his new-found resolve, and the Iraqi Army "Shows Up" we might be in for a better 07' than we had, 06'.
   
   Here's Hoping.

   ReplyDelete
7. 
   Fellow PeacekeeperSat Jan 27, 04:10:00 AM EST

   A few things :
   
   - This attack wearing US uniforms and english speak terrs really is a worrying indicator. The terrs would have got far more mileage keeping the captured soliders alive and parading them, but in any case it makes day to day operations that much more diffcult as it rachets up the paranoia/security hassle factor across the whole theatre. Well organized, clever, daring, ruthless, disciplined, sophisticated while conceptually simple - reminiscent of some of Shamil Basayev's better coups against Russia in the late 90's. Not good oponents to have. Like Israel against Hezbollah the longer the war drags on the more we train the enemy.
   
   - Another bad sign : Busting those guys for offing civilians under Colonel Michael Steele orders indicates quite strongly that a Roman solution is not in the offing. One of the most agressive, effective and unorthodox commanders was apparently tending towards Roman style ruthless kill-em-all operations. The leadership can stomach bombing a wedding party and killing a bunch of complete innocents along with a possible couple bad guys (After watching some of the AC-130 gun camera videos you gotta wonder), but going in with rifles and killing less innocents but more probable terrs is apparently not acceptable.
   
   Kinder, gentler warfare, where the nominally evil are bloodlessly pulverized by pushbutton but bayonetting the probably guilty is considered barbaric.
   
   No good will come of it all. Flee.

   ReplyDelete
8. 
   2164thSat Jan 27, 04:14:00 AM EST

   It is possible that the Senate Resolution may give the Iraqis some old time religion. They have to start thinking that if the Americans leave it will fall on them anyway.
   
   Maliki may have been sobered by the video of Saddam hanging. He has to stay on top to avoid a similar fate. Winning one neighborhood of a time may work. Sort of a virtual Katrina. Send them all to Houston.

   ReplyDelete
9. 
   Fellow PeacekeeperSat Jan 27, 04:17:00 AM EST

   Maliki may well be motivated - but is it to maneauver himself for stabbing us in the back? Keep the f***er where you can see his hands.

   ReplyDelete
10. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:23:00 AM EST

    That was pretty much a one-off, Peacekeeper. They'll have a real hard time doing another one of those.
    
    Deuce, he (Maliki) found "Jesus" somewhere along the line. It might have woke him up when we showed him evidence that Iran was not only helping the Shi'ites, but was helping the Sunni, and AQ.
    
    And, you're right, He might have finally realized that he was about to be "on his own," and not ready for the experience.
    
    Or, maybe it's just "hudna."

    ReplyDelete
11. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:25:00 AM EST

    Hard to keep track of their hands with those damned robes.

    ReplyDelete
12. 
    Fellow PeacekeeperSat Jan 27, 04:28:00 AM EST

    That was pretty much a one-off 
    
    Oh, I agree, but in the same way that Budyonnovsk was pretty much a one off (later attempts to do it again failed miserably). Like Basayev, vicious inventive guys with nerves of steel, you gotta be afraid what they will come up with next time, and the times after that. They really didn't exist previously - we are inadvertently making them.

    ReplyDelete
13. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:29:00 AM EST

    My largest misgiving right now is, "can Maliki produce the troops in Baghdad?"

    ReplyDelete
14. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:33:00 AM EST

    I believe that was an Iranian Quds operation. It was too slick for Iraqis. Kind of like the Samarra Mosque.
    
    I'll bet it turns out to be a "phyrric" victory. A lot of the people involved may not Work again.

    ReplyDelete
15. 
    2164thSat Jan 27, 04:34:00 AM EST

    Rufus, OT but you may have missed this on Iranian oil investment fx street.com

    ReplyDelete
16. 
    Fellow PeacekeeperSat Jan 27, 04:39:00 AM EST

    Rufus, the fingerprints may be Iranian, but it also brings to mind another Arab opponent we managed to train to a frightening level of competence : Hezzbolah.

    ReplyDelete
17. 
    2164thSat Jan 27, 04:44:00 AM EST

    I will remind everyone that Fellow peacekeeper also keeps an occasional blog. We need to poke into activity.

    ReplyDelete
18. 
    Fellow PeacekeeperSat Jan 27, 04:46:00 AM EST

    Yes, uncle Deuce. The blog will be back in circulation this spring.

    ReplyDelete
19. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:50:00 AM EST

    Deuce, Iran has been a bit dismayed, recently to find that we have (with their help) managed to pretty much destroy any hope they had of getting Internatiional Bank financing for their oil field development. It's the kind of stuff that doesn't make the evening news, but it's an impressive "Victory," none the less.
    
    By the way, you might have noticed this line:
    
    And the US is a leading market for enhanced oil recovery techniques, including carbon dioxide floods and pumps
    
    Carbon Dioxide? When you refine a bushel of corn you get 1/3 back in Carbon Dioxide, which you can then use to produceMore Oil. Something that the "energy balance" talkers don't seem to ever take into consideration.

    ReplyDelete
20. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:53:00 AM EST

    Let's face it O' Peaceable One, Bush WAS right about at least ONE thing. It WILL BE a LONG War.
    
    It will last as long as the OIL lasts.
    
    But, hardly a day, more.

    ReplyDelete
21. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 04:58:00 AM EST

    Well, it's back to bed time, ladies. Have a Good Night (What's left of it, anyway.)
    
    Oh, throw some bud light in the cooler before you leave, okay?
    
    Nite

    ReplyDelete
22. 
    whitSat Jan 27, 09:08:00 AM EST

    National Public Radio just reported that while thousands of anti-war protestors are on the National mall in Washington, Nancy Pelosi is "fact-finding" in the Green Zone. Nouri al-Maliki told her that he would like to see 50,000 US troops withdrawn from his country by the end of the year. He thinks it could happen sooner if the US would speed up training and equipping of the Iraqi army.

    ReplyDelete
23. 
    BarrySat Jan 27, 12:44:00 PM EST

    Rufus: Iran has been a bit dismayed, recently to find that we have (with their help) managed to pretty much destroy any hope they had of getting Internatiional Bank financing for their oil field development.
    
    Naturally this gives Iran all the cover they need to go full steam ahead on nuclear power. Ahmadinejad can even say he's doing it for the children.
    
    When you refine a bushel of corn you get 1/3 back in Carbon Dioxide, which you can then use to produce More Oil
    
    They are playing around with this in Alberta.
    but in that process, the CO2 is produced from an on-site coal plant and is used to squeeze methane out of another part of the local coal seam. Your idea would need a new corn refinery built at each depleted oil field, or an infrastructure of pipes to deliver the CO2 from a remote location. This may be too costly to justify.

    ReplyDelete
24. 
    rufusSat Jan 27, 03:02:00 PM EST

    Barry, CO2 can, I'm pretty sure be moved by truck, or rail. If I'm not mistaken they are using some of this CO2 in Kansas oil fields, and probably some others. I have to be careful, here, because I really haven't researched this but I'll try to find out something about it.

    ReplyDelete