PDA

View Full Version : Visions of Bases and Iraqi Ally Go Out the Window



Nickdfresh
02-23-2005, 08:42 AM
February 23, 2005

NEWS ANALYSIS
U.S.' Prewar Visions Get Further Out of Focus

By Patrick J. McDonnell and Paul Richter, LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assess23feb23.story) Staff Writers

BAGHDAD — Two years ago, as the U.S. planned to march into Baghdad, many in the Bush administration had a vision for Iraq's first freely elected government in decades. It would be a pro-U.S. regime that would support American military bases, embrace U.S. businesses and serve as a model for democracy in the region.

Now as Ibrahim Jafari seems certain to become Iraq's new prime minister, the U.S. faces the prospect of dealing with a government whose views may be closer to Tehran's than to Washington's. And U.S. officials are left wondering how many of their assumptions will prove true.

The soft-spoken physician who spent nine years as an exile in Iran has lately taken pains to appear as a moderate on the issue of religion in government. He and other members of his United Iraqi Alliance slate have stressed that they have differences with the Iranian theocratic model and that Iraqis need a government that will represent all groups.

"Iraq is actually made of various populations from all nationalities, sects and religions," Jafari said during a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times in the capital. "Nobody can rule Iraq unless he would walk alongside all Iraqis and represent all the Iraqi people."

But some Iraqis and foreign observers note that Jafari heads Iraq's oldest Islamist party, and they worry he will seek to impose a more religious government than he lets on. They note that he has been lukewarm to the U.S. presence in Iraq and has said he would like to see U.S. troops withdraw once Iraqi forces are trained.

They also recall that the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini initially disavowed political motives after an Islamic revolution overthrew the shah of Iran in 1979. "All the experts got it wrong in Iran too," said a senior U.S. diplomat here with considerable experience in the region.

Before long, Khomeini was espousing the doctrine of velayat-e-faqih, or rule of religious jurists. The Islamic state has since been a U.S. nemesis and was named three years ago in President Bush's so-called axis of evil.

The emergence of that doctrine in Iraq would be painful for Washington, especially since the U.S.-led war has cost more than 1,400 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that they would work with whoever was elected, although they would have preferred interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi or Adel Abdul Mehdi, the interim government's finance minister.

One senior administration official declined to say how U.S. officials viewed Jafari. "We have a studied neutrality on that," he said.

But officials have cause for concern. Although Jafari has said publicly that he supports human rights and an inclusive government, he also wants religion to play a key role in the country's affairs. Jafari was one of the Shiite Muslim leaders who walked out during deliberations on Iraq's transitional law because he feared that Islam would not be made the sole source of law.

Juan Cole, an expert on Iraq at the University of Michigan, said Jafari might not suit the Americans as well as Allawi would have, but he was not expected to be hostile.

"He'll get along with them," Cole said.

Still, some here worry that Shiite clerics could pressure Jafari. The Khomeini-like image of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Iranian-born spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites, was ubiquitous on campaign posters before the Jan. 30 election for the transitional national assembly. Sistani's tacit endorsement was considered key to the success of Jafari's slate.

The assurances by Jafari and other slate leaders of moderation and independence from Iran have failed to mollify fears that Tehran could wield significant influence in the new government. The slate's two major Shiite parties — Jafari's Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq — are seen by some Iraqis as Iranian fronts. U.S. officials are convinced that both parties receive financial aid from Iran.

Defense Minister Hazem Sha laan, a secular Shiite, derided the slate as "an Iranian list."

Jafari and other Shiite leaders have noted the Arab character of their slate and say they resent the second-class treatment of Arabs in Iran, which has a Persian majority.

U.S. officials and others here hope that the Shiites' power will be checked by Iraq's ethnic Kurds, who received the second-largest number of votes in the election. The Kurds, by most accounts, would oppose any Shiite efforts to turn the country toward religious rule.

The Kurds control a bloc of 75 seats in the 275-seat transitional legislature, which will ensure their role as "kingmakers," as one Western official put it. The Shiite slate won 140 seats, well short of the two-thirds needed to win key votes. And that slate, which includes a cross-section of political and religious groups, could fracture, experts warn. Still, there is little question that the Shiite Islamists are in the strongest position as Iraq lurches toward some form of representative democracy.

Shiite leaders have indicated that they plan to kick out the 150,000 U.S. troops when they are no longer needed to fight the mainly Sunni Arab insurgents.

"When there is a self-sufficiency regarding security, then the existence of foreign forces in Iraq, be they in the form of individual troops or in the form of military bases, will not be justified," Jafari said.

That message may hearten some U.S. lawmakers who favor a pullout once Iraqi forces are able to contain the insurgency, a process that could take years. But Jafari's position would seem to rule out the hope that a stable Iraq would voluntarily host U.S. bases, providing an alternative to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region.

Western diplomats say the major challenge facing Jafari and the new government is holding the country together.

"In the past," noted another senior Western diplomat, "the Shiite community here has demonstrated an admirable level of self-restraint and a recognition that there are extremists here that want nothing more than to trigger … sectarian strife, and even a civil war."

McDonnell reported from Baghdad and Richter from Washington.

Nickdfresh
02-23-2005, 09:27 AM
February 23, 2005

EDITORIAL
Messy Business of Democracy

The Shiite ticket's selection of Ibrahim Jafari as its nominee for prime minister of Iraq spares the nation the contempt of its neighbors and the antipathy of the U.S. government. The maneuverings that resulted in Jafari's win over Ahmad Chalabi, who has been convicted of bank embezzlement and accused of spying for Iran, also showed that Iraqis are mastering the art of the backroom deal, a common if unsavory hallmark of democracy.

Jafari, a physician, is head of the Islamist Dawa Party, a major component in the alliance of Shiites that won 48% of the vote in the historic Jan. 30 election for a transitional national assembly. The assembly is supposed to pick a president and two vice presidents. That trio is charged with picking the prime minister and is expected to rubber-stamp the selection of Jafari, although other challengers may appear.

The United States stayed out of the Jafari-Chalabi contest, at least publicly. But there was no doubt about Washington's dislike for Chalabi, who for years proclaimed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In the disastrous aftermath of the invasion, the U.S. accused Chalabi of passing secret information to Iran. He denied it, as he denied embezzling $70 million from the Petra Bank of Jordan, which he headed until its bankruptcy in 1989. He was convicted in absentia of the theft and sentenced to 22 years in prison. On Tuesday, he said he was ending his bid for prime minister.

If Jafari becomes prime minister, his main challenge will be bringing Sunnis, most of whom boycotted the election, into the government. He also must depend on the 150,000 U.S. troops in the country to quell the Sunni-led violence that has flared again since the election. Jafari, who opposes permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, will have to lead the campaign to recruit more Iraqis for security forces and get them trained as quickly as possible. The newly elected assembly members still have much horse-trading ahead, deciding who gets the mostly ceremonial post of president and who gets what posts in the cabinet. Democracy is often untidy, and there's no reason to expect smooth sailing in a country that was ruled by a dictator for so many years. The best course for Washington is to stay as far away as possible from the bargaining and let Iraqis make the choices themselves, as they did in the elections.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2005, 04:26 PM
What's a matter? No Neo Con pussies want to eat crow on this one? After all, we only sent closing on 1500 to their deaths to guarantee a regime friendly to Iran in Iraq.

Whast happened to our military bases? Our exclusive oil rights?

LoungeMachine
02-24-2005, 04:27 PM
What happened to the rebuilding of Iraq being paid for by Oil Revenues?

Jesterstar
02-24-2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What happened to the rebuilding of Iraq being paid for by Oil Revenues?

If you have to ask that then your a fatter retard then I thought. And your already a morbidly obeise vegatable as it stands in my mind.

ODShowtime
02-24-2005, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Jesterstar
If you have to ask that then your a fatter retard then I thought. And your already a morbidly obeise vegatable as it stands in my mind.

You gotta put down the Icehouse and pay more attention dude.

LoungeMachine
02-24-2005, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Jesterstar
If you have to ask that then your a fatter retard then I thought. And your already a morbidly obeise vegatable as it stands in my mind.

I've seen you pic, fucktard. You couldnt get laid with 50 dollar bills coming out of your ears. Sitting there with your shitty $150 guitar. You suck, your playing sucks, your life sucks

Shut the fuck up, you ignorant, inbred tool.

Go back to school. Get a life and an education. cockdrip.:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
02-24-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Jesterstar
If you have to ask that then your a fatter retard then I thought. And your already a morbidly obeise vegatable as it stands in my mind.

Have someone explain the word RHETORICAL to you, simp.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2005, 05:16 PM
Didn't he say there was no such thing as ADHD?

LoungeMachine
02-24-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Didn't he say there was no such thing as ADHD?

No, he said he couldn't SPELL ADHD:D

YAWN
02-24-2005, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What's a matter? No Neo Con pussies want to eat crow on this one? After all, we only sent closing on 1500 to their deaths to guarantee a regime friendly to Iran in Iraq.

Why do the neo-cons have to eat crow? The libs are the ones who were running around ranting about the elections being nothing but a dog-and-pony show while the U. S. planted Chalabi firmly in the PM slot.

As far as I'm concerned, all it means is that the elections weren't U.S.-controlled... which should make everyone happy: the liberals because there's no conspiracy, and the conservatives because maybe now the liberals will shut the fuck up about it.

Jesterstar
02-24-2005, 09:24 PM
Oh there is a HUGE FUCKING CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LoungeMachine
02-24-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Jesterstar
Oh there is a HUGE FUCKING CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay in the dump with the other inbreds:rolleyes:

We require IQs above room temp. in here

Warham
02-24-2005, 09:40 PM
YAWN,

Liberals like to have it both ways. It can be a conspiracy and no conspiracy at the same time to a liberal.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2005, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by YAWN
Why do the neo-cons have to eat crow? The libs are the ones who were running around ranting about the elections being nothing but a dog-and-pony show while the U. S. planted Chalabi firmly in the PM slot.

As far as I'm concerned, all it means is that the elections weren't U.S.-controlled... which should make everyone happy: the liberals because there's no conspiracy, and the conservatives because maybe now the liberals will shut the fuck up about it.

I am wondering why we sent 1400+ people to die to achieve this? Every rationale for this War falls by the wayside. I think it is the Neo Conservatives that want it both ways, but we have sacrificed all the "blood and treasure" to achieve something that is totally against our national interests? Am I NEVER SUPPOSED TO QUESTION? No, Neo Con's should shut the fuck up with their ever-morphing enabling of this Administration and their policy debacles.

It's a question! Is it worth sending people to die to achieve this? You voted for this SUCKERS! Mission Accomplished, fucked up again!

I hope we think long and hard next time before we run out and fight these cavalier "Liberations" for the benefits of other nations, be it Israel or Iran. You all best wake up and stop drinking Neo Con/GOP Kool Aide.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2005, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Warham
YAWN,

Liberals like to have it both ways. It can be a conspiracy and no conspiracy at the same time to a liberal.

I have no idea what you mean Warham. Conspiracy? We're dupes and suckers, nothing more. We're the most powerful nation on the planet and we have such a childlike mentality.

Warham
02-24-2005, 10:07 PM
Read YAWN's post again, Nick.

Also, when I see an article from the NY or LA Times, I question their intentions. Clearly two bastions for liberal thinking and Bush bashing.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2005, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Read YAWN's post again, Nick.

Also, when I see an article from the NY or LA Times, I question their intentions. Clearly two bastions for liberal thinking and Bush bashing.

Really? So the "Liberal Thinking" portrayl events as reported WON'T happen? Our ally Allawi and the secularists WILL win, I suppose they just completely made up the whole story to kick Bush in the balls, eh?

Read YAWN's post again? I think you guys need to read Pat Buchanan's article posted by Ford again!

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17533

Warham
02-25-2005, 07:19 AM
Pat Buchanan? Is this the same one that works for MSNBC? The network with Chris Matthews and Ron Reagan, two liberal think-tanks?

Nickdfresh
02-25-2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Pat Buchanan? Is this the same one that works for MSNBC? The network with Chris Matthews and Ron Reagan, two liberal think-tanks?

**??God forbid a network actually represent both sides??**

ODShowtime
02-25-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Read YAWN's post again, Nick.

Also, when I see an article from the NY or LA Times, I question their intentions. Clearly two bastions for liberal thinking and Bush bashing.


You are absolutely 100% beyond help. One of the most delusional people in here. Jesus H Christ.:rolleyes:

Warham
02-25-2005, 03:34 PM
Stick to the topic. We tried to talk about Jesus in the other thread, but you weren't paying attention. Maybe you will here.

Warham
02-25-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
**??God forbid a network actually represent both sides??**

That's what FOX is for, Nick. Your good bud, Alan Colmes is on at 9 p.m. every night, with the latest liberal spin.

Nickdfresh
02-25-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Warham
That's what FOX is for, Nick. Your good bud, Alan Colmes is on at 9 p.m. every night, with the latest liberal spin.

Yeah right, the guy drowned out by the 80 other buffoons on that channel?

YAWN
02-26-2005, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I hope we think long and hard next time before we run out and fight these cavalier "Liberations" for the benefits of other nations, be it Israel or Iran.

...yet had it been a U.S.-friendly regime, you guys would be bitching about that, too... like a couple of weeks ago when it looked like Chalabi was gonna be the guy. Forget the raid and the political distancing; he was the U. S. government's "golden boy", right?

Of course the liberation was for the benefit of another nation. Here's a hint as to which one: It looks an awful lot like Iraq on a map. Ultimately, it's not about what the U. S. wants, or what Iran wants, or what the Saudis or the Russians or the Afghanis or the Martians want. It's about what the Iraqis want. And if that happens to be Jafari, then so be it. The only way that the whole thing could possibly be called a complete and total waste of time, money, effort and life would have been if they had re-elected Saddam. They didn't. Iraq has spoken, and it has chosen Ibrahim Jafari... whether the United States likes it or not, because that wasn't the point to begin with.