Iraq explained in five minutes (greatly simplified)

Is Saudi Arabia behind the ISIL land grab?

Shortly after the US revealed that, in addition to aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships it was also sending a few hundred "special forces" on the ground in Iraq, contrary to what Obama had stated previously, Washington made quite clear it wants Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to embrace Sunni politicians as a condition of U.S. support to fight a lightning advance by forces from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Then something unexpected happened: Iraq's Shi'ite rulers defied Western calls on Tuesday to reach out to Sunnis to defuse the uprising in the north of the country, declaring a boycott of Iraq's main Sunni political bloc and accusing Sunni power Saudi Arabia of promoting "genocide." 

In fact, as Reuters reported moments ago, the Shi'ite prime minister has moved in the opposite direction of Obama's demands, announcing a crackdown on politicians and officers he considers "traitors" and lashing out at neighbouring Sunni countries for stoking militancy. 

Not only did Iraq defy the US, but it also called out America's BFF (or at least formerly so until the arrival of Iran, which the US is aggressively, and inexplicably, rushing to make its new key partner in the region) for being the real aggressor behind the scenes? How dare Maliki point out the truth - doesn't he know that those US troops in Iraq can just as easily be used to depose the current regime as "fight" the Al Qaeda Jihadists the US itself armed in the first place? 

Apparently not, and instead of seeking a broad coalition with Sunnis as the US ordered, the latest target of his government's fury was Saudi Arabia, the main Sunni power in the Gulf, which funds Sunni militants in neighbouring Syria but denies it is behind ISIL. 

"We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that - which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites," the Iraqi government said of Riyadh in a statement. 

As Reuters notes, Maliki has blamed Saudi Arabia for supporting militants in the past, but the severe language was unprecedented.

And

(Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki broadcast a joint appeal for national unity on Tuesday with bitter Sunni critics of his Shi'ite-led government - a move that may help him win U.S. help against rampant Islamists threatening Baghdad. Just hours after Maliki's Shi'ite allies had angrily vowed to boycott any cooperation with the biggest Sunni party and his government had accused Sunni neighbor Saudi Arabia of backing "genocide", the premier's visibly uncomfortable televised appearance may reflect U.S. impatience with its Baghdad protege.

The Saudi government says no:

The Saudi monarchy has been a vocal supporter of the overthrow of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and sent money and weapons to rebel groups fighting against him from early on in the Syrian uprising. It has also called repeatedly for western arms – including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons – to be given to Syrian rebels "to level the playing-field" in the war.
Wealthy individuals and religious foundations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf have channelled millions of dollars to the anti-Assad opposition, though it is not clear with what degree of official connivance. 

But since last autumn the Saudi government has diverted its support to a broad Islamic Front which has been fighting against jihadi formations such as Isis and the Syrian group Jabhat al-Nusra. There is other evidence of a rethink in the replacement of the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, with Prince Mohamed bin Nayef, the interior minister and architect of a successful campaign against al-Qaida. The Saudis are also co-ordinating more closely with the US than previously

"There is Saudi money flowing into Isis but it is not from the Saudi state," said Lina Khatib of the Carnegie Foundation.

Civil war continues between the Sunni and the Shia

Goaded on by those who benefit from the two fighting each other:

BAGHDAD -- Militants blew up the two golden minarets of an important Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra today, evading tight security to again target a beloved site already damaged last year in a blast that unleashed fierce sectarian warfare.

Political and religious leaders scrambled to avert a repeat of the bloodshed, declaring indefinite curfews in at least four cities and issuing appeals for calm. But within hours, there were reports of revenge attacks against Sunni mosques and mortar strikes in Shiite-dominated parts of Baghdad.

Followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, whose Al Mahdi militiamen were blamed for driving last year's surge in bloodshed, suspended their participation in parliament to protest the failure to protect religious sites.

There is not just one civil war in Iraq, there are at least four. (I've read there are up to twenty different fighting factions):

Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

Our strategic stagnation results from the fact that we are fighting four wars, not one. According to Gates: "One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaida, and al Qaida is attacking, at times, all of those targets."

I'm sure Bush will demand that this man be fired

He's too intelligent, educated and he said the no-no word: civil war:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Biddle, you just returned from a four week stay in Baghdad where you had been asked to advise General Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq. Did you come back with a sense that he has a workable idea on how to improve the situation in Iraq?

Stephen Biddle: I am very impressed with the general's ability. I think he is an extremely able public servant. If anyone is able to make the best of this, it's him.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: General Petraeus is known to be an expert in counter insurgency. In fact the entire administration seems to think that this should be the focus. You on the other hand have argued that counter insurgency is not what is needed in Iraq. Why?

Biddle: A classical ideological insurgency is a war of ideas in which a sub-national group is challenging the ideas by which the government runs the country. In this kind of war of ideas, you can in principle win by changing people's ideas. Given that, the classical strategy for waging counter insurgency is oriented around winning hearts and minds. You engage in a process of political reform in which you introduce democracy to make the government's ideas legitimate. You engage in a campaign of economic development assistance. And you try and train an indigenous military to wage the war. All those strategies are what the Bush Administration's approach to Iraq has been. They make some sense, if the problem you are trying to solve is a classical ideological insurgency. Except, Iraq is not.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is then?

Biddle: It's a communal civil war in which the war is not fought over a set of ideas. Rather, it is about the survival and self interest of communal groups within the nominal state. Sunnis are not fighting for an idea of what's best for all Iraqis; they are not trying to persuade Shiites that a Sunni government would be good for them. They are fighting for the self interest of Sunnis against the self interest of Shiites -- and vice versa. Because it is not a war of ideas you cannot expect to win it by changing people's minds. It's a war of identity. Identities can't change in the way minds can.

He doesn't see leaving Iraq anytime soon, though, on moral grounds. In his mind, we have to stay and police the cease-fire. With the delicate balance of power between Shia and Sunni, an overbalance in anything could mean extermination:

With respect to the power sharing compromise, the problem is that the stakes for each side are literally existential. They are afraid that if the other side gets control of the state the result might be genocide. The kind of compromise the playbook calls for by definition implies ceding power -- thus compromising with people who you think are threatening you with genocide. If you miscalculate and give up too much power, the result is extermination. So the downside risk is cosmic. By contrast, refusing to compromise means to have an ongoing, chronic low level bloodletting, which isn't great -- but probably looks a lot better than genocide. So we have a recipe for stalemate.

Stalemate = ongoing, chronic low level bloodletting = quagmire. Lovely.

You say Shia and I say Sunni

Let's call the whole thing off. Neatorama explains (via a reprinted article from the mental_floss book "What’s the Difference?" with permission) the difference:

After the prophet’s death on June 8, 632, a gathering of his followers met at Medina and proclaimed Abu Bakr (kinsman, companion, and early convert of Muhammad) caliph, or political leader. The claim stemmed from his close relationship with Muhammad, and the fact that Muhammad had asked Abu Bakr to lead prayers when too ill to do so himself. Those who recognize Abu Bakr and his three immediate successors, called the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, are referred to as Sunni Muslims, and today almost 90 percent of Muslims worldwide fall into this category.

One group of followers, however, refused to accept Abu Bakr. These Rafidi ("Refusers") supported the claim of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s cousin (and son-in-law). The claim is based on a sermon the Prophet had given at Ghadir Khum, in which Muhammad referred to Ali as mawla, which some translate as "master." Ali’s supporter called themselves Shiat Ali (the Party of Ali), though today they are known as simply Shia. Ali did eventually ascend as the fourth caliph. To Sunni, he is the last of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. But to Shias, he is the first caliph and, more important, the first Imam - a word Shia Muslims use to refer to the person chosen leader of all the faithful.

While they and the Sunnis both revere the Koran, they accept different hadiths (oral traditions), so their laws are different. Many Shias, for example, allow temporary marriage. Shias also recognize esteemed imams as supreme expert on Islamic law, called Ayatollahs or, for the really big guys, Grand Ayatollahs. As for the locations where Shias have a significant Muslim majority, there are really only two: Iraq and Iran.

Much is made of the differences between Shias and Sunnis, but almost all the violence between them in the past 50 years has been caused, directly or indirectly, by Saddam Hussein - a nominal Sunni who by his own admission was never religious.

Update: Fixed link.

Where do you go for food when the bullets start flying?

“This is our seventh day inside our house and the kids are starving,” Jalal Jumaa Hadi, a 33-year-old taxi driver and father of two boys, told IRIN in a phone interview from his house “I can't go out to work and we can’t venture out to buy anything for the kids. We’re just baking bread and feeding our kids.”

A humanitarian crisis is occuring in Dinwaniyah, Iraq:

BAGHDAD, 11 April 2007 (IRIN) - A week of fierce clashes between US-Iraqi forces and Shia militiamen in Diwaniyah has brought the city to the brink of a “real humanitarian catastrophe”, health workers said on Wednesday. Aid agencies and doctors are demanding they be given access to a desperate population who have become prisoners in their own homes.

“We can’t send our ambulances in to collect dead bodies or the wounded from the streets. And we are running out of essential medical items such as pain killer tablets, IV fluids, anaesthesia, stitches, antiseptics and things like bandages and cotton," said Dr Kamal Hussein of the city’s general hospital.

“In addition, we don't have enough fuel to operate our generators so we only have four to six hours of electricity a day,” Hussein added. “The government and US forces must allow medicines into this city otherwise there will be a real humanitarian catastrophe.”

The predominantly Shia city of Diwaniyah, about 130km south of the capital, Baghdad, has a population of between 400,000 and half a million.

The focus of the US offensive in Diwaniyah is The Mahdi Army, run by radical Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who had ordered Baghdad militiamen to lay down their weapons during a month-long US-led security crackdown in the capital.

Many of the Diwaniyah fighters are thought to have come from Baghdad and are using the US preoccupation with the capital to cement their hold on parts of the southern city.

I say Sunni and you say Shia...let's call the whole thing off

In other words, who will Bush and Cheney and the PNAC neocons blame for this mess?

Barney! You didn't believe in me enough!

The leader of the Taliban's military operations has criticised Pakistan and Arab nations for helping the US and its allies.

Speaking in interview with Al Jazeera aired on Friday, Mullah Dadullah said that the Taliban's acitivities had suffered more from Pakistan's operations than from American and coalition activities.

"The Pakistani government has a strange policy that no-one can understand," Dadullah said.

"We have not suffered as much from America, Britain or any Islamic or Arab country as from the oppression and aggression we suffered from Pakistan."

"The targets which were firstly bombed were by the help of Pakistani intelligence and the first batches of invading forces entered from Pakistan."

He also said that Iran's Shia had not given any assistance to the Taliban, a Sunni movement: "Iran has never adopted any Jihadi agenda while the leaders of Arab countries are just followers of America and Britain."

The Taliban are gearing up for their spring of suicide bombers in Afghanistan.

As Pervez Musharraf tries to do what Cheney ordered him to do:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, March 3 -- The arrest of a senior Taliban leader in a Pakistani city long reputed to be a haven for the group kindled guarded hope among Western and Afghan security officials Friday that the government here plans to move more aggressively against insurgents taking refuge on its territory.

The arrest, confirmed by two senior Pakistani intelligence officials, marks the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that authorities here have acknowledged apprehending or killing a senior Taliban commander on Pakistani soil. It comes as Pakistan faces pressure from the Bush administration to step up its involvement in a counterinsurgency campaign that has foundered in the past year, with Taliban attacks in Afghanistan becoming more deadly and audacious.

[snip]

Pakistani officials would not comment for the record Friday. While the arrest is likely to bolster Pakistan's counterterrorism bona fides, it is also potentially embarrassing: Akhund was caught in the southern Pakistani city of Quetta, where terrorism analysts believe much of the Taliban leadership resides, though Pakistan denies it.

Afghan officials have long asserted that Pakistan's government is either looking the other way as insurgents recruit and train on its soil or actively aiding the Taliban's cause. In recent months, U.S. officials have become sharply critical as well, saying Pakistan must crack down on border sanctuaries.

Cheney, traveling this week with the deputy director of the CIA, repeated that message here Monday to Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The next day, Cheney was in the largest U.S. air base in Afghanistan when a suicide bomber struck just outside the base's gate, killing 23 people.

But wait, here is another take on Cheney's visit:

Cheney's finest hour has come -- for sorting out Iran, the 'last frontier' in the energy war, before he retires.

It is this sense of urgency that brought him to Pakistan after visiting two of America's staunchest remaining allies -- Australia and Japan.

Cheney's visit to Pakistan signifies an extraordinary moment in the diplomatic history of the Indian subcontinent. The Indian strategic community must get it straight. The consequences are going to be immense.

Washington expects General Musharraf to stand up and be counted if a confrontation ensues with Iran.

Musharraf is already allowing US intelligence to stage covert operations against Iran from Pakistan's Baluchistan province. He is doing all he can in rallying the Sunni Muslim world.

Last weekend's conclave of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference foreign ministers in Islamabad was exclusively of Sunni Muslim countries. Iran was excluded.

Musharraf may have a greater role to play if the security of Saudi Arabia gets threatened in any armed conflagration in the Persian Gulf region, or if Iran gets seriously destabilised.

Most important, Washington needs Islamabad to ensure that the Afghan war remains on track in its present state of animation, while it moves against Iran.

Tehran has considerable levers of influence inside Afghanistan. Senlis Council, the British think tank, last week assessed that Iran might have begun assisting the Afghan resistance.

The point is the Taliban is a generic name.

Indeed, who is a Talib? Anyone could be -- when civilisations have begun clashing. He needn't be necessarily Wahhabi or anti-Shia.

From the US geo-strategic point of view, the Afghan war has managed to get an unwilling NATO to come and slouch in a region that is the soft underbelly of Russia and China (and India).

Washington would like NATO to remain there ad infinitum. If tomorrow NATO becomes part of the US missile defence system, its occupation of the Afghan high plateau is a huge advantage -- overlooking four of the world's eight nuclear powers.

The congruence of interests between the Bush administration and the Musharraf regime has no parallel in the chronicle of US-Pakistan relations.

To belittle the General, to chastise him like an errant school boy, to ridicule him as presiding over a banana republic, to send him sulking to a corner -- that was the last thing Cheney had in mind.

Which makes it hard because the Pakistanis are nearly all Muslim and mostly Sunni:

Although Pakistan has small populations of Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists, the vast majority of Pakistanis—some 96 percent—are Muslims. From its inception in 1947, the country defined itself as an Islamic republic. The religion of Islam, however, is complex with its many divisions and controversies.

In Pakistan, the Sunnite branch of Islam predominates over the Shi'ite, which constitutes 15 to 25 percent of the population. The Shi'ite branch has numerous subsects, one of the most successful of which is the Isma'ilis. The Isma'ilis are further divided into the Musta'lis and the Nizaris, who pay allegiance to the Aga Khan.

Sunnis are getting irritated at the Shia:

Regionally, most Arab governments, which are overwhelmingly Sunni, have signalled impatience and worry over mostly Shiite Iran's backing of co-religionists in Iraq and Lebanon, saying such support can only destabilize the region.

Iran is a strong backer of Lebanon's Hezbollah, which is striving to bring down the U.S.-and Saudi-backed Lebanese government. Iran also has close ties to Shiite political parties in Iraq, and Washington accuses it of backing Shiite militias there.

Arab officials have pointed out that while Shiites are a majority in Iran and Iraq, they make up only 15 per cent of the world's Muslim population, and sectarian tensions could ultimately work against the groups that Iran supports.

Iran reaches out to Saudi Arabia:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Saudi Arabia's king personally welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upon his arrival Saturday, a rapprochement many hope will help calm sectarian tensions threatening the Middle East.

King Abdullah received Ahmadinejad at the airport, and the two were expected to begin talks immediately, the official Saudi Press Agency news agency reported.

Ahmadinejad's trip comes amid rapid developments that threaten to further isolate his country and place it under punitive sanctions because of its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

On Saturday, top diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany will try to reach agreement on new sanctions against Iran. A U.S. official predicted the session would lead to a "substantive resolution."

As Saudi Arabians fund the Sunni insurgents in Iraq:

CAIRO (AP) — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

And Iraq continues the meltdown as al-Maliki pretends to be in control:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Gunmen stormed the home of a Sunni family threatened with death for meeting with local Shiites, separating out the women and children and executing six men on Saturday, Iraqi police and military officials said.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under mounting U.S. pressure to take greater responsibility for security, said he will reshuffle his cabinet in coming days.

"The reshuffle will be either this week or next week," al-Maliki told The Associated Press in an interview in Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone.

He also threatened to order the arrest of parliamentary members and other political leaders suspected of supporting extremists.

And as the British pack their bags, Cheney reassures the country this is all good:

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

"In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels," Cheney said.

Update: corrected quote from Al Jazeera

Exactly.

Bryan of Why Now? says it best:

The US was attacked by Sunni fundamentalists on 9/11/2001. Without capturing those responsible, we turned our attention and military might on the most secular state in the region, and are now being belligerent towards a Shi’ia country. By doing this we have allowed our attackers to recover and rebuild their organization after the initial damage caused by the war in Afghanistan.

[For those who came in late: Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda and Iran, Iran was an enemy of Saddam and al Qaeda, and al Qaeda was an enemy of Saddam and Iran. None of the three was allied in any way to the other two. This is why Iran has benefited from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: two of its major enemies have been weakened.]

The US finds itself bogged down in two wars, winning neither, anticipating a third, while the world is distancing itself from us. Our military is sagging under the strain and the Treasury is in debt to the world.

Who IS funding the Sunnis?

And why hasn't this question been asked of the Saudis?

Cenk Uygur of Huffington Post:

To hype up Iran's involvement in the forces fighting against us in Iraq when all available intelligence indicates that we are fighting the Sunnis instead is unconscionable and inexplicable - unless, of course the explanation is that you don't care about the troops, you just want to manufacture a reason to attack Iran.

In his press conference on Wednesday when asked why the administration is making claims they couldn't back up against the Iranian government, President Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."

Really? Then tell us who is providing the money for the weapons that kill the great majority of them. Tell us who's funding the Sunnis.

What we activated when we took out Saddam

Making the world a much more dangerous place:

Since coming to power last May, Maliki has failed on security, he has failed on political co-existence, and he has failed on refugees.
This brings into question his leadership - something touched on in the United States' National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, which was released in part on February 2. The 90-page document, much anticipated in the intelligence community, sheds serious doubt on whether the Iraqi leadership can overcome sectarian violence, even with an additional 21,500 US troops sent in by the US president to help Maliki. One section of the report reads: "Even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate."

The report adds that the violence is made in Iraq, and not exported from Syria and Iran as President George W Bush has been saying since 2003.

The NIE adds that the Iraqi security forces would be "unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution", and said that a good outcome depended on a "stronger Iraqi leadership". "The absence of unifying leaders among the Arab Sunnis or Shi'ites with the capacity to speak for or exert control over their confessional groups limits prospects for reconciliation."

The parts of the NIE that Maliki should read relate to the outcomes. It says that while all is not lost, and some factors could help stabilize Iraq, many destabilizing factors could easily plunge the country into more chaos. The report mentions "sustained mass sectarian killing, assassination of major religious and political leaders and a complete Sunni defection from the government". Any one of these has "the potential to convulse severely Iraq's security environment".

Tragically, any one of these is all too possible in the shambles that Iraq has become.

Massacre at Najaf

More on the massacre at Najaf:

The massacre that occurred in Najaf, Iraq, last Sunday by now has been wildly deconstructed over the Arab press. What emerges has virtually nothing to do with the official Baghdad and Washington spin of Iraqi troops killing 250-odd heavily armed apocalyptic cultists dubbed "Soldiers of Heaven". They were said to be about to attack not only Shi'ite pilgrims but also the "Big Four" ayatollahs of Iraq - Ali al-Sistani, Bashir Najafi, Muhammad shaq Fayyad and Muhammad Said al-Hakim - who all sit in holy Najaf.

When the embattled Nuri al-Maliki government in Baghdad gloats in unison with the Pentagon and US President George W Bush about such a masterful display by the Iraqi army, supported by the lethal firepower of US tanks and F-16s, something is terribly off the mark.

[snip]

The modus operandi was clear: Shi'ites supported by Iran (the current Iraqi government) screaming "al-Qaeda!" and used the Pentagon to kill Arab nationalist Shi'ites. In this scenario, everything in Iraq that is not SCIRI or Da'wa is bundled into the "terrorist" bag. This pattern is bound to be replicated before, during and after the US surge.

The strategy of the Maliki government perfectly fits Bush's directive to kill Iranian "agents" in Iraq. Further massacres of Iranian pilgrims going to Najaf will be a logical consequence. If Maliki is taking Bush for a ride, Bush is taking US and global public opinion for a ride.

Politically, the complex, explosive Iraqi Shi'ite situation is now polarized beyond redemption. On one side there is a de facto alliance of the "Iranians" - Maliki, the SCIRI's Abdul Haziz al-Hakim and Sistani. On the other side there are the powerful Arab Shi'ite tribes scattered around central and southern Iraq. The key question: Where does Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stand in all this?

Muqtada wanted to be the "middle way". But the Sadrists are now back in government after a brief boycott. His main rally call - US occupation over and out, now - has been overshadowed by multiple attacks by his Mehdi Army against Sunni Arabs. This could be fatal for Muqtada. In central and southern Iraq, Iraqi nationalism - and Muqtada is a fierce nationalist - is much more powerful than any Sunni/Shi'ite divide.

What is certain is that the Maliki-Hakim alliance will continue to deploy its US-trained Iraqi army and police in further massacres, advised by the dreaded Scorpion commando squad, which is funded by US dollars, and responding to the head of Iraqi intelligence. In this sense, the Najaf massacre is also a classic case of the "Salvador option" in its Iraqified version: or how the lessons of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s are useful for the "New Middle East".

Furthermore, the massacre also signals that the Pentagon is now linked to killing Arab Shi'ite tribes. If this is true, it is a big mistake. Sistani does not control them anymore. This means more and more revengeful, nationalist Arab Shi'ites will be amplifying another anti-US/Baghdad guerrilla front.

Ties back into this post.

Georgie: Mom? Dad?.. You know that country I invaded and broke?

Well... I don't think my Saudi friends can fix this one....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to craft a lasting political settlement or improve their security capabilities in the next year and a half, the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report that raises new uncertainty about the prospect for withdrawing American troops.

Months in the making, the collaborative assessment by 16 spy agencies says that growing and entrenched polarization between Shia and Sunni Muslims, inadequate Iraqi security forces, weak leaders, and the success of extremists' efforts to use violence to exacerbate the sectarian war all create a situation that will be difficult to improve.

Exactly who are we fighting again?

Because it sounds like... you know... we are just killing everybody...

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

More:

NAJAF, Iraq, Jan 31 (IPS) - Iraqi government lies over the killing of hundreds of Shias in an attack on Sunday stand exposed by independent investigations carried out by IPS in Iraq.

Conflicting reports had arisen earlier on how and why a huge battle broke out around the small village Zarqa, located just a few kilometres northeast of the Shia holy city Najaf, which is 90 km south of Baghdad.

One thing certain is that when the smoke cleared, more than 200 people lay dead after more than half a day of fighting Sunday Jan. 28. A U.S. helicopter was shot down, killing two soldiers. Twenty-five members of the Iraqi security force were also killed.

Update: And everybody is killing everybody else:

"There are four wars going on in Iraq right now," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said. Turns out he underestimated it by about twenty.

Saudi Arabia tells Iran to know their limits

Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Iran is Shia.

Saudi Arabia's king has said Iran is putting the Gulf region in danger and has advised Tehran leaders to know "their limits".

In an interview published in Kuwait's al-Seyassah newspaper on Saturday, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud said attempts by Iran to spread Shia beliefs in Sunni communities would fail.

King Abdullah said: "Saudi leaders and the Saudi state have always known their limits in dealing with nations, east and west. I explained this to Ali Larijani [Iran's nuclear negotiator] and advised him to pass it on to his government and its followers, with regard to foreign dealings."

According to the brilliant tacticians in the White House

Attacking Iran and the resulting firestorm will actually calm down Iraq so democracy and corporate greed can take place. (my bold)

(W Joseph Stroupe is author of the new book entitled Russian Rubicon: Impending Checkmate of the West and editor of Global Events Magazine online at www.GeoStrategyMap.com.)

Kuwaiti media reports in the Arab Times on January 14, written by the Times' editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah and based on a "reliable source", relay that the US/British naval buildup underway in and around the Persian Gulf is designed, not merely to "send Iran a signal", but to put in place all assets necessary for a massive air strike on Iran, likely by April.

And according to reports from the Chinese news agency Xinhua, the US and Britain "believe that attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and paving the way for their democratic project".

Obviously, the US and Britain wish to roll back Iran's regional advances and restore the rough balance of power that existed between Iran and the region's Sunni regimes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The West has had no success in using United Nations sanctions and diplomatic/political means to contain or constrain Iran. Therefore, the military options are rapidly coming to the fore. The US hopes to insulate the oil-rich Sunni regimes from Iranian missile retaliation by putting in place Patriot anti-missile batteries. And US and British ships will be used to keep Iran from stopping the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

One has to ask, though: are their preparations, plans and strategies any better than the ones they put in place in 2003 before they invaded Iraq? Is it possible that an attack on Iran could become the great equalizer, restoring the balance of power in the region? Or will the US and Britain achieve an early but short-lived victory over Iran, only to massively lose the longer war, just as happened in Iraq?

The conclusion:

By unintentionally shoving the entire oil-and-gas-rich Middle East on to a fast track to chaos, the US will empower Russia as the immovable global energy kingpin. Already, Europe and Asia are being forced to reconsider placing too much reliance on the region for energy imports, opening the way for Russia.

Africa and Latin America come a distant second for the simple reasons of their strategic instability and long distances to their resources, respectively.

Also, Iran is on good terms with Russia and China, and the three powers could form a global energy axis that is distinctly opposed to US power.

Update:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) tells the New York Times the Bush administration is “building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran’s internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.

The Big Surge leaves soldiers unimpressed.

"Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.

A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it.""

Homework for incoming Democrats

Learn the damned difference between Shia and Sunni, okay?

Saudi Arabian--Iran conflict in the future?

So Saudi Arabia might start protecting the Sunni groups in Iraq which will be fighting the Shia groups protected by Iran. This is what they are talking about when they say countries around the region being sucked into the black hole that was Iraq?

Via Crooks and Liars:
"So let me see if I have this straight: We invaded a country for whatever reason du jour (WMDs, Saddam an evil dictator, 9/11, terrorists, etc.), without the people at the top having the foreknowledge of the history of the area or the difference between various Muslim sects, took out the relatively secular (although admittedly dictator-based) government in favor of a far more Islamic (but democratically elected) government and continued to occupy said country, fighting in some cases FOR the Shia (being assisted by our sworn enemies, Iran) and against the insurgent Sunnis (that our allies, the Saudis, support)."

Which leads to a link at Mother Jones:
"The U.S. is not the only country crafting the fate of Iraq (The Baker Commission's report is set to be released a week from today). Today Reuters reports that Nawaf Obaid, a security adviser to the Saudi government, writing in the Washington Post said that the Saudi government has plans of their own. Obaid writes that if the U.S. begins to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi Arabia plans to protect the Sunni minority from "Iranian-baked shiite militias.""

Which is verified by The Asia Times:
"It would be hard to find a stranger couple than President George W Bush and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Their meeting comes as Washington seems poised to end its efforts to appease Sunnis and throw in its lot with Iraqi Shi'ites, of whom Hakim is the paramount leader. But that may mean dealing with Hakim's backer, Iran."

And also at The Asia Times:
"Tehran's politicians and military leaders nowadays boast publicly of the country's military power and regional influence, yet beneath the surface there is a great deal of concern regarding the multiple crises facing Iran. These range from the threat of United Nations sanctions to Iraq's civil war, to growing re-Talibanization of Afghanistan to Lebanon's political unrest, and, increasingly, signs of crisis with the Persian Gulf's other dominant power, Saudi Arabia."
[snip]
"Several measures could put an immediate halt to the visible deterioration of relations between the two countries, including the following:

An all-inclusive Persian Gulf conference on Iraq, including Iran and Iraq, hosted by the Gulf Cooperation Council. This would be instrumental in closing the cognitive gaps on both sides on the nature of security threats and what to do about them. A sub-OIC Iraq group inclusive of Iran and Saudi Arabia to be formed to hammer out differences and to explore workable solutions for Iraq, perhaps by fathoming an OIC peacekeeping force for Iraq. Enhanced Iran-Saudi cooperation on Iraq within the OIC framework will help Iran to be perceived as an Islamist rather than a purely Shi'ite power, keen on the welfare of all Muslims irrespective of their sects. (See A role for the OIC in Iraq, Asia Times Online, April 17, 2004.) A joint Iran-Saudi-Iraq council should meet periodically to discuss security matters and to offer ideas. In the absence of such initiatives, the likelihood of more sharpened hostile relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia is almost a guarantee."