Rush to war with Iran

Hat tip Josh Marshall

Stop the Iran War Before It Starts by jjjyoung [Daily Kos diary] Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:05:03 PM PST - Scott Ritter warned about the consequences of a rush to war with Iraq. Now he warns of a rush to war with Iran.

The follow articles by Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marhshall offer cogent analyses - not for intellectually challenged reptile brains that can't rub two neurons together.

Allawi on Plus Up [Andrew Sullivan] Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Here's is Sullivan's "money quote" from an interview of Ayad Allawi by The National Interest (nationalinterest.org):

quote:

---

Ayad Allawi: I’m not a military strategist, but looking at it on the surface, I think 20,000 additional troops to complement the 130,000 already there doesn’t seem to be a great boost in the troop numbers. So I don’t think it’s purely a military gesture, and I don’t think it will have a very significant effect on the military equation.

But it’s part of a multi-pronged strategy that basically will ratchet up the pressure on the Iraqi government, propose an alternative to it, and at the same time escalate the costs that Iran may have to bear if it continues to confront or challenge the United States in Iraq.

National Interest: So in your view, the troop increase is in part intended to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, could you elaborate on that?

AA: Well I think it’s clear—the role that Iran has in the Iraqi crisis. It is extremely important and significant, particularly its effect on the Shi‘a Islamist political parties.

And as much as the United States, or the Bush Administration, has objected to possibility of negotiations with Iran, the only alternative course that they have is to confront it, and to challenge it, and to raise the cost of its apparent intervention in the Iraqi crisis.

This of course creates a serious problem for the Iraqi government itself, which is to an extent anchored around the Islamist parties of the United Iraqi Alliance. On the surface it appears to be a contradiction. I mean how can the United States expect that by confronting Iran and Iraq, it is going to get the support of the UIA, which is to some extent dependent on Iranian support—ongoing support—politically and otherwise?

So it’s a way of trying to break this conundrum. Now I don’t think it’s likely to succeed because the only thing that can happen out of this strategy is basically the breakup of the United Iraqi Alliance. You are going to get possibly a new governing majority in parliament, but that would not necessarily reduce the violence or the instability inside the country.

Iraq’s State of DisUnion [The National Interest] 01.24.2007

---

Practice to Deceive Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. By Joshua Micah Marshall [Washington Monthly] April 2003

Will Maliki-led Iraq government collapse

I wrote awhile back on the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle bulletin board in a thread titled "Kiss of death for Maliki" that his days may be numbered once George W. Bush expressed "confidence" in his leadership. President American Psycho hailed Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki as the "right guy" for the job on November 30, 2005. That in itself was a kiss of death in my prescient opinion.

Kiss of death for Maliki

It is ironic that the real or final kiss of death may be that bestowed upon Nouri al Maliki by his own government's role in the execution of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the person who "leaked" the grainy cell phone video of Saddam's "lynching" was none other than his own National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie.

Josh Marshall has another post on who may have taken the cell phone video of Saddam's execution. There are reasons to believe that it may have been none other than Iraq National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie who leaked the video. Was it part of a U.S.-orchestrated plan to bring down PM Nouri al-Maliki? al-Rubaie may well work for U.S. intelligence. (The last two sentences are my own speculation.) Read Josh Marshall's post:

Josh Marshall [Talking Points Memo] January 02, 2007 -- 9:23 PM EST

Iraq's PM longs to leave office Last Updated: Wednesday, 3 January 2007, 08:41 GMT - BBC News

Gen. George (Custer) Casey called out!

Josh Marshall understands how the "game" is played. The opinion expressed by Gen. Casey and others in the chain of command are their "professional opinions" (that is if they to keep their jobs and their full retirement benefits) and not necessary their honest, personal, expert opinions. Fall in line!

Josh Marshall calls out General George (Custer) Casey!

Josh Marshall [Talking Points Memo] Saturday, December 23, 2006 -- 10:53 PM EDT

quote:

---

Sunday's New York Times reports that the top US commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., is now, as the article's headline puts it, "Open to Troop Surge."

Says a 'senior Defense Department official': “They are open to the possibility of some increase in force. They are supportive of taking steps to support the Iraqis in their plan, including the possible modest augmentation in U.S. combat forces.”

This is a silly game we now seem ready to play. In theory at least, senior military commanders give frank advice to the commander-in-chief. But the president is their ultimate superior in the chain of command. They work for him. So they do what he says. Period. The only real alternative is principled resignation. But let's not get distracted from the main point. It seems clear that most of the Army brass oppose an expanded troop presence in Iraq. As the Times notes, until recently, Casey himself has "argued that sending more American forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province, the two most violent regions of Iraq, would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington, and in the words of one senior official, 'make this feel more like an occupation.'"

The premise of this narrative is that the president is slowly persuading the generals of the logic of his position that we should escalate the conflict in Iraq by inserting however many tens of thousands of new troops into the country. But the premise is bogus because it is the duty of the three and four star generals to come around after the president does not accept their contrary opinions. He's in charge. They're not in charge. That is how we all want it to work -- though, admittedly, it is somewhat harder to stomach when the president is a stubborn, serial bumbler.

Perhaps Casey really is changing his mind. But having no choice about the matter has a way of greasing the cognitive skids. And the long sought increase in the size of the Army makes the pill more digestible.

I know that in theory Casey could oppose the president's plan, honestly explain his opposition before Congress when called to testify and then dutifully execute it on the president's order. But that's not the real world. He adopts the president's position, gets Shinseki'd or resigns, with the first overwhelmingly likely, the second a distinct possibility and the third close to unheard of. Why muddy up an already complicated and grave situation by pretending anything else?

-- Josh Marshall

---