Why Do They Hate Us?

I thought that our foolish adventure in Iraq only created an Iranian puppet there?

"Only" and "puppet" are modest exaggerations, but it is absolutely true that the invasion of Iraq created an Iranian ally. All that you have to do to see that is read what Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi officials say about Iran and Ahmadinejad. Even the Kurdish leaders praised Iran and promised cooperation. Read here, for instance. "Call me Uncle Jala", was how Jalal Talabani put it to Ahmadinejad. Talabani is the President of Iraq and one of the main Kurdish leaders.

Of course, the Sunni Arabs such as those in Adhamiya hate Iran and hated Ahmadinejad's visit. But that's just too bad for them. They will have the short end of the stick in Iraq for decades.

I love this meme. It's so superficially plausible.

The US and France are allies. This does not mean that the two countries always present a united front, or that others cannot exploit differences and rivalries when dealing with them.

Iran and Iraq have always been, at the very best, rivals. The fact that they share religious beliefs doesn't change that in any way. Indeed, one of the most significant things regarding Ahmadinejad's visit was that Grand Ayatolla Ali al-Sistani found excuses not to meet with the Iranian President. Of course, al-Sistani doesn't cater to either the Left's desire for denunciation of all things American or to the Press's demand for more blood on the seven o'clock news, so he doesn't get much attention. He is, after all, only one of the five top people in all of the Shi'ia sect -- negligible, compared to people shouting in the steets.

Iraq attacked Iran when Saddam was trying to unite the country against an external threat. The "threat" was of course manufactured, but what's important is that the two armies more or less fought one another to a standstill, thus revealing that they were roughly equivalent in power. The American army went through Saddam's troops like a Stryker over a speed bump -- and is now busily attempting to train the Iraqi army up to their standard. The notion that they might even partially succeed in that effort has to be horrifying to the Iranian establishment, and that, not sectarian interests, is why Iran is both busily seeking the Bomb and trying to exploit religious commonalities to reduce or neutralize the threat. The likelihood that they will succeed in eliminating the age-old rivalry between Arab and Persian is negligible.

Regards,
Ric

Exactly,

Iraq has the best trained and equipped Army in the mideast. One backed by American air and naval power.

Why shoud they feel it necessary to become Ian's bitch instead of the other way around?

Iran and Iraq have always been, at the very best, rivals. The fact that they share religious beliefs doesn't change that in any way.

But the revolutionary overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and with him the anti-Iranian establishment in Iraq, does change it entirely. Almost every George Washington and Thomas Jefferson of Iraq that Bush et al had in mind came in from Iran or otherwise has had Iranian sponsorship. Chalabi, Talabani, Maliki, Hakim, and so on have always been pro-Iranian. The fact that they now hold the keys to Iraq doesn't change that in any way.

Again, all you have to do is read what Maliki says about Iran. Iran is "a very important country, a good friend and brother," he said. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

If Sistani snubbed Ahmadinejad, he might have done it for any of several reasons and it is beside the point. Maliki is the prime minister, and according to Bush, "the right man for the job". Sistani is not a head of state and doesn't want to be treated as one. He is somewhere been a Pope and a Cardinal for Iraqi Shiites. Maliki's position is the real deal.

Iraq has the best trained and equipped Army in the mideast.

Good grief, what planet are you on, and are you interested in space travel so that you can get back to Earth? Your statement is like saying that Canada has the best trained and equipped Army in North America. The Iraqi army is described here and the Iranian army is described here. The Iraqi army is little more than a side division of the US army with an inflated roster. It doesn't even have an Iraqi budget; instead, the US pays for it. The Iranian army has a lot more of everything, and it is a lot more cohesive. The Iraqi army wouldn't stand a chance against the Iranian army, but it won't have to because Iraq and Iran are "good friends and brothers".

It's just what you would expect, given that Iran has almost three times the population of Iraq and a superior economy.

Jim,

As someone who actually has military experience, let me professionally state you are smoking some serious crack and shold put the pipe down NOW!

Just how the fuck do you know the Iranian army is 'more cohesive'?

How many land wars has Iran won lately? Where is it they have demonstrated their cohesiveness?

"The Iraqi army is little more than a side division of the US army with an inflated roster. "

And that still makes it a better army than Iran's.

Better trained by far than the cannon-fodder called the Iranian army.

"Your statement is like saying that Canada has the best trained and equipped Army in North America."

Mabey it ain't crack afterall, mabey you are in the latter stages of a meth addiction if you really believe that goatswill.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Again, all you have to do is read what Maliki says about Iran. Iran is "a very important country, a good friend and brother," he said. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Well, you have to look at the context, though. Bush also said the Russain president was a great and honest guy. If you believe either politician was expressing his true feelings, I have a bridge to sell you...

A similar thing could have been said of Saddam who used negotiation with France, to facilitate the
extradition of one of his foes,Khomeini to France, in order to bring about the destabilization of the
rival Pahlevi clan, and rationalize his incursion into Iran. Truly, beside the nearly psychotic Basij
and the more professional Quds force elements, how ttruly effective is the most youth based Iranian aArmy likely to be.

"Truly, beside the nearly psychotic Basij
and the more professional Quds force elements, how ttruly effective is the most youth based Iranian aArmy likely to be."

Cannon fodder. I suspect the Iraqis we have trained in the art of Artillery would stack them like cordwood.

Cannon fodder make poor shock troops.

David: Well, you have to look at the context, though.

Sure you have to look at the context. The context is that Maliki has been pro-Iranian ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979. That is why Hussein condemned him to death in 1980, why he fled for his life to Iran and Syria, and why he was the spokesman for a Shiite terrorist group known as Al-Dawa until he streamed in as one of the "liberators" of Iraq in 2003.

And it's not just Maliki. Most of the Shiite Iraqi politicians are like this.

David: Bush also said the Russian president was a great and honest guy.

That is totally different, because unlike Maliki, Bush hasn't been pro-Russian for decades. But here too, the context makes it clear that Bush isn't making it up out of whole cloth; he does mean something by his bizarre statement that Putin is his "friend". Look at the difference between the way that he treats Putin and Chavez. There is nothing particularly better about Putin than Chavez; the biggest difference is that Putin is more powerful. Yet Bush suggests that Chavez should be overthrown, refuses to meet with him, and would certainly never call him a "friend". Bush has simply decided in advance that some world leaders are bastards and the rest are friends, so that he can pursue a simplified kiss-butt-or-kick-butt foreign policy.

Mike Puckett: I suspect the Iraqis we have trained in the art of Artillery would stack them like cordwood.

You're probably right: you do suspect it. The problem is that the Iraqi defense minister has the opposite suspicion. He says that the Iraqi military will not be able to defend its borders until 2018 at the earliest.

Anthony Cordesman has described a very different Iraqi military from the one that you have in mind. He says that Iraq does not have a viable banking system to pay its military (although Iran has since opened a bank in Baghdad) and that it is US-funded. He says that the Iraqi military also has no system of military courts to deter desertion or other acts of disloyalty. The Iraqi military that he describes is missing a lot of basics. It would be more likely to stack its own artillery like cordwood than enemy soldiers.

Not that it has all that many artillery pieces to stack. The Iraqi military of the 1980s was destroyed by the Persian Gulf War, a decade of sanctions, and then by the Iraq War. The new Iraqi military is just a shadow of the one that was tied in strength with the Iranian military. For instance, Iraq once had fighter jets and fighter jet pilots. Now it has none of either.

Since I haven't done any background research, Jim, I can't speak to most of the points you bring up, but let's discuss something I do have some rudimentary understanding of:

"But here too, the context makes it clear that Bush isn't making it up out of whole cloth; he does mean something by his bizarre statement that Putin is his "friend". Look at the difference between the way that he treats Putin and Chavez. There is nothing particularly better about Putin than Chavez; the biggest difference is that Putin is more powerful. Yet Bush suggests that Chavez should be overthrown, refuses to meet with him, and would certainly never call him a "friend". Bush has simply decided in advance that some world leaders are bastards and the rest are friends, so that he can pursue a simplified kiss-butt-or-kick-butt foreign policy."

You throw in that little aside, saying that "the biggest difference is that Putin is more powerful" than Chavez, and your failure to recognize the importance of that distinction is astonishing. Putin is too powerful to be ignored, to powerful to p*** off. The adage goes "hold your friends close, and your enemies closer," but that applies only to enemies that are worth the trouble. Putin is one such enemy. Chavez is not.

Now, your comments on a topic I know a tiny bit about are simplistic, even from my relatively ignorant perspective. What, then, should I infer about your comments on other topics about which I am completely uninformed?