Frank Rich has a new column out over at the NYTimes (unfortunately behind the paywall) that really skewers the fluffed up concern now being expressed about Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents. It can also be viewed here for those without paywall access at the Times.
It’s a great piece but in my mind it doesn’t go far enough. There are more inconsistencies than he lists. For one thing the military supplies that are arriving from Iran are going to Iraqi Shi’a militants like Muqtada al Sadr and they are certainly causing a great deal of death and destruction, as Sadr’s Shi’a militias and associated groups are responsible for a lot of the carnage in Iraq. But most of the American deaths are coming from the Sunni militias, both former Saddam supporters (he was a Sunni Muslim, albeit not a very worshipful one), former Baathists (also Sunni) and Al Qaeda infiltrators and supporters (ditto on the Sunni thing).
Now let’s remember that even though Saddam was a Sunni Muslim and his Baathist party had Sunni roots and support he was most definitely a secular leader, despite last minute displays of faithfulness and ritual, and he was violently opposed to even Sunni religious extremists such as bin Laden and AQ and his ruthlessness in pursuing any popular clerics or fundamentalist movements in Iraq, either Sunni or Shi’a, prevented fundamentalist movements like Iranian Shiite extremists or Sunni fundamentalists like bin Laden from ever getting a foothold in his country. He perceived al Sadr’s father, the true Shi’a cleric, as so much of a threat that he had him imprisoned and killed.
With Saddam gone and our failure to recognize that the breakdown in Iraqi society that came with our inwillingness to secure the country for the citizens would fuel dissatisfaction and create a rise in fundamentalism, the increase in Sunni fundamentalism, both homegrown and AQ fueled, is understandable and predictable. But while the Shi’a are basically waging a sectarian war against the Sunnis, a true Civil War, they are not responsible for most of the attacks on American troops, Fallujah notwithstanding. (a point Rich makes in passing) The vast majority of American casualties come from Sunni militias in Baghdad and the predominantly Sunni provinces around it and there is no way in Hell, literally, that Iran is supplying sophisticated weapons and support to Iraqi Sunnis. It ain’t happening.
So if protecting the troops is the reason for going after the Iranian suppliers of weapons and training then the troops aren’t going to see much benefit from it because the Iranian weapons aren’t what’s killing them.
So where are the troop-killers getting their supplies? A lot of it is recycled stuff from all the armories we also failed to secure after the invasion and from which recently fired Iraqi army and Republican Guard troops (Sunni again) helped themselves to thousands of tons of munitions and weaponry. But there is now evidence that a lot of the newer stuff is coming from Saudi Arabia, either directly or indirectly.
So, more misdirection from Bush, who apparently wants to find a pretext, any pretext, to attack Iran. This is an instant replay of his Iraqi maneuvering when he created phony reasons to invade that country. But it isn’t Iran, it’s Saudi Arabia and if the reality of that also seems like instant replay you’d be right. It’s the instant replay of 9/11, which was planned by a Saudi and carried out by Saudis and Yemenis operating out of Afghanistan. Not an Iraqi in sight.
But just like then, we are now ignoring the very real involvement of Saudi Arabia, our “good friends”, to focus instead on someone else we don’t like by creating excuses for misdirection.
Interestingly, if Bush really means “it’s about protecting the troops” not whether the Iranian government itself actually ordered attacks on US troops, then one would think he’d respond to the actual threats to the troops. But that would only be if you thought it was about protecting the troops. From his actions, which belie his words, it isn’t about protecting the troops, it’s about creating yet another front in his neverending war.
Because, as we all know, Oceania is always at war with Eurasia, unless it’s at war with Eastasia.
Frank Rich touches on this a bit in his piece but the broader implications concerning Saudi involvement are left out and I think they are important.