Josh Marshall asks: if it turns out the culprits behind the Najaf raid were not Iranian-trained but US-trained, should we attack ourselves?
Why does he ask? Fox News reports, you decide:
"Several Iraqis have been detained for questioning in the ongoing investigation of at least two senior Iraqi generals suspected of involvement in an insurgent attack that killed five American soldiers on Jan. 20, U.S. officials told FOX News on Thursday."
The attack occurred at a provincial government security compound in Karbala where the Americans were meeting with local Iraqi security officers. Gunmen stormed the facility dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs, military officials in Iraq said.The Pentagon has called this a sophisticated and troubling assault and much more orchestrated than the usual attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces. Because of that, military officials say they have strong suspicions that the Iranian government or elements of it may have been involved. Four of the five American soldiers were abducted before being shot execution style.
This is why the whole debate over "civil war" matters. It wasn't just about semantics. It has very serious policy implications.
"When they stand up, we will stand down" is a preposterous policy when there are multiple "they's" involved, particularly when some of them are opposed to your mission. I've said this a million times. I keep hoping I won't have to say it again. But here goes:
The Iraqi forces we are training are not necessarily our allies. The Iraqi government we are supporting does not have even remotely the same interests as us. Our policy in Iraq is doing nothing to advance our long-term interests, and it may, as this incident shows, be doing much to actively damage them. And yet somehow, the people actively promoting this policy believe that my pointing this out is emboldening our enemies.
The Pentagon is already spinning this as the fault of the Iranians, even though the people taken in for questioning are senior Iraqi generals. But no, no plans for war with Iran. Why would I think that?
And while we are on the subject. Imagine, for a moment, the following scenario. Imagine if tomorrow Venezuela invaded Mexico, overthrew the government, and attempted to replace it with a government of its own (absurd? Yes, of course. But bear with me). Imagine further that the people of Mexico were unhappy with this situation, and that they began an insurgency to force the Venezuelans to leave. Can you possibly imagine a scenario in which the United State would not interfere in an effort to advance its own interests? Aside from the fact that Iran is, well, not us, how is what they are doing any different than what we would do under similar circumstances?
Or to put it another way, having ourselves already interfered in the internal affairs of the Iraqis, why does anyone in this administration expect that their lectures about Iranian interference will be taken seriously?
Update: Via Spencer Ackerman, more evidence that we are training and arming the very same people we claim to be fighting:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it.
U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city's population and the front line of al-Sadr's campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr's militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they've trained and armed.
"Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."
Subscribe to this blog's feed
