03 April 2007
Where there's fire...
Where were you on September 7, 2006? I can't recall exactly where I was, though I assume I went to work and then watched the Mets beat the Dodgers 7-0. One thing I CAN say with absolute certainty that I was NOT involved in a firefight with Iranian troops somewhere on the Iran-Iraq border. Not all Americans can say the same:
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.
As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?
Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.
As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.
Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?
The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more.The article goes on to give a few details around a largely hush-hush firefight that was, in all probability, not provoked by either side. U.S. and Iraqi troops, operating in tandem, might have crossed into Iranian territory. Iranians might have crossed into Iraqi territory. People from any or all three of the nations involved might have died, and might have done so on either side of the border. The Pentagon does not wish to discuss this. The Iranians have not mentioned it. The only reports, sketchy ones at that, come from the few people who were involved. So, who cares?
(Time.com)
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.
As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?
Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.
But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.Unfortunately, I still see this as becoming a reality. It makes too much sense. Anyone who has studied even a bit of world history knows one of the most common ways to unify a divided country is to create a common enemy. Just look at Yugoslavia, a conglomerate of multiple religions and ethnicities. Tito gave his people a dual enemy - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. - and painted over centuries of ethnic bloodshed to form a new nation-state. As that common enemy melted away, so too did the bonds that held the state together.
As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.
Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?
Labels: disaster in chief, Iran, iraq
¶ 7:30 AM
