Hezbollah Said To Train al-Sadr's Militia
I'd love to say that this comes as a shock to me. I can't speak for Marcie or Sabrina on their "shck" involved, but I can't. And I'm surprised that the New York Times appears to be:
A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.
The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity under rules set by his agency, and discussed Iran’s role in response to questions from a reporter.
The interview occurred at a time of intense debate over whether the United States should enlist Iran’s help in stabilizing Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, directed by James A. Baker III, a former Republican secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic lawmaker, is expected to call for direct talks with Tehran.
The claim about Hezbollah’s role in training Shiite militias could strengthen the hand of those in the Bush administration who oppose a major new diplomatic involvement with Iran.
The new American account is consistent with a claim made in Iraq this summer by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia had sent 300 fighters to Lebanon, ostensibly to fight alongside Hezbollah. “They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi Army,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
If president Bush is listening to his military commanders, then there shouldn't be any further debate about "diplomacy" and "stabilization" in regard to Iran and Syria. It shouldn't be happening. And if I were in the president's showes, I'd thank Jimmy Baker for stopping by, but hand him his hat, and show him the door. Honestly, I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens; Baker is the last schmuck we should be listening to when it comes to who we talk to over there. Neither Iran or Syria could really give a rip about a stabilized Iraq. To the contrary, that proposition doesn't make them too happy.
And as I said, this should come as no surprise to anyone. During the Israel/Hezbollah conflict earlier this year, Israeli soldiers found Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops amongst Hezbollah dead in southern Lebanon. We had the suspicion that it was probable that the Hezbollah in Lebanon had been trained by Iranians. The only surprise the Israeli discovery gave to the world was that Ahmadinejad was stupid enough to allow the bodies to be found with their Iranian IDs in their possession still.
Al-Sadr's militia was supposed to have been disarmed over the course of the last year, or so, and that's unfortunately not the case. In recent raids by Iraqi, US, and coalition forces have uncovered information revealing that the army is still up and running at full cpacity despite al-Sadr's promise to the Iraqi government that he would end this fight. And, of course, we're proven right again. You can't trust a terrorist to keep his word.
Al-Sadr's militia needs to be crushed, and al-Sadr either needs to be taken into custody or killed. Those are our only two options here. The Iraqis wanted to give him a shot at being a legitimate part of their government, and while it's commendable, we knew it was also utterly futile to give the guy another chance. And as long as the Iraqi government keeps acting like Janus, then we have a bigger problem with al-Sadr. And I say that because just a couple of short months ago, orders had been handed down to arrest al-Sadr. Coalition forces, working in hand with the Iraqi military, have a warrant issued by the government for his arrest. But, he has appeared recently with Iraq's president, which has to make people wonder if the Iraqis are truly serious about getting rid of this guy, or if they just like paying lip service to us.
Either way we look at it, we have a problem, and a big part of it comes from the two nations that keep sticking their noses in the middle of this. We can't negotiate with them, and we sure as Hell can't trust them to uphold their word. We should put our troops, and coalition forces, on the Iraqi border, and seal up the country. Then we go hunting. We make sure that both Iran and Syria don't come over the border, and we take out al-Sadr and his militia. The border of Iraq is about as porous as America's borders. If the border is sealed, it will go a long way in helping end the Mahdi army that al-Sadr has built, and is using to fuel an all-out civil war between the Shi'a and Sunni factions in Iraq. We knew that it would only take someone like him, as we believed the case to be with Zarqawi, to instigate this fight. It's beginning, and the time to act is now; before things spin horribly out of control.
When I heard that Jim Baker was being brought in to "help" with the situation, I knew we were screwed. If the president takes his advice (which I wouldn't), then the whole mission is in jeopardy. We would negotiate with both nations, which would leave Iraq in a precarious situation. I hate to sound cowboy-esque here, but I think it's high time we send a clear message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashir Assad: Stey out of Iraq, or suffer the consequences. This isn't their fight, and their interference isn't welcome. It's not welcomed by us, and it shouldn't be welcomed by the Iraqis either.
They ought to know that Syria and Iran don't want them stable at all. They want them open and vulnerable to an external coup, which would suit both nations needs. It would give them another satellite country, just like Lebanon seemingly is for Syria, with which to attack the West from. Their problem, and Baker's, too, is that they can't seem to keep their fingerprints from being found by the good guys, and it always leads us back to the two places that seem to have terrorism on their minds more than Osama bin Laden.
Publius II
I'd love to say that this comes as a shock to me. I can't speak for Marcie or Sabrina on their "shck" involved, but I can't. And I'm surprised that the New York Times appears to be:
A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.
The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity under rules set by his agency, and discussed Iran’s role in response to questions from a reporter.
The interview occurred at a time of intense debate over whether the United States should enlist Iran’s help in stabilizing Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, directed by James A. Baker III, a former Republican secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic lawmaker, is expected to call for direct talks with Tehran.
The claim about Hezbollah’s role in training Shiite militias could strengthen the hand of those in the Bush administration who oppose a major new diplomatic involvement with Iran.
The new American account is consistent with a claim made in Iraq this summer by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia had sent 300 fighters to Lebanon, ostensibly to fight alongside Hezbollah. “They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi Army,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
If president Bush is listening to his military commanders, then there shouldn't be any further debate about "diplomacy" and "stabilization" in regard to Iran and Syria. It shouldn't be happening. And if I were in the president's showes, I'd thank Jimmy Baker for stopping by, but hand him his hat, and show him the door. Honestly, I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens; Baker is the last schmuck we should be listening to when it comes to who we talk to over there. Neither Iran or Syria could really give a rip about a stabilized Iraq. To the contrary, that proposition doesn't make them too happy.
And as I said, this should come as no surprise to anyone. During the Israel/Hezbollah conflict earlier this year, Israeli soldiers found Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops amongst Hezbollah dead in southern Lebanon. We had the suspicion that it was probable that the Hezbollah in Lebanon had been trained by Iranians. The only surprise the Israeli discovery gave to the world was that Ahmadinejad was stupid enough to allow the bodies to be found with their Iranian IDs in their possession still.
Al-Sadr's militia was supposed to have been disarmed over the course of the last year, or so, and that's unfortunately not the case. In recent raids by Iraqi, US, and coalition forces have uncovered information revealing that the army is still up and running at full cpacity despite al-Sadr's promise to the Iraqi government that he would end this fight. And, of course, we're proven right again. You can't trust a terrorist to keep his word.
Al-Sadr's militia needs to be crushed, and al-Sadr either needs to be taken into custody or killed. Those are our only two options here. The Iraqis wanted to give him a shot at being a legitimate part of their government, and while it's commendable, we knew it was also utterly futile to give the guy another chance. And as long as the Iraqi government keeps acting like Janus, then we have a bigger problem with al-Sadr. And I say that because just a couple of short months ago, orders had been handed down to arrest al-Sadr. Coalition forces, working in hand with the Iraqi military, have a warrant issued by the government for his arrest. But, he has appeared recently with Iraq's president, which has to make people wonder if the Iraqis are truly serious about getting rid of this guy, or if they just like paying lip service to us.
Either way we look at it, we have a problem, and a big part of it comes from the two nations that keep sticking their noses in the middle of this. We can't negotiate with them, and we sure as Hell can't trust them to uphold their word. We should put our troops, and coalition forces, on the Iraqi border, and seal up the country. Then we go hunting. We make sure that both Iran and Syria don't come over the border, and we take out al-Sadr and his militia. The border of Iraq is about as porous as America's borders. If the border is sealed, it will go a long way in helping end the Mahdi army that al-Sadr has built, and is using to fuel an all-out civil war between the Shi'a and Sunni factions in Iraq. We knew that it would only take someone like him, as we believed the case to be with Zarqawi, to instigate this fight. It's beginning, and the time to act is now; before things spin horribly out of control.
When I heard that Jim Baker was being brought in to "help" with the situation, I knew we were screwed. If the president takes his advice (which I wouldn't), then the whole mission is in jeopardy. We would negotiate with both nations, which would leave Iraq in a precarious situation. I hate to sound cowboy-esque here, but I think it's high time we send a clear message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashir Assad: Stey out of Iraq, or suffer the consequences. This isn't their fight, and their interference isn't welcome. It's not welcomed by us, and it shouldn't be welcomed by the Iraqis either.
They ought to know that Syria and Iran don't want them stable at all. They want them open and vulnerable to an external coup, which would suit both nations needs. It would give them another satellite country, just like Lebanon seemingly is for Syria, with which to attack the West from. Their problem, and Baker's, too, is that they can't seem to keep their fingerprints from being found by the good guys, and it always leads us back to the two places that seem to have terrorism on their minds more than Osama bin Laden.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:29 AM
1 Comments:
Good blog. Iran and the Shiite did not like Al Queda in Iraq being in Iraq. The reason is very simple. Al Queda is Sunni. I wonder if the help Ahmadinejad, Iran's President, offer of help to Iraq was the Surpreme leader Ayattah Komenei's Army's aka as terrorists groups. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home