Article

2004-04-09 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-04-09 4:09:44 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 technical question : is it allowed to post subscription based articles like this (cf. copyright).. I just like to know so I can start post these analysis as well..

Posted by lyot 2004-04-09 4:18:24 AM|| 2004-04-09 4:18:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Any US withdrawl will result in at least one of; a civil war, an Iranian invasion, a Turkish invasion. Oil would go to well $50 a barrel and the world economy would experience a massive 1930s style slump. Oh and China would invade Siberia.

Posted by Phil B 2004-04-09 4:42:33 AM|| 2004-04-09 4:42:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 And Kurdistan going independent. I think Kurds deserve a country. They arent crazy like Palestinians.

Posted by Anonymous4075 2004-04-09 6:34:24 AM|| 2004-04-09 6:34:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I didn't find this analysis to be that impressive. He doesn't seem to ever consider the possiblity that we will put down this rebellion and that we can turn over the power to the Iraqi's.

I guesss he thinks the Iraqi's are too stupid or too incompetent for that to happen. Maybe he's right, but with the overwhelming pessimism that oozes from this piece, nothing positive would EVER be possible.

I prefer to go forward with the assumption that the Iraqi's are functioning human beings that do not need the UN or US to act like their mommy's for ever and ever, in order to function as a society.

While it's interesting...I quite frankly think this piece is so negative and pessimistic that - not only does it suck - but it's too negative to be useful.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 7:56:06 AM|| 2004-04-09 7:56:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 plus...I take issue with this key piece of his analysis:

Perhaps more precisely, al-Sadr is
al-Sistaniâs ace in the hole. Having played him, al-Sistani will be as interested in liquidating al-Sadrâs movement as the United
States is -- once Washington has modified its plans for a postwar
Iraq.

First...in order for democracy to work in Iraq...it has to be a democracy. Therefore, the Sunni's Kurds and others need a voice. Otherwise we are wasting our time and we will have just created another Iran.

It is in Sisttani's long term interests to cooperate with the United States and I think it is a mistake of the Bremer types to pander to his desire to be the next king of Iraq. Sure, we need him, but he needs us. We are far more lethal than we have been to date. We are far from being stuck in the mud. If we REALLY wanted to, we could take off the gloves - we just don't see the need to yet.

This analysis panders to Al Sistiani and gives him more credit than is his due. I think that is a critical mistake. This guy wrote an interesting and informed piece, but that is simply a false assumption ...he's wrong.

We don't have to modify our plans to allow the people of Iraq to have a free democracy. Just because this yahoo thinks so, doesn't make it fact.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 8:25:51 AM|| 2004-04-09 8:25:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#6
Posting subscription articles is inviting trouble.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-04-09 8:46:42 AM|| 2004-04-09 8:46:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 at B 2004 : this is a Stratfor.com analysis.

Posted by lyot 2004-04-09 9:10:13 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:10:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Tyot
Re this subscription
Yes it's OK
It's a free weekly newsletter.
They say "Please feel free to send the Stratfor Weekly to a friend or colleague."
However if you subscribe, you will have to wait one week for the first newsletter.
I just short-circuited that for you.
However I would recommend that you go to the Stratfor site and sign up for their newsleter.
It's free.

Posted by tipper 2004-04-09 9:13:22 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:13:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Tipper,
I'm already a Stratfor subscriber.. I hadn't thought of the possibility that this was a free newsletter..You are right..

Posted by lyot 2004-04-09 9:16:40 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:16:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Iyot - I realized that when I wrote it. But unless Strafor is supposed to take the most negative view possible (maybe it is, I don't know) I still stand by what I said.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 9:16:44 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:16:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 and furthemore...just cause it's on official letterhead...it is still just opinion of some staff weenies somewhere. I don't agree with it....and I don't think the Bush Administration operates under the can't-do philosophy represented by their opinion as expressed in that article. JMHO.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 9:24:13 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:24:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm not nearly as impressed by Stratfor as I used to be.

I remember in late '01, just after the liberation of Kabul, they came out with a piece on how the Taliban had us right where they wanted us, the withdrawal to Kandahar was a trap, and so on: it was a perfect synthesis of pessimistic conventional wisdom ("the brutal Afghan winter," "the mighty Pashtun, humbler of empires," etc., all the stuff Mark Steyn is so good at skewering). It was also dead-ass wrong from start to finish.

I'd put Stratfor in the same category as Debka: keep the salt handy.

Posted by Mike 2004-04-09 9:27:15 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:27:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I agree with Mike. The strategists seem to require the facts to fit their worldview rather than the opposite - similar to politicians and philosophers.

Posted by mhw 2004-04-09 9:42:53 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:42:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 i agree with Mike - Stratfor's thinking is insightful, and their scenarios are always plausible, but usually without much solid evidence.

Re this - theyre almost certainly right that Sistani will attempt to milk the Sadr situation for whatever he can get. He may have deliberately let Sadr run wild, to press the US, or he may have feared the consequences of using his own power to crush Sadr. Thats a state of mind question, and something we will probably NEVER know, as Sistani will probably take the secret to his grave. As for the pre-rebellion maneuverings, that sounds pretty accurate, though im not sure about the importance of US relations with Sunni tribal leaders. There IS a school of thought that Bremer has been getting TOO close to Sunni tribal leaders, at the expense of more genuine democractic forces - you will note not only Chalabi going over to Sistani, but sympathy for the Shiite position from pro neo-con Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post, and from the Weekly Standard. Yes minority rights need to be assured, but not by giving sunni tribal leaders who worked with Saddam veto over the future of Iraq.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-09 9:54:56 AM|| 2004-04-09 9:54:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I am curious as to why Sistani would not immediately denounce the taking of civilian hostages. Also, frankly, the whole idea of substantive pre April 04 Sistani-Sadr coordination is shaky; Sistani could be that stupid but I doubt it. More likely, both men are being driven by agendas that they partially control and partially don't.

Posted by mhw 2004-04-09 10:12:35 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:12:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 This analysis is 50% reasonable and 50% drek. Just look at a map. Iran now has US-Western troops based in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan is at least nominally a US ally. Turkey is neutral, but a NATO ally. Across the Persian Gulf, Kuwait and the Emirates host major US bases. And the Saudis probably fear the Persians more than they hate the Americans.

Bottom Line : The Iranians and their Syrian satellite will do anything and everything to make the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan untenable. There is zero (0) incentive for Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program.

The article has a strange closing paragraph:

But the strategic reality of the U.S. forces in
Iraq is permanent. Those forces are there because of the
sufferance of the Iraqi Shia.

The first sentence makes the second sentence non sequitor, and doesn't take into account having permanence depend on the whims of the US Congress and successive Administrations. In addition to that, Sistani is an old man, and no matter what his personal opinions may be, they are not long for this world.

There will be no peace (or the semblance thereof) until regime changes take place in Syria and Iran.

Posted by mrp 2004-04-09 10:27:09 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:27:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 well, i reckon their analysis is most of the time insightfull.. I didn't find this piece pessimistic really.. In the end, there are not saying anything else than Sistani is using Sadr to promote Shia interests...

Posted by Anonymous4102 2004-04-09 10:28:48 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:28:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Wretchard is a lot briefer and a lot more sensible.

Stratfor has been Chicken Little from 9/12.

Posted by someone 2004-04-09 10:41:09 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:41:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 mrp...agreed. I too thought the final paragraph was just hanging out there like some sort of wierd random thoughts each having little correlation to each other or the article itself.

I think you nailed it 50% reasonable - 50% drek.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 10:42:49 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:42:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 mhw: remember that Sistani, as has been noted here before, has no private army.

Posted by someone 2004-04-09 10:43:21 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:43:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 and Badr forces, aren't they controlled by Sistani's people ?

Posted by Anonymous4102 2004-04-09 10:47:01 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:47:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 someone - yes thats good

note this

The most important thing about force is for it to be controlled force, guided by a intelligence and political goal. And the great thing about CENTCOM so far is they have not let their legs get ahead of their brains.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-09 10:48:55 AM|| 2004-04-09 10:48:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Someone - thanks.

Raise up all Iraq. Uh, huh. That's easier said than done.

What they can't get past is that the Iraqi people think the idea of living in a representative republic like the US is just fine with them.

Now that was interesting and insightful article and he probably wrote it for free. How much do I pay for those cowering Stratfor analysts anyway. Too much, I'd say.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 11:04:37 AM|| 2004-04-09 11:04:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 oh...and someone...that Sistani, as has been noted here before, has no private army.

that too is interesting....wish I understood the implications of that better than I do.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 11:15:05 AM|| 2004-04-09 11:15:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 I thought sadr was in exile in Iran during saddam's rule. I think he was a loose cannon trying to make a name for himself. Prolly thinks he's got mass support from Iran. I'm sure Iran let him think so also. A useful idiot but soon of no consequence. If any coordination took place it was prolly due to Iranian cadres, or exiled Shia that have been salted about.

I can't blame Sistani for being shrewed.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-09 11:20:33 AM|| 2004-04-09 11:20:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Lucky...hmmm...Freudian slip?? Did you mean shrewd or did you hit accidently hit the h instead of a c? If he's not careful - it will be the latter.

Posted by B 2004-04-09 11:27:25 AM|| 2004-04-09 11:27:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Someone,

Didn't somebody make the same observation about the Pope? What happened to that country?

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-04-09 11:37:40 AM|| 2004-04-09 11:37:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 I just saw the pope...he was mumbling about something....no offense to Catholics or Christianity intended.

I think that's a great idea. Let's give Al Sistani a nice block of land in Baghdad with his own post office, currency and throne. We can even promise him a Mullah Mobile. Hey...it's what he wants....adoring crowds, pilgrims and a little palace all to himself. What is the cost of a square mile of land in Baghdad anyway? It's got to be cheaper than any of the other alternatives.

I like it.

Posted by anon 2004-04-09 11:58:11 AM|| 2004-04-09 11:58:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 This is a very simplistic and misleading analysis. The only reason to read it is because it comes from an organization which makes a claim to insight. However, the hollowness of that claim is on display in this analysis. It illustrates why I dropped my subscription to Stratfor. I agree with B's opinion of the analysis in comment #4. The reality is that Muqtada Sadr does not command respect in Iraq, beyond his immediate followers and (possibly) young unemployed hotheads. Sadr has no political orgnaization, only his private army of thugs. By calling for calm, Sistani has spoken against a general uprising. So, it appears that the situation is not spinning out of control. It appears that the CPA took some effort to provoke Muqtada to take rash action -- first by closing his newspaper and then by issuing a murder arrest warrant. Bottom line - Muqtada Sadr has been a thorn in the Coalition's side for the past year -- now he been provoked to make the mistakes which will allow the Coalition to take action against him prior to the handover in June.

Posted by Scenario A 2004-04-09 12:28:28 PM|| 2004-04-09 12:28:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 This article does not cover the main theater of operations, which is American public opinion. The Iraqis (e.g., Zeyad) who really want a free country with a representative form of government need to scrape together every nickel they can and start running commercials and newspaper ads thanking the American people and asking them to stay the course. Bloggers and the military aside, all the public is seeing right now is the usual "All Is Lost" horse puckey that CNN and the NYT delight in showing. One thirty-second spot from an Iraqi child thanking America for getting her father out of Saddam's prison would be equal in effect to deploying another brigade.

Posted by Matt 2004-04-09 12:32:42 PM|| 2004-04-09 12:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I have read otherwise with regard to Sistani having a private army. I would be very surprised if he did not. One key point in this article is the statement by Rafsanjani. There is no doubt that Iran is behind what is going on in the South. It is quite possible that they are acting as the go-between building the cooperative relationships between Sunni and Shiite rebels. MRP is exactly right when he says that there will be no real stability until there is regime change in Iraq.

Posted by remote man 2004-04-09 12:33:17 PM|| 2004-04-09 12:33:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 There is also a piece in the WSJ oped page that says many of the same things regarding cause for the troubles in the South being the constitution and the inability for the Shiites to gain complete power.

Posted by remote man 2004-04-09 12:35:12 PM|| 2004-04-09 12:35:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 1. regarding Sistanis "army" he does have security guards, but AFAIK no mass militia. The Badr brigades, however, aligned with the Shiite party SCIRI, are fairly close to Sistani, as is SCIRI and its leadership.
2. WRT Stratfor saying things are spinning out of control - yup they say that, then go on to say that it may not be as bad as all that,etc. Read it closely and in full. This is called covering all bases, and is the stock in trade of research institutes, consultants, etc. If one relies on their final judgement one will be disappointed. If, OTOH, one takes advantage of specific insights, one may profit from them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-09 1:01:00 PM|| 2004-04-09 1:01:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 This Stratfor analysis also misses what was pointed out yesterday, that Sistani probably is not currently free to speak his mind. It's a pretty big mistake, IMHO.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-04-09 1:32:58 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-04-09 1:32:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 There's also a battle for Iraqi public opinion which is not being covered. Zeyad may or may not be representative of Iraqi public opinion. A lot of Iraqis seem to just want 1) no foreign occupation 2) their own faction to control the country. That they would only wind up with 3) another Saddam is something they are apparently incapable of figuring out.

Posted by Tresho 2004-04-09 1:57:38 PM|| 2004-04-09 1:57:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 The article strikes me as odd, it comes off like a late night term paper written by two authors.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-04-09 2:07:53 PM|| 2004-04-09 2:07:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 re: Badr forces .. Weren't they the ones who stood up for Sistani last year in spring when Muqtada tried to control some of the holy shrines in Kerbala or Najaf (I forgot which one.)..

Posted by lyot 2004-04-09 2:32:34 PM|| 2004-04-09 2:32:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 #30 Matt

I like your idea, at least, it should be given a try. However, I think that it would be nice to help out, Iraqis loke Zeyad may not have as many nickels as needed to pull that off. How about setting a tip jar for that purpose?

Posted by rsd 2004-04-09 2:56:23 PM|| 2004-04-09 2:56:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 loke=like

preview! (writing it 100 times on a scrap of paper)

Posted by rsd 2004-04-09 2:57:45 PM|| 2004-04-09 2:57:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 rsd, I sure wouldn't mind helping out (and in fact I would be surprised if Karl Rove doesn't have a couple of ads like that already in the can for political reasons) but for maximum effect the effort's got to come from the Iraqis themselves, presumably at the GC level for financial reasons.

Here's an April 9 post from Iraq the Model:

"A year ago, words failed me as I met the 1st American soldier, and I still remember his name, ?corporal, Adam? and all I could utter was ?thank you!? how could I ever put my whole life in few words? How could I have thanked that soldier enough? How could I have told him what it meant to me to see him and his comrades-who brought me back to life- at last? Thank you Adam, Lieutenant Antonio, Captain Brian Curtis and all the coalition soldiers who I can?t remember their names, and those I never met."

Tresho, I have no idea how representative Zeyad is, but having come this far I'd like to give the Iraqis the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Matt 2004-04-09 4:37:22 PM|| 2004-04-09 4:37:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 According to the press, being supremely qualified military experts - the evidence is quite clear on this point, the enemy always has us preciely where he wants us and we're screwed. That's why we have lost every war where we didn't listen to them, and won the only one in which we did.

Not.

Posted by .com 2004-04-09 8:03:26 PM|| 2004-04-09 8:03:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Mr. Davis,
Didn't somebody make the same observation about the Pope?

Stalin. "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

What happened to that country?

It was eventually defeated.
But not by the Pope.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-04-09 8:06:49 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2004-04-09 8:06:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Angie,

Oh, the Pope had nothing to do with the defeat of the Soviet Union? You might want to check with Lech Walensa about that. It would be tough to think of anyone who had more to do with the downfall of the USSR than Reagan and JPII.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-04-09 8:45:02 PM|| 2004-04-09 8:45:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Gotta agree with Mr. D - The Pope didn't tip the change, but was the proverbial camel's nose under the tent - that was the reason the Bulgariand had the hit on him arranged - at the behest of their Soviet masters. Poland WAS the tipping point, and along with Reagan standing tough with intermediate missiles, spending them into the dustbin with Navy, other improvements, they fell...of course, only IMHO :-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-04-09 9:08:03 PM|| 2004-04-09 9:08:03 PM|| Front Page Top

00:05 Zenster
22:32 Zenster
22:19 Zenster
13:13 ex-lib
13:11 FED UP
08:19 rich woods
08:17 rich woods
03:00 Jen
02:39 .com
02:34 .com
02:24 Tresho
01:59 Zenster
01:53 Zenster
01:41 ex-lib
00:42 Lucky
00:39 FED UP
00:11 mojo
23:56 CrazyFool
23:50 OldSpook
23:42 Mr. Davis
23:39 Tibor
23:39 Mr. Davis
23:33 .com
23:06 Robert Crawford