See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest Threat to Iraq
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 9, 2008
Author: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2
Post Date: 2008-04-09 21:57:15 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 184
Comments: 19
Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest Threat to Iraq By Nicholas Johnston and Tony Capaccio April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Shiite militia groups backed by Iran are the greatest long-term threat to Iraq's stability, according to Army General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. The so-called ``special groups,'' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran, played a ``destructive role'' in the recent clashes between extremist militias and Iraqi government forces in Basra and Baghdad, Petraeus said. ``Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way,'' he told the House Armed Services Committee today in Washington, his second day of testimony to lawmakers. ``Unchecked, the `special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.'' Petraeus, testifying yesterday in the Senate and today in the House, said Iraq is too ``fragile'' to allow U.S. troop levels to fall below about 140,000 earlier than September. The general recommended a 45-day period of evaluation after the final brigade from last year's ``surge'' of troop reinforcements into Iraq is withdrawn in July. Only after that period should officials begin to consider further withdrawals, he said. Petraeus said today that troop increases this year, if the security situation in Iraq deteriorates, are ``a remote thought'' because of progress he has seen with Iraqi security forces, especially an elite special operations brigade. The U.S. currently has more than 150,000 troops in Iraq. As of today, 4,017 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq since the conflict began in March 2003, and 29,676 Americans have been wounded, according to the Defense Department. Assessing Withdrawal In response to a question today from Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri, Petraeus said his commanders are reviewing four to five locations in Iraq that could be candidates for U.S. withdrawals after July. ``Over time,'' Petraeus said, ``I think all of'' the brigades will be withdrawn. ``The question is at what pace will that take place.'' The U.S. is withdrawing about 21,000 troops deployed last year to quell violence in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. In testimony yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, criticized Iran for continuing to ``undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government to establish a stable, secure state.'' ``At the same time, we support constructive relations between Iran and Iraq,'' Crocker said. ``Iran has a choice to make.'' Of Iran's 65 million people, about 90 percent are Shiite Muslim. About 60 percent of Iraq's 27 million people are Shiite, according to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency data. ``Iran has said publicly it will fill any vacuum in Iraq and extremist Shia militias would reassert themselves,'' Petraeus said yesterday and again today. ``We saw them try in Basra and Baghdad two weeks ago.'' Courting Iraq's Shiites Crocker acknowledged yesterday that Iran has a relationship with every Shiite group in Iraq, not just Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, which was the government's main adversary in the fighting in Basra. That includes the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, one of Sadr's greatest rivals in the struggle for power in Iraq, Crocker told Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. ``Iran has a dialogue with everyone'' in the Shiite community, Crocker said. Petraeus told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that he will provide further details about how closely some Iraqi militias are linked to Iranian groups and Lebanese Hezbollah. In response to a question about how to counter Iranian influence, Petraeus said much is being learned from detained members of the Iranian-backed special groups. That information soon will be discussed, he said. ``We'll lay that out, and we'll lay out the various weapons caches and other finds that we have had that, again, show the very, very clear involvement of Iran in Iraq,'' he said. To contact the reporters on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at njohnston3@bloomberg.net; Last Updated: April 9, 2008 12:22 EDT Email this article Printer friendly format Advertisement: A surprising prediction by Forbes columnist Ken Fisher.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007, *Iranian Conflict* (#0)
But diplomacy is just out of the question.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
The so-called ``special groups,'' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran, I hope the reported realizes how strong a statement the above actually is, and if Petraeus actually used those words, that's a hell of an accusation. So, Iraqis are going to Iran, training in camps probably soon to be shown in satellite photos(redacted of course due to nat'l security concerns), and then returning to foment discord in otherwise peaceful Iraq. The unstated implication that the normal reader would attach to this is that it's an official Iranian mission to train Iraqis to do this. Petraeus, testifying yesterday in the Senate and today in the House, said Iraq is too ``fragile'' to allow U.S. troop levels to fall below about 140,000 earlier than September. How many times have we been told that the next six months will be crucial, or bring change? How many corners have we turned? ``At the same time, we support constructive relations between Iran and Iraq,'' Crocker said. ``Iran has a choice to make.'' Nice to see that Crocker obligingly fills in any gaps or doubts left in the rhetoric that we're having issues with the Iranian government. Nice to see that we're being non-provactive in our statements. I also thought that Iran had already made a choice, and both of the countries that have been recipients of the gentle ministrations of the indispensible nation. Ahmadinejad visited Iraq personally, which would kind of demonstrate that he's not out to actively destroy the Iraqi government. In response to a question about how to counter Iranian influence, Petraeus said much is being learned from detained members of the Iranian-backed special groups. That information soon will be discussed, he said. ``We'll lay that out, and we'll lay out the various weapons caches and other finds that we have had that, again, show the very, very clear involvement of Iran in Iraq,'' he said. I would love to see what this evidence is, and I'm thinking that if Iran ever gets officially and actively involved in Iraq, they're going to be sending more advanced weapons than alleged mortar rounds and a few EFPs, a WWII vintage weapon system. There'll probably be some more pictures of some rounds with "Made in Iran" prominently displayed.
Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
It is truly surreal to watch this man made disaster being created by Bush to bolster his family "Legacy" and Cheney for reason to me that aren't real clear. PS - Glad you popped by - I am going to read "The Guns OF August" unless you have a screaming suggestion (Trying to understand the origins of WW1) and know this has long been a classic, but it was written some time ago and its come to my attention that quite a bit of long classified info has come into the historian's realm concerning that terrible war. Any comments about the worth of "August" or recommendation for more up to date work? TIA
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Does our clueless congress really believe this horse-hockey? Does anyone with two functioning brain cells?
Does anyone with two functioning brain cells? A lot of folks are intimidated by any one with a suit on. A governments dream, I suppose - a mallable, fearful, ignorant, emotional populace.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" I haven't read "Guns of August," though it's long been on my list of books to read. If I didn't have to eat or sleep I would actually be able to read all the things I want to read. I don't think that reading that book would be time wasted. In my library I've got "The First World War" by Hew Strachan (he looked high and low for an original title, I guess) and "An Illustrated History of the First World War" by John Keegan. Both are recent, with Strachan's book being published in 2003. I've also got two other books, one is "Russia and the Origins of the First World War" which was a textbook for some course (I got it for $3 at a used bookstore) and "The Great War and Modern Memory" by an author whose name escapes me right now. Both of these books are rather obscure. The former does go into detail about how Russia's actions helped precipitate the war, and the latter discusses the impact the war had on the cultures involved. It's got lots of letters from soldiers and discussions of the songs of the period and other cultural things. That book is why I cut Chamberlain some slack for what he did in Munich in 1938. WWI was such a tremendously wrenching event that he was willing to do almost anything to prevent war from breaking out again, and if it mean the sacrifice of some Czechs, so be it, at least they weren't Brits. We look upon him uncharitably now, when looking back through history, when everything seems inevitable, but his intent wasn't so bad, and he either intentionally or otherwise bought Britain another year prior to WWII breaking out, and they used that time to rearm. Anyway, Strachan's book goes into great detail about the one German commander who actually was stabbed in the back. Colonel Paul Lettow-Vorbeck, who became a legend in his time, but is largely forgotten, fought all over East Africa from Uganda to the Zambezi. He surrendered to the British on 25 NOV 1918 after fighting pretty much since the SMS Konigsberg was sunk on 11 JULY 1915. One of the difficulties with looking at the origins of WWI is that you can easily trace it back to 1870, and there's lots of events between 1870 and 1914 that led to the war. "Wilson's War" by Jim Powell discusses this at length, but the book is basically about how Wilson' decision to enter WWI helped cause the rise of Stalin, the rise of Hitler, and WWII. Some of his reasoning stretches a bit, but it's a good book overall. One of the most relevant lessons for today (though not in exactly the same way) is that the balance of power policy in Europe caused smaller countries to act in irrational ways (think of our current support of Israel or Taiwan and how they might act if they didn't have us behind them) and since the more powerful countries had pledged support to them, the smaller, less rational actors were the ones who actually held foreign policy control. The Serbs knew they had Russian support, and the Austrians knew they had German support. Once the process of marching to war began, it was hard for the larger countries to back down and save face. It's more tragic when you read the telegrams exchanged by the Tsar and the Kaiser (who were cousins), and both of them essentially begging the other to do something to stop the march to war. Neither did. Our attempts to expand NATO from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea and all the way to the Pacific can have bad consequences, too, since it turns any border skirmish into a world war. I wonder how many people could find Abkhazia or Ossetia on the map, yet, if NATO eventually invites Georgia, it's a very real possibility that US troops could be called upon to deal with Abkhazia and through them, Russians. The other problem was that when Germany was looking at its balance of power enemies, it noted that they were in a good position vis a vis the Russians at that time, so if they were going to do something, now was the time. That is relevant today, because pre-emptive war becomes a palatable option when war seems to be a foregone conclusion. I say this because our attempt to paint Iran into a corner can easily get to where they think they've got nothing to lose since they're going to get attacked anyway.
Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
The Lions of July - William Jannen As a scholar of modern European history, Jannen, in his first book, has unscrambled the Gordian knot of diplomatic and political maneuvering and duplicity that led to world war in 1914. He focuses on the fears, errors, and decisions of the Great Powers' statesmen as they desperately tried to avoid a European war, never realizing that their actions would produce what they feared the most. From June 28 to August 12, 1914, the Great Powers sought to avoid a war they knew would bring revolution, the collapse of empires, and the end of European monarchies. They failed, and the ensuing war's slaughter was the result. Jannen's explanation of entangling treaties and alliances, diplomatic ignorance and miscalculation, chauvinism, and pride is exciting and frighteningly real. This book is a perfect companion to Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August (LJ 1/15/62). Highly recommended for schools, libraries, and history buffs. Col. William D. Bushnell, USMC (ret.), Brunswick, Me. Also consider A WORLD UNDONE by GJ MEYER.
hehehehe..this is the first i've even heard of them.
There's also a great book about the Zimmerman Telegram and America's entry into the war. Will look up the name and get back to you. Perfidious Albion, indeed!
Or Iran. Take a look at where Georgia is in relation to Iran and it's capital. If you could fly though Turkey, it's an 800 mile one way trip by air from the fartherest point in Georgia to downtown Tehran. US forces to the east in Afghanistan, US forces to the west in Iraq, The US navy sitting in the gulf to the south, and the possibility of US forces under the NATO flag sitting to the north in Georgia. If I were Iran I'd be nervous too.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
Yes Indeed. That's the damn thing about history - ya always got to go back further ;). Just finished "A Peace To End All Peace" that demonstrated that quite well, concerning the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. I just bot Shirer's Third Reich, but thought it would be more productive to educate concerning WW1, as it is clear WW2 was a continuation, mainly, of WW1. I find it interesting and depressing to see that some historians of WW1 consider it a "family fight". MAybe Bush's war was little more than a petulant frat boy trying to impress his father and used like a hammer by the lukid party in DC. Thanks to both of you for your responses, they are taken seriously. Amazon's going to be happy tomorrow.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Geeez Chris, its east of Little Rock. Got a nice mall and dollar store.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" But I forgot this gem; Thunder at Midnight by Throckmorton. Great portrait of the assasinated Archduke; a throne claimant and Royal with his mind and will may well have saved the Hapsburgs or even avoided the war. Reading the Lions of July, you really get a feel for his absence. There was an interesting case of another Royal who committed suicide in Vienna after his aristocratic girlfriend eloped with an illusionist. They've made a movie by that name, anyway, just before he shoots himself, he rails against the decadence of society and the weakness of the Army and the need for change.
I saw that movie a couple months ago - I like the actor who played the illusionist, Edward Norton.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Funny you mention that. We were taught modern history based upon this starting point in a school far, far away but based on English curricula. Makes a helluva lot of sense, and highlights the initial origins of the Anglo Teutonic friction.
The other problem was that when Germany was looking at its balance of power enemies, it noted that they were in a good position vis a vis the Russians at that time, so if they were going to do something, now was the time. That is relevant today, because pre-emptive war becomes a palatable option when war seems to be a foregone conclusion. I say this because our attempt to paint Iran into a corner can easily get to where they think they've got nothing to lose since they're going to get attacked anyway. most interesting
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Don't forget Azerbaijain. We're gonna have to careful we don't shoot ourselves.
I realized how shallow my history is of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and have done a little studying recently myself.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Not the Hapsburgs, but the Kaiser, Czar and King were related!
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
#3. To: historian1944 (#2)
Nice to see that we're being non-provactive in our statements.
#4. To: tom007 (#0)
#5. To: lodwick (#4)
Does our clueless congress really believe this horse-hockey?
#6. To: tom007 (#3)
#7. To: tom007 (#3)
Did someone mention the Great War?!!!
#8. To: historian1944 (#6)
I wonder how many people could find Abkhazia or Ossetia on the map,
#9. To: tom007 (#3)
#10. To: historian1944 (#6)
I wonder how many people could find Abkhazia or Ossetia on the map, yet, if NATO eventually invites Georgia, it's a very real possibility that US troops could be called upon to deal with Abkhazia and through them, Russians.
#11. To: historian1944, swarthguy (#6)
One of the difficulties with looking at the origins of WWI is that you can easily trace it back to 1870,
#12. To: christine (#8)
Ossetia on the map,
#13. To: tom007, aristeides (#0)
(Edited)
#14. To: swarthyguy (#13)
#15. To: tom007, historian1944 (#11)
the origins of WWI is that you can easily trace it back to 1870,
#16. To: historian1944 (#6)
Our attempts to expand NATO from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea and all the way to the Pacific can have bad consequences, too, since it turns any border skirmish into a world war. I wonder how many people could find Abkhazia or Ossetia on the map, yet, if NATO eventually invites Georgia, it's a very real possibility that US troops could be called upon to deal with Abkhazia and through them, Russians.
#17. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#10)
#18. To: tom007 (#11)
Just finished "A Peace To End All Peace" that demonstrated that quite well, concerning the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
#19. To: tom007 (#11)
Family affair
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest