Graham: We Must Defeat Militias ‘Backed By Iran’ By Siding With Militia Backed By Iran
Graham: We Must Defeat Militias ‘Backed By Iran’ By Siding With Militia Backed By Iran
The U.S. has stepped up its involvement in the intra-Shiite militia fighting in southern Iraq in recent days, air bombing several targets. The Bush administration is supporting the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI) and the Badr militia, which are aligned with the Iraqi government, against Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
On Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the U.S. support was necessary to tame Iranian influence in Iraq:
Now we have a battle with militias who are operating outside the government. … We must win this fight. The militias that we are fighting are backed by Iran. So this is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq.
Watch it:
Graham is trying to oversimplify the situation. In reality, the U.S. is helping bolster Iran’s influence by injecting itself into this fight. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) explained:
The Iranians have close associations with all the Shia communities, not only with Sadr but also Hakim. … The notion that this is fight by American allies against Iranian-inspired elements is not accurate.
Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations noted the ISCI “was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards” — which the Bush administration calls a “terrorist” organization.
Journalist Gareth Porter added the Badr militia is the “most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq.” In fact, ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim “met with [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organisation.”
Graham, underscoring his cluelessness about the situation on the ground right now, added that “the Badr brigade is not the problem.” Graham seems to be supporting an effort to fight Iran by supporting Iran.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So who is the enemy this week?
March 30th, 2008 at 10:48 amthis is retarded. maliki has more linkage to iran than sadr.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:51 amartmann11 Says:
March 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
So who is the enemy this week?
the enemy is eastasia. the enemy has always been eastasia.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:56 amIs Graham up for re-election this year?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:04 amOnce again we can compare US strategy to a Chinese finger trap. It creates more enemies and more resistance than it defeats. Either nothing in history is ever learned by short-sighted imperialists blinded by hubris or feeding the fires they claim to be fighting is the actual purpose in order to justify endless (profitable) war and endless colonial presence.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:08 amThe Yugo war? The one that’s all paid for? Where we lost not one American soldier? The one that’s over? Oh, yes, wintermd, I see how that compares to the Chimp’s 6-year, 3 trillion dollar, 4000 dead Americans, 30,000 wounded Americqns, all for $108-a-barrel oil. You know, we’re not nearly as stupid as you are.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:09 amillegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is not the right wing going a little nuts????
Clinton didn’t do it…..stick to the thread topic.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:11 amwintermd
flagged for deliberate off topic….
March 30th, 2008 at 11:18 amI thought this was a “Graham is another Republican idiot” thread?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:21 amwintermd and the right wingers seem to clinging to the hope that they can save face in Iraq, that we will be judged by how we leave Iraq.
History will judge us for invading Iraq and there is, and never was a way to win…..it was a fools errand.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:24 amSenator Graham is not to be taken seriously in any matter is he? He’s just another lapdog.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:25 amI could not believe what I was hearing from Sen. Graham. I surely hope Middle East experts will take him to task for his comments. Iran’s president and Iraq’s Prime Minister were posing for a photo-op Just last month.
I guess Even the Republicans couldn’t blame Al Qaeda for the Shia on Shia conflict in Basra….so they needed a different Bad Guy…Iran.
Al Sadr is likely to WIN the provincial elections set for October…and he want’s America OUT. That’s what this is all about.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:27 amThis is classic Bush administration misinformation. They promote a story line which they think they can sell to the American people rather than the truth. To get us into Iraq they used the WMD story line. Now, they are using this anti-Iran story line to justify their escalation.
What I’m more concerned about, Iranian influence or no, is that Bush seems to have loaned our armed forces to Maliki to use at his whim against his political enemies. United States soldiers should not be serving under the leader of Iraq. I think that is a gross abuse of our men and women in uniform.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:30 amAl Sadr is likely to WIN the provincial elections set for October…and he want’s America OUT. That’s what this is all about.
Bingo. The only person in Iraq who doesn’t want the US out is Maliki. He’s making bucko bucks as the corrupt official that he is. He also knows that as soon as the US is gone from Iraq, so will he be gone.
PS: Can’t we just flag the spamming troll and then move on?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:34 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
March 30th, 2008 at 11:34 am
PS: Can’t we just flag the spamming troll and then move on?
for every troll there is a equal and opposite troll.
it’s newtonian.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:40 amNote to warmongers: Cut the bullshit!
Who has closest ties to Iranian government? al-Sadr an extreme nationalist, whos political wing are cooperating with Sunni parties?
Or the Iranian-created funded/backed ISCI/Badr brigade also allied with these two guys shaking hands with Ahmadinejad three weeks ago?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:41 amhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0303/p01s04-wome.html
The war in Iraq is not comparable to the series of wars which took place in the former Yugoslavia. Take the bombing campaign against Serbia for example.
The Serbians were conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovars in the south. We warned the people of Serbia that they had to reign in their government, but the campaign continued. A UN resolution was passed and we started a bombing campaign against the people of Serbia. They then overthrew their government and sent Milosovic to face justice in The Hague. Kosovo is now an independent nation.
In Iraq a UN resolution demanded that Iraq rid itself of WMDs. The UN inspectors found one questions program, a medium range missile, and had it destroyed. They found no other WMD programs or stock piles so declared the country clean. The UN similarly found that the Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was not seriously pursuing them. In defiance of that evidence and the charter of the UN, the Bush administration conducted an assault against the government of Iraq, leading to the hanging of Saddam Hussein.
Note some stark differences. The action in Serbia was being called for by the Kosovars who were being cleansed from their homeland. Many nations and international organizations were calling for assistance, even some who would generally favor peaceful solutions. The United States intervention ended a bloody campaign. It had the mandate of the UN and Nato. Once the conflict was over the borders of Kosovo were maintained by a coalition of nations including NATO allies and Russia.
Iraq was conducted in violation of the UN charter and in violation of UN resolutions. NATO did not endorse military action. There is no real coalition maintaining the peace in Iraq now. Once the United Kingdom pulled out it is largely just the United States providing security for an entire nation. Other allies who provided token support have pulled even that support.
Saddam Hussein was killed by a kangaroo court in Iraq. Milosovic was turned over by his people to face justice in The Hague. The military campaign in Serbia lasted a matter of weeks, the Iraq military campaign has lasted longer than World War II.
The big difference. Competence. Clinton was a much more able military commander than Bush. He made good decisions, convinced allies, and accomplished his goals. Bush has made bad decision after bad, distanced us from our allies, and has yet to clearly articulate his goals, let alone achieve them.
Now, Bush has loaned our military forces to a foreign commander for his own use against his political enemies in a civil war.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:42 amtroll alert
March 30th, 2008 at 11:43 amWell said.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:44 amwintermed hasn’t the faintest idea what google is, and is a history failure. typical wingnut retard.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pmThats its folks..Cracker Graham said the Badr brigades arent a problem, so they arent. Also, according to him, John McCain never said Iraq was going to be easy.
I honestly dont think most fox naziews views can even fathom that the country most most benefitted by democracy in iraq is iran.
Sadr is probably the LEAST involved with Iran of any of the factions struggling for power in iraqi politics now.
Ok.. so in right wing logic.. Iran is allied with Al Queda…which is why the president of Iran could visit Iraq safely and publicly. But Sadr is against the Iranian/AL-queda allied Iraqi government, so where does that put Sadr on the “with us or against us” list?
March 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pmGraham and his buddy McCain should take Rodney Dangerfield’s lead and go “Back to School”.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pmReading various news reports about the lull in fighting in Iraq the last eight months it appears evident that the Mahdi Army has been the controlling influence in what the US has claimed credit for the surge doing. Without Al Sadr calling off his followers for the past eight months the violence would have continued. In only six days he has proven that it is his call as to whether the civil war does or does not take place.
Interestingly his group provides the most security for Iraqi’s in areas he controls. He provides security, food and necessities while the US is strafing the areas with bombs.
He calls the US what it is…….occupiers. If the Maliki government is stupid enough to be pressured by Washington and refuses to align with Al Sadr in the upcoming fall parlimentary convocation all hell will break loose. He has only given Maliki some breathing room right now. The Iraqi security forces are no match for Sadrs army.
And the American public??? Stupid and foolish. They believe everything that tube feeds them.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pmI found this a good article for laying out the dynamics of conflict in Iraq. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80580/
A fundamental point concerns Iraqi nationalist vs. soft separatist views, with attending interests of public vs. private control of oil resources. The violence at this time has political implications; Elections held today would favor a nationalist gain, which, by the way, is resistant to outside influence from either Iran or the United States, and is a voice calling for the exit of U.S. forces. Muqtada al-Sadr’s truce was the major cause of the downturn in violence, not the ‘Surge’.
What about this name calling? One man’s ‘criminal’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter’. All that I know is that there is not peace, and that there must be more honesty and a greater attempt to understand. Because, without understanding, there can be no chance of meaningful and just progress.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:11 pmOne point I meant to include (entry 30.) was that the Basra conflict is designed to cull out the Sadrist vote as much as possible in advance of the October elections.
Good comment from civil behavior entry number 29. Americans need to find new sources that we have. Thanks, Think Progress!
I just noticed an entry in the Wonk Room “Explaining The Sadr Surge”, which is certain to be worth the read.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pmGraham isn’t just “trying to oversimplify the situation.” …
he’s trying to help start another war against IRAN…
they’re all out there, beatin’ those drums…
“… the problem is IRAN, folks…” -lush limpballs, months ago…
March 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI certainly don’t want our troops in harm’s way. GET THEM OUT! That certainly does not mean that the Iraqis attacking the US troops are “terrorists.” There was a movie several years ago called “Red Dawn” with Patrick Swayze in which there were some young Americans using similar tactics were fighting invaders. The young Americans were considered heroes and many people applauded the movie.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:32 pmIran, Iraq, same difference, right?
March 30th, 2008 at 1:54 pmMaybe, just maybe, it’s time to double up on our bribe payments to al Sadr.
_AIO_
March 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pmLillyWhiteLindsay appears to not know much about the political factions, their predilections, support base, or just about anything.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pmHeckuva job, Lidsay!
dwstr ~ point made by Juan Cole a couple of days ago.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pmThe aim is to marginalize the Sadrists ahead of the November elections, where they are sure to add to their 30 seats in parliament. Perhaps by enough to bring Maliki down.
Its kinda funny watching these idiots complain and blame everything bad in Iraq on Iran. That Iran should stop “interfering” in Iraqi affairs.
What about US interference? The fact that a foreign nation from the opposite side of the globe is occupying Iraq with 150.000 troops destabilizing the entire region, and mobilizing their navy moving WMD-armed warships to the Persian Gulf for another war with Iran is obviously perfectly reasonable.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pmSadr Offers Deal for Truce as Fighting Persists in Iraq
March 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pmNew York Times – 1 hour ago
By ERICA GOODE BAGHDAD – The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr on Sunday took a step toward ending six days of intense combat between his militia allies and Iraqi and American forces in Basra and Baghdad, saying in a statement that his followers would lay …
Sadr followers caught off guard by truce Reuters
Muqtada Sadr orders followers to end fighting Los Angeles Times
the Badr brigade is not the problem.”
The Badr brigade IS “Iranian Influence/Meddling” in Iraq. Sen. Graham seems to think this is A Problem. THE PROBLEM is Bush’s Illconceived and Deadly Adventure in Iraq.
It has always been the great irony of the occupation of Iraq that “our” man in Baghdad is also Tehran’s. Maliki heads the Dawa Party, which has long enjoyed close ties to Iran, and relies on support from SIIC, a staunchly pro-Iranian party, and its powerful Badr militia.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80580/?page=1
March 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pmWhy would Al Sadr try to achieve power with guns and bloodshed….when he can just wait until October and achieve his aims with Provincial Elections. That is why he was eager to accept a ceasefire and truce.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pmSo why did he start fighting in the first place? His people were being attacked by Malaki’s Military. Turns out
Maliki bit off more than he bargained for.
As for Iran….as long as Bush or Israel don’t launch an
Attack…..TIME is on their side.
I am glad I am NOT THE ONLY ONE who caught that:
Iran thanks the brave American soldiers for help
March 30th, 2008 at 11:43 pm#44 Kilo
You left out most of what Juan Cole wrote
March 31st, 2008 at 1:59 am
This is classic Bush administration misinformation. They promote a story line which they think they can sell to the American people rather than the truth. To get us into Iraq they used the WMD story line. Now, they are using this anti-Iran story line to justify their escalation.
What I’m more concerned about, Iranian influence or no, is that Bush seems to have loaned our armed forces to Maliki to use at his whim against his political compaq evo n620c battery,compaq prosignia 170 battery enemies. United States soldiers should not be serving under the leader of Iraq. I think that is a gross abuse of our men and women in uniform.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:29 amElections held today would favor a nationalist gain, which, by the way, is resistant to sohbet
March 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pmBedava mp3 indir
cet
outside influence from either Iran or the United States, and is a voice calling for the exit of U.S. forces.