Our guest blogger is Peter Juul, a national security consultant at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Michael O’Hanlon has yet another op-ed in the Washington Times today arguing that Iran is “seeking to establish itself as the region’s hegemon,” primarily by “stoking violence in Iraq.” Iranian involvement in Iraq has thus become another rationale for O’Hanlon’s open-ended policy of “strategic patience” in Iraq. To prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon, the argument goes, “all [the United States] can do is be patient, keep fighting in Iraq… and keep trying to prove we are the reasonable ones.”

O’Hanlon chides proponents of engagement with Iran as failing to “understand the real nature of the situation we face.” As usual, though, it’s O’Hanlon who doesn’t understand the real nature of the situation the United States faces in Iraq and the region more broadly.

As the New York Times reported today, the United States and Iran increasingly find themselves on common ground in Iraq as a result of the open-ended commitment of U.S. forces favored by O’Hanlon and the Bush administration. Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, gave strong support to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s offensive against Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra: “The idea of the government in Basra was to fight outlaws. This was the right of the government and the responsibility of the government. And in my opinion the government was able to achieve a positive result in Basra.”

The Iranian ambassador’s words could have come out of the mouth of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In an unannounced visit to Baghdad yesterday, she praised Maliki’s “very good decision by the Iraqis to not let Basra continue to be under the control of criminals and militias.” Read more

During a press conference in which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked Iraq Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr for issuing threats from Iran (unlike Rice’s bosses, who bravely issue threats from the trenches of Washington, DC), Secretary Rice and Ambassador Crocker were asked about distinctions between a militia like the Badr Organization, the militia wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), and Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Here’s what was said:

QUESTION: What is the distinction that all of you make between groups like the Badr Organization, which his for all intents a militia and in the past has been involved in events here that have been troublesome, even in 2005, 2006, not at the same level as the Jaish al-Mahdi, but clearly involved? So what’s the distinction you make between the Badr Organization? Why are they now different to the Jaish al-Mahdi?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: The Badr organization made the choice a while back that they were going to step away from a militia identity and move into politics. That’s why it’s the Badr Organization. It used to be the Badr Brigades. They have opted to be, again, part of mainstream politics here. That’s the choice that’s now in front of the Sadr movement.

QUESTION: When would you say that they really changed to that? Because in 2005, there was the Jadriya bunker incident which was clearly linked to the –

SECRETARY RICE: We’re three years past that. And –

QUESTION: So when was the transition? In 2007, there was a case of a member of the Badr Organization threatening Hussein Kamal when he was here –

SECRETARY RICE: Look, I don’t think you can say that there won ‘t be an individual here or there who may break this — that decision to move in that direction. But Badr as an organization has decided to be an organization, not to be a militia.

Okay, glad we got that cleared up. The Badr are no longer considered a “militia” because they have decided to redefine themselves as “not a militia,” and the U.S. is apparently satisfied with this. Now, if only Muqtada al-Sadr would cease his opposition to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and get on board with the U.S.’s plans to use his country as a base from which to project power throughout the Middle East, he would be amazed at how fast the U.S. would be willing to redefine his militia in a similar fashion.

The truth is that, despite this transparent attempt to redefine these militias in a way that reflects “progress” in Iraq, they remain militias. Badr and Da’wa militiamen have been incorporated into the “Iraqi army” in Baghdad and southern Iraq, just as units of the Kurdish peshmerga have been incorporated into the “Iraqi army” in Kurdistan, but despite the new uniforms, these fighters remain loyal to, and continue to commit violence on behalf of, the political factions with which they originated. This is what is known as “success” in Surgeland.

McClatchy News Service Baghdad bureau chief Leila Fadel was interviewed on Bill Moyers’ program last Friday, and explained how silly these word games are.

Watch it:

Transcript below: Read more

One of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) favorite talking points is railing against “Islamic” extremists and terrorists. A few examples:

– “[M]y Democrat opponents who want to pull out of Iraq refuse to understand what’s being said and what’s happening, and that is, the central battleground is Iraq in this struggle against radical Islamic extremism.” [3/24/08]

– McCain underscored “that his focus as president would be waging war against ‘radical Islamic extremism.’ Speaking to about 500 party faithful…McCain said the war in Iraq was part of the fight against Islamic extremism, ‘the greatest evil, probably, that this nation has ever faced.’” [2/18/08]

– “‘The transcendent issue of this campaign will be this conflict we are in between good and evil, between the forces of radical Islamic extremism that are trying to destroy America and everything we believe in,’ McCain told reporters.” [3/16/07]

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — the nation’s largest association of Muslim organizations — has now started a campaign to persuade McCain to drop the adjective “Islamic” when describing terrorists and extremists. ISNA head Muneer Fareed told the Washington Times:

We’ve tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community. If it’s not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are.

McCain’s campaign, however, refuses to budge. Senior adviser Steve Schmidt said that the senator will continue to use the term: “But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is.”

As The New York Times noted this weekend, McCain frequently oversimplifies the threats abroad, incorrectly using the “shorthand ‘Al Qaeda’ to describe the enemy in Iraq.” The term “Islamic extremism” is similarly sloppy, denigrating Islam as a violent religion while conflating the diverse, multifaceted threats coming from abroad. Former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid has also said that “even adding the word Islamic” is counterproductive to keeping extremism “from becoming mainstream.”