A Challenge to the Media: Who is the Iraqi Army?

Who is the Iraqi Army? That seems like a strange question. What do I mean?

The Bush administration claims the Iraqi Army is a unified force of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who fight together for the centralized government of Iraq. That's complete nonsense.

In fact, the different divisions of the army are segregated by sect. The so-called Iraqi Army fighting in the south right now is mainly the Badr Corps. This is a rival Shiite militia to Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The Badr Corps is connected to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Don't get freaked out, they're theoretically the good guys. Well, at least they are the largest political party in Iraq and the ones we are supporting. Here's the problem -- they're not the good guys at all. They ran death squads and torture chambers out of the Interior Ministry throughout the period of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

And get this, out of all the parties in Iraq, the one most closely linked to Iran is -- the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and their militia partners in the Badr Corps.

So, who is the Iraqi Army? The ones fighting Sadr's forces right now is the Badr Corps -- a Shiite militia with closer ties to Iran than Sadr.

Why are we backing the most pro-Iranian group inside Iraq? Two possible choices. 1) We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground in Iraq. 2) We don't really believe Iran is a threat to Iraq (or to us).

I understand that this is confusing to the average American. The only reason I understand it is because the preeminent expert on Iraq, Juan Cole, explained it to me in this interview (it's a little long, but in about twenty minutes Prof. Cole explains exactly who is who in Iraq and why our efforts are insanely counterproductive).

So, I'm not frustrated by the fact that the public isn't up on all this. I'm frustrated that our media hasn't even bothered to try to figure it out (by the way, one easy way would have been to do what we did -- ask Prof. Cole). The press has bought into this fiction that we are fighting against Iranian proxies.

Whenever Bush, Cheney or Petraeus says we are being bombed by Iranian backed militias, the press dutifully writes that down and never really questions it. Has anyone confirmed that Sadr is actually getting help from Iran? More importantly, has anyone looked into where the Badr Corps' sympathies lie? When is the last time you even heard of the Badr Corps in the mainstream press?

Has anyone done an investigation into who's in the Iraqi Army? How does it run? Do the Iraqi troops really fell like a unified force? (The best piece I've seen on it is by Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone and he shows clearly that they are nowhere near unified.) Are the divisions mixed or segregated? Where do the different sects patrol? In their own area or in other areas of Iraq? Who controls the Iraqi Army? And what is their purpose?

If you look into these questions, you'll find that the core of the Iraqi Army is simply another Shiite militia. In essence, we are supporting one Shiite militia over another. Worse yet, we're supporting the militia with more ties to Iran.

If you don't believe me, and for some bizarre reason you don't believe Prof. Cole, then by all means, please investigate and find out what's actually going on. In other words, I am encouraging the press to actually do their job.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like it's easy to do reporting out of Iraq. These folks are literally taking their lives into their hands by doing so. But it's one thing to say the situation is unclear. It's another to parrot government talking points because you don't know any better.

The press keeps talking about how they blew it in the lead up to the war, but then they act like they have learned nothing from their mistakes. One of the principal problems before the war was that the media unquestioningly accepted government suppositions as if they were true -- which is exactly what they're doing now.

These basic questions must be answered: Who are we really fighting? What is their goal? Who is on our side? What is their goal? And, oh yeah, what is our goal? Why are we backing one militia over another and how does that serve American interests? And how is any of this leading to "victory" in Iraq? And the one no one bothers to ask anymore - what the hell does victory in Iraq really mean?

Young Turks on You Tube

< Fear not PA Obamanauts! | OBAMA'S VP WILL BE.... >
 Display:

Simple. The Iraqi army is the U.S. Army.

Who else has helicopters, Hellfire missles, and jets capable of air strikes? Certainly not Iraq.

by MedfordTim on 03/28/2008 11:17:52 AM EST


I've been reading today that the American army is again having to prop up the Iraqi army (how shocking) because they are having trouble squelching the Sadr militia.  Once the Sadrists start to perceive this as the Americans trying to stomp them out I wonder what the reaction is going to be?

It's the same problem that forms the core of our dilemma there, we can't help or support one group without generating resentment from the other.  Every time we strike we create a fracture somewheres that threatens what little unity remains. 

It's kind of like trying to control a bunch of unruly kids who can't stand each other and always want to fight.  Maybe we should call in that lady on TV who plays "The Nanny" and make her the Viceroy for a while.

by bfaul on 03/28/2008 01:07:03 PM EST


From CNN:

" Meanwhile, the Iraqi government on Friday offered cash to people who surrender medium and heavy weapons by April 8."

Where, I wonder, is the Iraqi government getting the cash to do this?  Hmmm.  Feel that burning sensation, Mr. taxpayer?  Someone pass the oil!  Hurry! 

by bfaul on 03/28/2008 01:18:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

If anyone actually DOES turn their weapon over for cash, it means they have more of them stashed somewhere.

Think, an entire country named Waco...

by MedfordTim on 03/28/2008 01:52:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Are those the hundred-thousand or so weapons that "went missing," or the weapons we sold them?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/w orld/2007/aug/06/usa.iraq

 Either way it seems like we are paying for them twice over.

by desertpear on 03/28/2008 05:45:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sadr ordered a cease fire and general stand down. I know that makes you unhappy, but try to deal with it.

by KenTX on 03/30/2008 06:44:40 PM EST


"Sadr ordered a cease fire and general stand down."

Your statements show that you completely fail to grasp the significance of that fact. 

It means Sadr has the power to jerk the government around at will.  In case you don't realize it, Maliki has just been humiliated.  Sadr has more power than anyone was giving him credit for.  Whatever this portends, I doubt seriously if it could be considered "good".

by bfaul on 03/31/2008 11:52:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sadr is simply showing generosity in victory.  He owns that turf, and has just demonstrated that fact.  Even the mighty US, supporting Maliki's troops, was shown to be impotent against him.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 03/31/2008 03:26:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

That's not all, I'm reading today that Iran negotiated the ceasefire between the factions.  It's an ominous sign that Iran has the power to do this.  What we did was simply knock out the Sunni underpinnings and hand it all to the Shiites, who are alligned in their thinking with Iran.

by bfaul on 03/31/2008 09:48:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: