Now we have this story that talks about Iran's involvement with Iraq:
Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with a variety of powerful weapons including Katyusha rockets and a sophisticated type of roadside bomb called the explosively formed projectile, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq said Tuesday.
"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers ... that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA Today.
To me, it seems more than a coincidence that this story broke less than a day after Bush went out of his way to try and convince the public that he does have any immediate designs to attack Iran. Over the last few months, there have been quite a few diaries on the subject. It wasn't until Cobra Commander's SOTU speech that prominent Senators and even people like Chris Matthews became concerned that Bush may take into yet another seemingly endless war.
Well, something about all this has been bugging me, and I was hoping I could get some help.
That's So 2005
Back in July 2005, there was a story that Iran and Iraq agreed to cooperate militarily. "Modernizing Iraq’s army" was among the the topics discussed, although the story didn't say exactly how that would be accomplished. No too long after this story there was another one where Iraq said that Iran will not train their troops, but still not specifying what the initial "military agreement" constituted.
An optimist might just say it was some non-agression pact, to smooth things over after years of war. Afterall, both the Iraqi Defense Minster and the Iran Defense Minister agreed that Saddam was the root cause of the conflict between the two countries. An ill-informed warmonger like Bush, however, might see this as Iran trying to take over Iraq.
So I began looking for some indication of "White House disappointment" or "White House outrage" but instead found comments about the G8 summit and something about a White House leaker. I guess the White House was too distracted back then to be mad at Iran. But maybe, just maybe, Bush would take it upon himself to talk about this arrangement. I mean, isn't this a potentially dangerous union?
Well, I did find two of his speeches, one about how he won't yield to terrorists and another about how freedom and democracy is important. But he doesn't mention Iran at all.
So, here's my first question: Why wasn't Iran a threat to Iraqi security back in 2005?
Days of Future Present
Since the navytimes story came out Maliki has told the US and Iran to take their beef outside, adding that he does believe Iran was behind some of the attacks on US soldiers.
Well now I have another question: Did Maliki approve of the 2005 arrangement with Iran? And if so, why make a deal with a country (Iran) you knew would be targeting another country (the US) who is also trying to help you?
Knowing is Half the Battle
The Boston Globe took up the task of reminding Bush exactly how we came to this foriegn fiasco:
In the early stages of the occupation of Iraq, the Pentagon's civilian leadership dismantled the Iraqi army and purged the civil service of most former Ba'athists. Not only did that fateful blunder leave Iraq without the manpower to preserve order and carry out the administrative functions of governance; it persuaded large numbers of Sunni Arabs that the Americans had come to Iraq to install Shi'ites and Kurds to rule over them.
Since then, the Americans have been trying to include as many Sunni Arabs as possible, even exploring negotiations with factions of the Sunni insurgency. But with sectarian massacres becoming more vicious, Bush's attempt to bring about security by suppressing Shi'ite militias as well as anti-government Sunni Arab insurgents risks opening up a two-front guerrilla war. Iran has long had tutelary relations with the Shi'ite factions in Iraq that are partners of the United States.
The definition of "terrorist" has become so convoluted over the years. So my third question: Does President Bush really know who "the enemy" is?
My search for an answer I went to his NPR interview:
MR. WILLIAMS: We'll get it to him, Mr. President.
Iran's ambassador to Iraq says Iran is planning to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iran – with Iraq. You said you have proof of Iran's role in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. I know you want to take care of this diplomatically – I've heard you say that – but if Iran escalates its military action in Iraq, how will the U.S. respond?
PRESIDENT BUSH: If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly. We – it makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops.
One of the things that is very important in discussing Iran is not to mix issues. Our relationship with Iran is based upon a lot of different issues. One is what is happening in Iraq. Another is their ambitions to have a nuclear weapon. And we're dealing with this issue diplomatically, and I think this can be solved diplomatically. And the message that we are working to send to the Iranian regime and the Iranian people is that you will become increasingly isolated if you continue to pursue a nuclear weapon.
The message to the Iranian people is that your government is going to cause you deprivation. In other words, you've got a chance to really flourish again as a great tradition. However, if your government continues to insist upon a nuclear weapon, there will be lost opportunity for the Iranian people. They won't be able to realize their full potential.
The Iranian people have got to know that this government and the United States bears no hostility to them. We're just deeply concerned about a government that is insisting upon having a nuclear weapon, and at the same time, rewriting history – the history of the past, and regards, for example, the Holocaust. It troubles a lot of people in this world, and I'll continue to work with, you know, friends and allies to send a clear message.
Bush did not acknowledge William's comment about Iran and Iraq's arrangement. He seems to think that the Iranian people will understand that, say, raiding the Iranian Embassy in Iraq is completely separate from the US opposing the country's desire to develop nuclear technology. Earlier on, he accused "Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida" (as in, the Sunnis who think the US wants to give Iraq over to the Shi'ite and Kurds) for the trouble in Iraq, which doesn't really connect to the arguments he made above.
So it looks like I have one question answered: Bush does not know who the enemy is. He's blamed al-Qaida, Sunnis, Iran and God-knows who else over the past few months. To him, they're all one and the same.
So I guess my last question is: How long is this country going to let a president, who doesn't know who the enemy is, lead us?