The Bush Machine is making its case. It is slowly banging the drums to war. Because Iranians are interfering in Iraq, we should "shoot to kill." Let's follow the logic. Any nation who turns a blind eye to citizens or political factions inside its borders which are fomenting the civil war in Iraq is our enemy. So we must declare war on them...
Accept that premise? Then where does that leave Saudi Arabia, whose history of interfering in the Iraq Civil War has been clear for years--even in right-wing sources? The answer may provide us another way to stop the disaster that looms if Bush is allowed to proceed.
Because they share a common religion--one considered a minority in the Arab world--there's a natural connection between the Shi'a in Southern Iraq and Iran. Over the last few weeks, BushCo. has revealed some evidence and evidently leaked more details to indicate that Iranians or political groups entering through Iran are supporting the Shi'a side in this civil war, especially in Baghdad.
It's not at all certain that this interference has official sanction. From Think Progress in another diary on DailyKos:
General Pace said...that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents.
The connection is apparently there, but there's no evidence it's "official."
So one side is evidently getting help. But what of the Sunnis--alternatively called "insurgents," "dead enders," and "Al Quaida" by Bush spokesmen? It's clear they are getting help as well. And where is that help coming from? Our old friends, the Saudis.
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Just as with Iran, experts admit that there is no evidence of official Saudi involvement. But there is clear evidence that the United States is skewing its anger toward Iran and ignoring the interference of Sunni (Wahhabi) factions.
It's amazing that the Iraq Study Group reveals anything at all about Saudi involvement. (After all, Chairman James Baker is on the board of the Carlisle Group and acts as lawyer for the Royal family. But it's there.)
U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by the Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.
And Baker's "thinktank," The Jamestown Group, links to other countries' involvement:
In early summer 2004, nationalist insurgents in Fallujah were about to assault a group of foreign jihadists based in the Jolan suburb, led by a Saudi with the nom de guerre of Abu Abdullah.
The evidence isn't new. In fact, we've known that Saudis have been involved since the very first. Here's the Weekly Standard from June 16, 2003:
In a piece dated June 1, the Saudi website alsaha.com, which propounds the extremist views of the kingdom's official Wahhabi sect of Islam, proudly reported the combat deaths in Fallujah of two Saudi subjects, Faisal Sultan al-Rougi al-Otabi and Tahir ash-Shoumani. The writer, Nassim al-Islam (doubtless a pseudonym--it means "wind of Islam"), adopts a tone of adulation: "Congratulations, Faisal, the color is that of blood and the scent that of musk. I wish I were with you to win great honor as a martyr..."Meanwhile, on the ground in Iraq, Newsweek reporter Scott Johnson was also picking up signs of Saudi involvement...According to Iraqi sources inside the country who insist on anonymity, Wahhabi imams in the Fallujah mosques, as well as dozens of agitators from Saudi Arabia, have begun aggressive preaching of suicide bombings against coalition forces as part of a campaign of guerrilla warfare.
And the Saudis are not even denying it. Here's CNN.com from December 13 of this year:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.
The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh...The New York Times first reported the conversation Wednesday, saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq's Shiite majority.
So let's get this straight: we are backing a largely Shi'a government, but staying there so they won't elminate the Sunnis. We are willing to foment a war with the allies of our allies, but ignore the war threats of the enemies of our allies. We are demanding that Al Maliki cut off relationships with contacts from Iran, but not telling the Saudis to control the wealthy Sunnis who are bankrolling the Sunni insurgency?
If we can't stop the gradual, pernicious leaking of information (at least some true) about help for Shi'a coming through Iran, perhaps the best defense against war will be another offense: Looking for evidence of Saudi and other Sunni involvement may help the chicken hawks realize that they can't win--or even fight--them all.