Report: Iran message orders Iraqi militias to retaliate if U.S. strikes Syria

An Iranian order intercepted by the United States instructs Shiite militia groups in Iraq to attack the American Embassy in Baghdad should the U.S. strike Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

The intercepted message reportedly came from the head of Iran's Qods Force, a paramilitary arm of the country's Revolutionary Guards. The order directs militias to prepare to respond with force should the U.S. attack the Bashar Assad regime, Iran's ally.

The Associated Press also reported Friday that Iranian-backed Shiite militias are threatening retaliation inside Iraq, citing Iraqi security officials and Shiite militants.

Iraqi officials say they are taking the warnings seriously. The threats, which come as President Barack Obama's administration and Congress debate possible military action over the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, risk exacerbating an increasingly deteriorating security environment inside Iraq.

Cleric Wathiq al-Batat, who leads the Mukhtar Army, a shadowy Iranian-backed militia, said his forces are preparing for a strong reaction against the interests of the U.S. and other countries that take part in any Syria strike. He claimed that militants have selected hundreds of potential targets, which could include both official American sites and companies "associated with the Americans."

When you fight, you are either oriented on terrain or the enemy.

In Afghanistan we should have stayed focused on the enemy, since that is why we went there. Afghanistan has little strategic value and a low probability of succeeding as a nation. There is nothing to support an economy (other than opium), very tribal, not world open, little pre existing infrastructure and few from a previous bureaucratic system that can run the place. We went there because “bad guys” were there. The focus here should have been on the enemy. You go there, kill them and leave. Occasionally, you go back and kill some more ever so often. But you do not get into the business of nation building. High risk of failure, massive investment, low return.

Iraq was different. It could have been a strategic significant player (an ally like Germany or Japan in the Cold War) on our side as well as staging base for dealing with issues such as Syria today or Iran in the future. Close to the Caucasus, on the Persian Gulf, a major oil producer, and central in the GWOT (attracting bad actors from around the planet), Iraq served as a shit magnet where on foreign soil we could execute a war utilizing the full capabilities of our intelligence and military. Iraq had all the long term probability of success: a higher literacy rate, pre existing infrastructure, a bureaucracy that can run a country, a less tribal and more world open society, and something that can support an economy, oil. It was Iraq where we should have been focused on terrain, i.e. taking and holding real estate. Low risk, high return (long term).

US foreign and security policies are dictated by pretty speeches on campaign trails. The Congress constantly turning over is “learning about the world” every few years, even senior bureaucrats in the US government turn over quickly and take institutional knowledge and any semblance of consistency with them. There is no strategic vision because opposition politics combined with fast political turn over and a media hungry for controversy fuel a constant change in course. So called long term plans are usually not worth the paper they are written on and as soon as a BP oil spill happens, US energy policy is rewritten based on sound good ideas that are politically expedient in the moment. This is simply the reality of how we deal with our security and foreign affairs. Just a few years back, our present Secretary of State was playing opposition politics with Iraq.

There is no pragmatic or strategic thinking in our approach since Vietnam: Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq... We are good at going in and smashing things up, but the American public grows tired quickly, especially once they realize it might cost them something. The world has come to see America as a nation that is unreliable, not really trust worthy when it comes to security matters, since after all we hedge our bets and change course every few years. And so was the case with a pro-western leader Mubarak who we dropped. The world sees us for what we are, unprincipled, greedy, short sighted, and turn coats. There is a reason why even our allies in the Middle East hedge their bets and do not become overly dependent on US hardware, or are reluctant to jump on the band wagon when we start singing war songs again. Would you jump on our wagon and pin your existence on us if you were the King of Jordan, Saudi Arabia...?

Thanks Red6.

The Congress constantly turning over is “learning about the world” every few years, even senior bureaucrats in the US government turn over quickly and take institutional knowledge and any semblance of consistency with them. There is no strategic vision because opposition politics combined with fast political turn over and a media hungry for controversy fuel a constant change in course. So called long term plans are usually not worth the paper they are written on and as soon as a BP oil spill happens, US energy policy is rewritten based on sound good ideas that are politically expedient in the moment. This is simply the reality of how we deal with our security and foreign affairs. Just a few years back, our present Secretary of State was playing opposition politics with Iraq.

Nicely put.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.