Shiites Worry U.S. Support Is Shifting

Washington Post & AP ^ | November 4, 2006 | HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

[jmc1969]

Iraq's ruling Shiites have voiced growing concern that the United States is subtly shifting support to Sunni Arabs, the bulwark of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, in a bid to salvage 43-months of democracy building in Iraq and tamp down violence.

"There is much talk of such a shift, and it is in part driven by the (American) desire to contain Iran," said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiites who lectures at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

"There is also frustration with the inability of Shiites to govern," he said.

Analysts like Nasr and Iraqi politicians said Washington's perceived shift away from total support for the Shiites also was in part dictated by its desire to find an exit strategy from Iraq through a new power-sharing formula.

"The Americans realize now that the present formula of Shiite domination in Iraq will not help them leave," said Mustapha al-Ani, a Dubai-based Iraqi analyst. "They are looking for a new balance of power in Iraq."

"The Americans see us as a people who are not flexible," said Ali al-Azad, a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, a Shiite party with close links to Iran. "The Americans think we used them and gave nothing in return, our top clerics don't speak to them and we kept our close ties with Iran."

"We expected this shift," said lawmaker Hassan al-Shimri of the Fadhila Party, a Shiite religious party and a member of al-Maliki's coalition. "Shiite militancy contributed to this shift," he said.

In response to the American shift, the politicians say, Shiite leaders are seeking greater control over Iraq's armed forces, asserting independence from Washington and balking at meeting U.S. demands to put Shiite militias out of business.

[jmc1969]

"The Americans think we used them and gave nothing in return, our top clerics don't speak to them and we kept our close ties with Iran."

At least they are being upfront about it.

[Pro-Bush]

Wonder why, Iran perhaps.

[jmc1969]

Its more then just Iran.

The religious Shia have shown that they can't govern and they can't build a capable security force and instead they rely on death squads with Iranian help to kill Sunnis.

[Pro-Bush]

Can't argue with that. Fudge!

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Gee, maybe it was all those "death to america" parades in Sadr city when Hezbollah attacked Israel. After thousands of US military servicemen sacrificed their lives to free them from the torture chambers and genocide of Saddam Hussein.

[McGavin999]

"We expected this shift," said lawmaker Hassan al-Shimri of the Fadhila Party, a Shiite religious party and a member of al-Maliki's coalition. "Shiite militancy contributed to this shift," he said.

Yep, America is not going to stand by and watch death squads running rampant over the country. Stand up and govern in a fair manner where everyone's rights are respected and you have us standing behind you. Become corrupt and weak and we'll find someone else who will run the country fairly.

Personally, I think we should have given it to the Kurds.

[Vicomte13]

The Shi'ites are 65-70% of the country.
Arab Sunnis are perhaps 10% of the country.

Also, Arab Sunnis were the tormentors of Iraq since its founding. Saddam's government: Sunni Arabs. The operators of rape rooms and torture chambers: Sunni Arabs. The people who dropped poison gas on the Kurds: Sunni Arabs.
And the people who have waged the relentless terrorist insurgency against American forces: Sunni Arabs.

The Sunni Arabs need to be subjugated, not handed power by the Americans for God's sake.

[McGavin999]

Arab Sunnis are perhaps 10% of the country

Yeah, well they used to be 20% before Sadar's Shiia militia death squads (backed by Iran) got started.

We're not shifting away from the Shiia, just from the Shiia who are too weak to govern.

BTW, all Sunni were not Saddam backers and there were a lot of Sunni who were tortured and killed by Saddam and his minions. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who is doing the killing.

[mbennett203]

""The Americans see us as a people who are not flexible," said Ali al-Azad, a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, a Shiite party with close links to Iran. "The Americans think we used them and gave nothing in return, our top clerics don't speak to them and we kept our close ties with Iran.""

He doesn't seem worried about this, but it's the main reason his country is having problems right now. It's kinda like talking to someone who has a drinking problem, realizes it's destroying him, and seems unconcerned by that fact.

We freed them, and who are they sucking up to? Iran. When American soldiers die to free you, you damn well ought to be grateful and cut us a lot of slack.

[gotribe]

No surprise here. Saddam practically gave away southern iraq to iran. What did we expect? We've been treating the shiites like a bunch of victims and good guys ever since we got there. A public hanging or two would have done wonders for putting them in line, beginning with the little fat man. Still not too late, if we get real about it.

[DB]

You give people things they didn't earn and they don't value or respect it. It is the way it has always been and will continue to be. It is human nature.

Being given freedom is no different than being given a welfare house.

It is one of the fundamental problems with our "plan".

[EQAndyBuzz]

Has anyone ever considered what would happen if Saddam was found NOT GUILTY?

[Allegra]

Has anyone ever considered what would happen if Saddam was found NOT GUILTY?

Yeah. He's got about a bazillion more charges stacked up against him. He won't walk.

[Allegra]

"The Americans see us as a people who are not flexible," said Ali al-Azad, a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, a Shiite party with close links to Iran. "The Americans think we used them and gave nothing in return, our top clerics don't speak to them and we kept our close ties with Iran."

Yep. That's pretty much how we see it, Ali.

And we have a problem with it.

And that will eventually turn out to be not a good thing for you.

See, for one, we don't like Iran. I'd go on, but I'm kind of busy right now.

[SolidWood]

The Iraqi Shiites are not the problem. Iran is the problem.
Shia loyalty to Iran and Militias in Iraq and Hezbullah in Lebanon will cease to have any significance the moment Irans power is broken. We have to go to the head of the problem.
Unless we destroy every Iranian WMD facility and kill of the regimes head, Iranian Influence will cause a myriad of problems.

[Mister Da]

Bush & Co. waged this war as cheaply & as PC as possible, with the resulting chaos.

First, the minimal bombing campaign. The idea was to kill as few people as possible, thus minimizing Iraqi hatred & resentment toward the US, & keeping the costs of war down. But after years of intolerable cruelty by Saddam, our pulled punches only came off as weakness & fear of angering the very people we were out to conquer. Failure to impress upon the Iraqi people our immense power & willingness to use it, convinced many we were not tough enough for the job.

Second, we failed to implement strict Martial Law, curfews, & shoot-to-kill orders against rioters, looters, vandals, terrorists, etc., again to appease the Iraqi people. Troublemakers such as al-Sadr should have been arrested & hung long ago for their crimes. Mosques that harbor terrorists should be bombed to rubble - immediately. We never took control of the country & still haven't. Probably never will. More PC BS.

Third, we tried to implement Democracy from the top down. Real dumb. Its like giving a Monopoly game to a remote tribe in the Amazon, & wondering why they burnt it for fire wood. We should have maintained a strong coalition military government at the top, while slowly allowing local governments to democratically form & assume responsibility. Let the Iraqis vote for dog catcher & garbage man LONG BEFORE they try to vote for a national government. Democracy must be learned before it can be practiced. And Democracy cannot flourish in a chaotic, violent society. Bush & Co. tried to force democracy on Iraq WITHOUT using any force.

Last, if the Iraqis want to rebuild Iraq, then they ALONE need to do so, if & when they want to. Coalition efforts to rebuild Iraq are little appreciated, looked on as an admission of guilt, & waste our limited military resources that could better be used in pacifying the country. Also, community projects to rebuild infrastructure encourage cooperation among feuding groups & are far more likely to be protected from destruction. As a practical matter, if the men of the village are busy repairing the sewer system, etc., they don't have much time or energy to terrorize their neighbors or plant roadside bombs.

We could still be successful in Iraq, but we're gonna have to get tough. Throw out the Iraqi "gov't" & install a coalition military gov't with martial law, destroy any building housing arms or terrorists, shoot rioters, vandals, thieves, terrorists, etc. on sight, & arrest anybody who protests our occupation. Then, only after the violence is ended, do we sow the seeds of democracy at the local level only.

[DB]

Yes.

[Malesherbes]

If we are in a war with militant Islam - and we are - then putting the Shiites and the Sunnis at each other's throats is not the worst thing that could happen.