Posted on 08/19/2007 11:06:01 PM PDT by humint
On the surface, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Tehran on Aug. 8 to talk with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was another effort to enlist Iran's help in bringing security to Iraq. The real purpose, however, was quite different. Al-Maliki's trip helped smooth the way for the Iranian clerics to install a sister Islamic republic in Iraq. Al-Maliki met with the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad and other senior officials. Maliki told Ahmadinejad that Tehran is playing a "positive and constructive" role in improving security in Iraq. Tehran's leaders were quick to praise al-Maliki. Iranian television broadcast a statement of support for al-Maliki from Khamenei while calling for the American forces to leave Iraq. "We should support the elected government of Iraq, and all of the factions and ethnic groups should cooperate with the elected government," Khamenei said. While al-Maliki builds relations with the Iranian regime, the Iraqi people as well as his own government reject him.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
alright,this is twice and you are messin up by buzz......but another self ping to read later
O.k. folks.. any bets on how long Maliki is going to remain President of Iraq? we can start with a ballpark figure of Days, Months, or Years.....
Alright, kick this guy out. But does it come really as a surprise that Iraqi leaders are looking to their neighbours for future relationships and patronage? The Dems are pursuing their goal of withdrawal sending the message that America is unreliable and quick to fold in. Iran will be Iraq’s neighbour also after 2008. With a dem victory we won’t be around anymore.
sickening
bttt
GW has the same problem with Karzi who has also said that he welcomes Iran who is being very helpful to his country.
Slap in a face to all of us.
I think we should nuke them all and let allah sort them out
Maliki will either have an accident, or will bolt for Iran, taking his family with him.
Maliki has nowhere else to go, and he has proof of Iran's complicity in killing thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, given to him by the US of A.
He has not acknowledged these facts or acted, except to grease the rails for an Iranian takeover of Iraq.
Maliki is history, past tense, de nada.
Look for a military leader to take over, either in a coupe, or in an emergency session of parliament, an Iraqi patriot.
The MNF liberation and reconstruction of Iraq is under assault by Iran at every level of the experiment. If Iraqis are concerned about Iraqi sovereignty the relationship they should have with Iran should observe how badly Iran has slowed their progress.
The Dems are pursuing their goal of withdrawal sending the message that America is unreliable and quick to fold in. Iran will be Iraq’s neighbour also after 2008. With a dem victory we won’t be around anymore.
The U.S. investment in Iraq is bipartisan in terms of intent. What's in dispute is methodology. If Iran, or any nation in the Middle East believes itself to be "off the hook" after the Bush Administration leaves office, they should go buy an American history book. The stakes are so high, if Bush fumbles before he leaves office, whoever takes his post will secure American interests without taking as many risks. To your second point, the idea that we could "quit" a global fight against the principals we live by because of an U.S. election in 2008, I believe to be an illusion. The question of future American leadership then goes to experience , charisma and inventiveness only to return again to methodology.
I vehemently disagree. The democrats (with a few exceptions) leave no doubt in mind that their goal is surrender and withdrawal from Iraq. I can't see how this covers with our intent.
What is we are trying to do there?
Look at the Kurdish authonomy region and you’ll see what at least is the intent: Relative stability, regional partnership on a strategic level, modernisation of their societies. It serves our security and strategic interests, and helps their countries.
It has been tried (with varying success) with Autocrats (Shah of Iran), militarily underpinned republics (Turkey), capitalist monarchic entities (Kuwait, UAE) and now with the attempt of introducting democracy (Afghanistan, Iraq).
Cooperation with Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia is only on a military-economic-strategic level, where unlike to the countries above (especially Iran in the past and the Gulf States) we have almost zero cultural penetration.
SPARTAN-SIX-DELTA OUT
An insane plan authorized by President Bush to join Turkey in a covert war to assassinate leaders of a Kurdish rebel group in northern Iraq was exposed after a former Dick Cheney aide briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Within days of the visit to the Hill by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, columnist Robert Novak got wind of the plan and made it public. It transpired that Edelman boasted that the plan involved U.S. Special Forces helping their Turkish counterparts “behead” the leadership of the Kurdish guerrilla group the PKK, also known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, in its hideout in mountains bordering northern Iraq and Turkey.
When lawmakers questioned the sanity of the United States getting caught up in yet another guerrilla war, Edelman assured them it would be a success. The U.S. role would be hidden and vigorously denied if made public. Some members of Congress thought the strategy was risky, especially at a time when the United States was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Edelman’s response was that the plan was a “slam dunk” and that it would not take long to accomplish.
Some lawmakers also raised concerns that doing Turkey’s dirty work could have unforeseen consequences and could only add to further isolation of the United States around the world. Several months ago, Turkey, which is a NATO member, alarmed the EU and the United States by massing large numbers of troops on the border. At the time, Turkish generals talked openly of invading Iraq with over 200,000 troops.
Turkish Energy Minister in Iran Seeking Closer Ties
President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan is walking a tightrope and at one point in the past year made a truce with al-Qaeda. The only thing holding him in power is the military because the Arab stree is not friendly th the American.
All the states you named are secular states. Impose democracy and nearly the entire ME would be a theocratic Muslim sphere.
Well David if Islam does not play such a large role in the Iraqi population why did the representatives of the people write Shria Law into their Constitution?
BTTT
I think the same thing can be said of many americans... MANY Americans are CULTURAL CHRISTIANS, and don't really care too much about Denominational splits etc.. that does not mean the denominations don't exist.. it is just not as big an "issue"....
You don't have to believe me, I am just telling you what I see/hear on the streets in this county..
Well stay safe.
I’ll be interested in your perpective when you return home.
KDD,
I have been giving my perspective (to the extent possible without divulging classified info) all along
http://openletters.DavidOsborne.net
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.