U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites

Washington Post ^ | 04/23/03 | Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest

[John Valentine]

This CAN'T be true.

I don't doubt that State is filled with shortsighed idiots, but Defense would surely have known better.

A Shi'a mass movement was not only totally predictable, but entirely preventable, and it still is.

The aauthors of this piece are helping give vent to some sort of internicene squabble among the CIA, State and Defense.

They ought to stop it. It isn't helpful.

[isthisnickcool]

What do they do? Boilerplate this stuff? This week we have understimated the Shiites. Before that we underestimated the Republican Guard, the Iraqi people, Saddam, etc,etc.

Wonder what's next week? /sarcasm off

[cookcounty]

What? Bush got us stuck in yet another Quagmire? !

[Pokey78]

Also a little State Dept. revenge after the scolding Newt gave them today.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

The clowns that had the knives out for Rumsfeld after 3 days of the war effort have buddies at State that want this to fail so they can say "I told you so".

"Wishing don't may it so son."

[Shermy]

It's kind of racist. How is the fact that a million people celebrate a repressed ceremony "proof" that they are anti-american? Oh, because they're Shiite.

Certainly, it was not noticed how the radical clerics were well-organized by Iran.

[John Valentine]

I agree. Whatever unrest exists among the Shi'a is 90% agitation by Persian agents and agents of influence.

"Conservative" mullahs in Iran want a successful democratic Iraq like Betty wants a headache. They will do and I am certain were expected to do exactly what they are doing now.

It won't succeed.

[CedarDave]

'RAT foreign policy talking points for the next few days.

Speaking of 'Rats, the State Department is in need of a good fumigation.

[thinktwice]

The cure for rocky roads is pavement.

The pavement is found in using the word "secular" in a constitutional requirement for separation of church and state; where any religious interference with individual rights, and/or any violation of a constitutional requirement for secular government, is defined as a criminal act.

[Republican Wildcat]

Did this same news outlet also say we were in a "quagmire" and had "understimated" Iraqi resistance as we advanced toward Baghdad?

[Ymani Cricket]

First of all, the "sources" are not named. So the sources are unverifiable.

On the other hand... just for arguments sake...lets suppose this is a true situation. In that case. We shouldn't be suprised. This is one of the reasons we didn't take him out the first time in 1991. I remember that was a reason that was touted at the time.

And secondly...just a little note here on this part of the article:
Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy

"Shiite" and "secular" don't even fit in a sentence together.

Lets not forget that the Sh'ias are the MAJORITY. In a democratic government, they will ULTIMATELY be the ruling party. There would never be an opposing pary to have a winning majority in a truly democratic government in Iraq.

Yes, the article has unnamed sources. But I do would think that this type of debate would be going on anyway. AND it is something to think about. It may not be a very popular thing to say, but I'll say it anyway; Iraq will become a radical religious Islamic state - democratically. The balance of power has been upset. That doesn't mean to say that we didn't do what we thought is the right thing. We freed an oppressed people.

But lets wait and see what kind of thanks the future brings. We have no power over the future. Perhaps we just THINK we do. And time will tell what happens. It is even possible that Iran and Iraq may well unite into one power in the not too distant future.

[leftiesareloonie]

If this IS true -- and I'm not saying it is or it isn't -- either Bush ought to be impeaced or he ought to fire his entire security council.

This article speaks of a kind of dereliction of major and disasterous proportions. This is the kind of thing naysayers have been warning against.

But let's see. It is the Washington Post. But not everything every liberal reporter says is false.

But bottom line: IF this is true, then Bush and his minions are among the biggest fools ever to run a war.

[Ymani Cricket]

A quote from an article titled SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SHIAS

"with the hope and prayer to God Almighty that He will "instill love in the heart of the believers" and bring us closer to each other so that we jointly can fight our common enemy, Satan and his followers. (U.S.A.) "
source
Or Muslims Unite

That attitude shouldn't suprise us. Don't you know we are the "great Satan"? ;)

[quietolong]

Let's wait & see.
Kind of like going to SF and asking if Bush is right. And then saying they speak for all in the US

[dixiechick2000]

Defense did know better. That's why they are supporting Chalabi. He may be tainted, but he has 700 of his democracy loving followers on the ground throughout Iraq.

As far as the Shi'a are concerned, think *Iran*.

The *regular working people* of State need a visit from Orkin. Too many years of Clinton infestation. In this context, I'm not referring to the appointed personnel.

[whadizit]

"...the State Department is in need of a good fumigation."

You are so right! I am so glad that Newt had the nads to publicly make an issue of it!

So very many of State Dept. are career diplomats and so many subscribe to the socialist, globalist policies of the Clintons. They are more than willing to sabotage anything GW wants and needs to do internationally.

[TigerLikesRooster]

RE #13

One of the ways to counter rising Shi'ite influence is to embolden the secular opposition force in Iran against the fundamentalist regime. The best way to kill a snake is to cut off its head.

I guess there would be no break to catch breath. Iranian regime won't wait.

[Ymani Cricket]

Well, Iran IS a member of the "axis of evil".