U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites

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

[Pokey78]

As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq's future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites' organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country.

The burst of Shiite power -- as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands who made a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of Karbala yesterday -- has U.S. officials looking for allies in the struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government. Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region.

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

[Ymani Cricket]

The assassination of Abdul Majid al-Khoei

We can't even do it in Iraq with Khoei. What can you do when the people you back are assassinated? They are looked upon as puppets. This is a very, very, very, difficult thing.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #21

Yeah, Iranians moved in pretty fast and is taking political control on the ground. Pilgrimage is a handy cover for Iranian regime to position its people in S. Iraq.

In retrospect, it would have been better if this war started a month or two earlier.

[willyboyishere]

I have the feeling that Iraq is going to be separated into
three distinct areas, all with dissimilar governmental structures. Geographically I don't quite know how it will be managed, but the largest and most contentious consideration will obviously be how to divide up the oil wells and wealth. At this point a unified Iraq looks like a pipe (line) dream.

[farmfriend]

One of the Generals on FOX said we needed to wack a few. I couldn't believe he said it on national TV.

[FITZ]

I wonder if the Shiites would be biting off more than they could chew by trying to take control over Iraq when their hold of Iran is actually slipping. Iraqis are Arabs, Iranians are Persians ---the Arabs aren't going to tolerate Persians controlling Arabs when they're used to being the ones in control of the Persians. Iraqis slaughtered the Persians in that war they had. I wonder if the ayatollahs could really manage what they might be planning.

[FITZ]

I have the feeling that Iraq is going to be separated into three distinct areas,

I don't see that problem with that. There could be a portion for the Kurds, the Shiites could have a piece and that would become under Iran control, the Iraqis and Kuwaitis were once one people ---as long as the Kuwaitis had control over the oil.

[thegreatbeast]

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."
Were this true I would say, "Woe is me!' But this seems like some Clinton holdover or State lifer who hasn't found found a receptive ear grousing once again that we don't have 20/20 foresight. Besides, focussing on Hussein was not a bad idea.
Tell you what though. It is our ball and now it is our playing field. After all the trouble that Iraq (and Iran) have caused the US, some 126 grand American lives in this most recent action, we should make it plain that we will not quit the field until there is an Iraqi government that we know, know concretely, to be friendly to American interests.
Hostilities have not been declared to be over in Iraq as yet. We still have armies and armaments there. All the better to sort this matter out with the Shiite clerics and their fervent adherents and any hashassisins imported from neighboring territories. Now is no time to lose resolve.

[optik_b]

I don't see how if we establish a democratic Iraq the people there will not eventually elect an anti-American government. These people are backstabbers.

[js1138]

Remember, the dems are screwed if we don't lose the peace. The BBC reports that only a few hundred of the pilgrims were chanting anti-American slogans.

[optik_b]

Why do you think Bush I did not overthrow Saddam? Becuase he feared this kind of thing getting out of hand. Islamic fundamentalism is a greater threat to the USA than Saddam ever was.

[kjam22]

Why do you think Bush I did not overthrow Saddam? Becuase he feared this kind of thing getting out of hand. Islamic fundamentalism is a greater threat to the USA than Saddam ever was.

A good point. I heard last night that the administration was going to "insist" that Iraq be a free country with free elections, and freedom of religion for it's citizens. You know... I'll have to see that "freedom of religion thing" there to believe it.

[js1138]

I would agree to the point that we were not prepared in 1991 to deal with terrorism. But Bush II is geared up for a decades long struggle, using whatever it takes. this, of course, is what has the dems in a pannic, because they are not prepared to participate in the war against terrorism. there might be a few competent dems, but the party will never let them lead.

[optik_b]

True, the dems are too weak to lead at a time when we are in a perpetual state of covert war on terror and at times outright war against terrorist regimes.

[optik_b]

" I heard last night that the administration was going to "insist" that Iraq be a free country with free elections, and freedom of religion for it's citizens."

That's great our leaders are insisting that, my fear is what if Iraqis elect some militant muslim govt?

[js1138]

There's nothing covert about the war against terror, except possibly the names of some of the agents. The means are quit explicit -- go after the money, go after the contributers, go after the nations that allow large scale terrorist organizations, go after leaders that fail to cooperate, demand government reform in authoritarian states. All this is out in the open.

[Daus]

That's great our leaders are insisting that, my fear is what if Iraqis elect some militant muslim govt?

It's all about checks and balances... I am expecting there to be a LOT of Kurd Generals in the new Iraqi armed forces.

[VRWC_minion]

If this IS true

If what is true ? You leave this undefined.

Assuming you mean the surprise, even assuming they were "surprised" about the Shite's reaction how would that change the prior actions to date ? Are you saying it was still not in our and the Iraqi's best interests to overthrow Saddam ?

[Baseballguy]

Absurd!!!

Your concept of rational thinking is on drugs. If Iraq is disarmed and is not a terrorist state, that is the goal. We are not building a government, we are providing guidence. The Clinton years are over!!!!

The same as in North Korea. We want them to stop nuclear weapon production.

People with no freedom, then they find it, and wont let it go.

[kjam22]

I agree with you. We have to be prepared to kill a whole lot of people over there..... and I'm just not sure we are willing to do that because of internal and external political backlash.