The American ouster of Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq has created a classic unintended consequence: Iran is offering Iraq assistance in quelling its civil violence. In addition, according to AFP, Iran's Ali Khamenei told Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that "[t]he first step to solve the security issue in Iraq is the exit of the occupiers... Americans will absolutely not succeed in Iraq."
Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980s, and America helped arm Iraq in that conflict. In 1980, Iran invaded Iraq. In early 1982, President Reagan removed Iraq from the US list of countries harboring or supporting terrorists. Later that year, Hughes Aircraft shipped Defender helicopters to Iraq. Then in December 1983, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pledged US support in a meeting with Saddam Hussein.
Today, Iraq's Talabani believes in cooperation, not conflict: "We need Iran's comprehensive help to fight terrorism, restore security and stabilize Iraq." Yet according to Voice of America, the US remains concerned about Iran, writing that "Iran's announced plans for industrial scale uranium enrichment have jolted the world community" and that US insists Iran cease "enrichmen work" before it will agree to Iran-US talks. And the Lebanon Daily Star reports that "France, Germany and Britain have drawn up a draft UN resolution outlining possible sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program."
Civil War?
The war of rhetoric on what to call the civil violence continues. Monday, NBC joined some print media -- specifically the LA Times and NY Times -- in breaking with other mainstream media by
calling the violence a "civil war." The political gnashing of teeth accompanying NBC's decision reflects America's media consumption habits: more people watch TV than read newspapers. (This weekend, I read an LA Times article -- published in the Seattle Times -- that led with "Iraq's civil war" ... I almost blogged this tidbit then.)
According to NBC's Matt Lauer:
For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war. And, for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted--that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas--can now be characterized as a civil war.
Hotline On Call lists soundbite responses to the NBC announcement... a news outlet action is now "news."
And Editor & Publisher reports that the New York Times has "agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate." Executive Editor Bill Keller continues:
We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of "civil war" is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated.
Bush: Not A Civil War
According to the New York Times, President Bush refuses to concede
this rhetorical battle. He continues to insist that the violence in Iraq is perpetrated by Al Qaida.
Yet a "senior American intelligence official" contends that it is Hezbollah that is helping Iraqi Shiiites. Analysts link Hezbollah with Iran and Syria, not Al Qaida.
To counter Bush's assertion, the Washington Times notes that Talabani's trip was postponed for "two days because of a curfew imposed after bombings Thursday that killed 202 persons in a Shi'ite Muslim stronghold."
Note that this was a 24 hour curfew on the heels of the bloodiest week for civilians since the US invaded in March 2003. And the bloodiest month since the war began, according to the UN, which documented 3,709 civilian deaths in October:
"Hundreds of bodies continued to appear in different areas of Baghdad handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing," the officials quoted the [UN] report as saying. "Many witnesses reported that perpetrators wear militia attire and even police or army uniforms." ...
The summary said the death toll was based on figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry, hospitals throughout the country and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad.
The toll for September and October combined was 7,054 civilians killed, including 351 women and 110 children, it said.
What do you think of Iraq and Iran's getting cosy ... and is this a civil war?
See Civil War In Iraq: Yes or No? (from September), Vietnam and Iraq: The Tragedy of Unlearned Lessons (guest editorial), Declassified Report: No Al Qaeda Link In Pre-War Iraq, Cheney: Iraq Not Worth Casualities
Technorati Profile
Technorati tags:
Iraq,
Politics
gada.be tags:
Iraq,
Politics
Category:
Iraq
Comments