http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/03/wirq03.xml

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

That's not just bad news for Iraq...

This may sound crazy, no actually I know it sounds crazy. Maybe we should just move out to the borders, let them battle it out, then finish rebuilding...

Or not, this is bad news, but on the upside of things, it means finding targets will be much easier with more of them flocking to the insurgency...

On a serious note, why people ever thought we could get them past hundreds of years of mutual hate in just a few short years I will never know. We Bombed the shit out of Kosovo/Serbia in 99, we just finally closed one of the two major bases there last year. 7 Years later, they're finally starting to at least put enough of their hate aside to peacefully co-exist.

We're going to be Iraq at least another decade even if everything started going perfectly tomorrow. My advice, get used to the idea of American GIs being in that country for awhile now, that way you won't be dissapointed later. This news just means the job will be that much harder.

What are the options at this point?

1. Leave Iraq, allow it to be subdivided into Iranian(Shia), Syrian(Sunni Baathists) and Turkish(Kurds) fiefdoms.
This is the equilivilant of giving Hitler Czechoslovakia without a fight. Prolly the worst possible alternative, but one highly likely if the US creates a vacuum of power.

2. Remain in Iraq and be Bled dry of men, treasure and will over an extended period of time. When Osama Bin Laden ordered the bombing of the WTC, he was trying to provoke us into attacking Afganistan, where he hoped to repeat to us what was done to the Russians. His plans fell apart, until we decided to attack Iraq, then hope was reborn anew.

We cant leave and we cant stay. Its the ultimate lose/lose scenario. There is no easy way out.

The only way out is really, really unpleasant. But I think that its inevitible. We will attack and most likely invade Iran. Its going to really suck. Badly. But we are locked into this course of action as the stupid, foolish wrong headed planning of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld has led us into a situation where we are no longer in control of events, but events are in control of us.

As economic rivals to the US, China and Russia will give Iran cover so the US can continue hemorraging power, treasure and influence in Iraq. They will only lend that support so far and a strong aggressive push by the US on the Nuclear Sanctions could very well back Iran into a corner where they do something stupid.

A more nefarious person than myself would think that an attack on US interests at a time when tensions are the highest would be the necessary match to spark this. All would be needed would be an agent in some form or fashion in Hezbollah that owes alliegence to most likely Saudi Arabia or has been turned by Mossad. This person a bonafide Hezzbollah in a key position would only have to attack Americans anywhere in the world and have it traced back to Hezzbollah.

Thats the ArchDuke Ferdinand moment.

Has C Heston opened a franchise, the NRI? Why are they allowing anyone other than military and police to carry or possess weapons? As long as the Lebanese/Hezbollah disarmament approach is going to be used, there are going to be casualties and increasing violence, regardless of the religious leaders attempts to intervene. The old hatreds have been inflamed, and will not easily be staunched.

We've pussyfooted around too much without actually destroying our enemies. As Elemak pretty much said, we need to utterly destroy our enemies to have a chance.
Sadr has always been our enemy. Time to end that.

Utter destruction unleashed on South Vietnam worked real well building democracy, too. Let's unmothball that fleet of B52s and call it Rolling Thunder 2007 Extreme Edition, maybe we can get some Microsoft logos on it as corporate sponsorship.

As has been noted by virtually everyone, Ramboing ourselves another major power vacuum in Iraq works to the benefit of everyone but The Good Guys, notably Iran, who likely just can't get enough of us solving the problem of secular neighbors for them (on our dime!).

And we're not going to invade Iran. You see, unlike Iraq, Iran actually has an army and allies and can fight back. Plus, Iran has neighbors like Pakistan, who we gleefully allowed to get access to nuclear weapons. Why don't we just ponder that little detail for a bit when we consider the possibility of a war involving Iran being the second conflict in sixty years to have nuclear weapons in the hands of people not "pussyfooting around" when the inevitable regional escalation would happen.


As economic rivals to the US, China and Russia will give Iran cover so the US can continue hemorraging power, treasure and influence in Iraq.

I have an image of some crusty old hardline Politburo types with their little red Mao books dying laughing from the schadenfreude.

Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

If Peter can do it ...

Iran's own armies and forces would be taken down in less than a month.

Our Naval and Air Forces would reduce their military infrastructure to so much rubble...it's not even up for dispute.

They're simply no match, it's their allies that's to contend with that give one pause.

Also of note is there is a very informed populace in Iran, they all watch CNN/FOX/BBC etc etc and not all there support the public image you see thrown out by their leadership.

A link to their Air assetts

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

With our total control of the air they fall quickly...that's a fact...

Fandros Finglaflin

Iran's own armies and forces would be taken down in less than a month.

Our Naval and Air Forces would reduce their military infrastructure to so much rubble...it's not even up for dispute.

They're simply no match, it's their allies that's to contend with that give one pause.

Also of note is there is a very informed populace in Iran, they all watch CNN/FOX/BBC etc etc and not all there support the public image you see thrown out by their leadership.

A link to their Air assetts

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

With our total control of the air they fall quickly...that's a fact...

Fandros Finglaflin

I saw some interviews with street Iranians and they basically feel they have bigger concerns other than the crap their leader is spewing. However to invade them would be costly and end up in a Iraq/Vietnam quagmire. Any sane counttry knows you can't take the US head on, but Bin Laden was smart and enough of a student of history to get us bogged down. A major part of winning a war is tactics, plain and simple.

Insurgents could give 2 sh*tz about smart bombs, F-15's and cruise missiles, they fight with simple intelligence gathering etc...

What we should have done was to have someone in a high position, like Rice meet with the former Iranian president while he was/is here. But chalk it up to another missed opportunity I guess. So much for dialogue.

I don't think invading Iran is the way to go, L2.
We invaded Egypt in 1882 to protect interests in the Far East, and when shorn of Cromer in 1907, it was one large, rebellious debacle until Nasser threw us out in '56. We did it in Afghanistan, like 3 times, to protect interests in India, and again, debacle, debacle.

The US of the initial decades of the 21st century resembles the Britain of the final decades of the 19th century. Growing rival powers, over-stretching imperial obligations, fading international prestige. It's all there.
Invading Iran might well be a walk in the park like Wolseley's Egyptian invasion in '82, but it'll be down hill from there, trying to please other Powers whilst tumbling in to another inevitable religiously fanatic quagmire as before.

The Pax Americana is coming to an end, through no fault of its own. Once upon a time, nothing could be done across the globe without American support or intervention. Now you have Nuclear defiance in rogue states, wars in the Middle East, the diplomatic finger from almost every Latin American state, huge worries with China, both with the hurrendous trade deficiet and the growing military machine, all the whilst you're nailed down in Iraq and you want to, what, add Iran to the list?

Me no think it's a good idea. Let the Canadians do something.

And once again Malse, kind of almost sort of has a valid point, then fucks it up.

We need to either say fuck it all and show the world what the Imperialism is about; or pull everything back inside our own borders and put up the "Sorry We're Closed" sign and come back out in ten years to sweep up the ash.

Or maybe we could try Diplomacy, which has always worked with meglomaniacle (sp?) world leaders in the past...

If you think things are just going to peter down in Iraq, and we'll pull out a la Vietnam, you need to think again. The middle east is far different from South-East Asia (and I'm not just talking about the jungle here buddy) I'd stake money on us (possibly myself) having boots on the ground inside Iran and probably Syria inside the next ten years. I'd almost say five, but not as certain of that.

I'd be willing to bet you $100 we will not invade Iran.

Listening to you guys living out the dying days of the American myth is priceless, though. I remember Afghanistan and Iraq being "quick little one month wars .. not even wars even!" too. It's almost excusable for the US of Amnesia to forget the real lessons of Vietnam within only a few decades since we started living out the Orwellian dream of constant war against poorly defined concepts for the benefit of very rich people, but fuck guys, we only totally shot our own damn foot off in Iraq THREE YEARS AGO. You were all even posting here about it, so I know you were at least circumspectly aware.

If any of you ever read anything instead of playing tin piper patriot, you'd know I don't think we're going to pull out of Iraq. We've invested something like $30 BILLION in base infrastructure there for the purpose of restablishing the buffer zone between Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. We'll only be leaving when our checks start bouncing ...

The only military solution to all this is to turn our military on our own government. At the very least that would make them think twice about cutting veteran's benefits :>

I think instead of condeming the very country that gives you the right to be a pissant on the lil molehill you should reread my post.

I said Iran's military is nothing to us, and as such would be dismantled inside a month.

I was very clear to point out they were not what stops us from going in. Instead I pointed to their allies and the mess we would find ourselves in after going in.

A joke really you've become Malse. You've very intelligent, that's plain to see, but you're perceptions of the world are so disasterous they've tainted your filters.

US of Amnesia indeed, do us a favor..forget about this country you despise and move north young man.....Canada awaits!!!

Fandros

That's not a bad idea, really, our economy is going downhill so fast that the loon has been appreciating. Banff is quite scenic, too. That retort is so stale I think it was a groaner even before you were born, though. (incidentally Canada is a virtual policy colony of ours anyway, the draft dodger rap aside)

The only joke here is on you guys. I'm not exactly even sure what "so disasterous they've tainted your filters" means, but I can only assume you think I'm living in hippy fantasy hug the trees land. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm watching jingoistic fervor dig us further into debt. I don't give a shit how many little towelheads you guys think we should kill. Join the army, shoot them all if you makes you feel better. Then go shoot all the Mexicans crossing our southern border. Invade Mexico and Venezuela and Cuba and Chile while you're at it. Start a new "preventative" war in Korea instead of swinging our big imaginary democratic dick around with the endless empty sabre rattling. Go for it.

Except whoops, we can't fucking afford it, and haven't even paid off our last five big hurrahs.

No bud, I wasn't accusing you of looking through rose colored glasses.

I was accusing you of seeing disaster and ruin and the veritable hellfires buring everywhere.

Fandros Finglaflin

I agree we arent going to invade Iran.
We cant.

You all understand that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a test case for US/Iran, right? Take what you will from this, but a friend of mine was talking to a very drunk senior fellow of a pretty prestigious washington conservative think tank, and he was saying the reason Israel was given the green light was a test to see how far bombing could degrade infrastructure and would the Lebanese people rise up in anger against Hezbollah for causing it.
I think we found the answer to that. People root for the home team.

The reality is that Iran has "arrived". We need to accept that fact that they are a major world player. I think we need to normalize relations with them. We need to start learning how to live with Muslims.
The Bush approach of not talking and the Neo Con philosophy that Diplomacy doesnt work are moronic. We need to start engaging. We need to start taking a realistic look at the state of the world we live in.

Wars are disasters. They have ruinious consequences for those that engage in them. The third option that I put foward was a red herring, we cant and we wont invade Iran. The real third option is that we have to start learning to live with them.

So, how do you negotiate with a state that wants you and all infidels dead?
"Death to America"
Or is that another little phrase that just gets mixed up in the translation?

Sistani is back in the game.

This seriously deflated me when I first read that he was going to leave politics in Iraq. I seriously doubt he ever actually did leave, so once again, the press has failed me..

.. or maybe, just maybe I'll allow that he used the press to gain some type of advantage spreading the previous misinformation that he was no longer a political leader. He seems to be a tough old bird mor ethan capable of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201549.html?nav=rss_world

BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 -- The speaker of the Iraqi parliament said Tuesday that a controversial plan to partition the country into three autonomous regions is politically dead.
...
But support for the plan began to erode after a vast array of Sunni, Shiite and secular groups boycotted parliament on Sunday to protest the plan. Mashhadani said Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, had ordered Shiite politicians to back off from the plan in order to prevent bitter infighting.

Iraq is not lost, contrary to repeated and desperate prayers by some people.