Mooky Rubs The U.S. Nose In The Iranian Victory In Iraq

After almost a decade in Iraq, after losing thousands of soldiers and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, the United States’ request to maintain even a minimal troop presence in Iraq after the end of 2011 was categorically rejected, in the end, effectively vetoed by close Iranian ally and long time U.S. nemesis, with plenty of U.S. blood on his hands, Muqtada al-Sadr. We got kicked out by Mooky, how absolutely humiliating is that?

Iraq’s Sadr calls for full US withdrawal

Head of Iraq’s Sadr movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, has called for the complete withdrawal of all American troops from the country by the end of the year.

Speaking in the holy city of Najaf on Wednesday, the cleric rejected any form of US presence in the country, as Washington and Baghdad are discussing keeping a limited number of US troops as military trainers in Iraq.

Sadr said the presence of US military trainers in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline is an ”organized occupation”.

He also dismissed any negotiation with the US before the full withdrawal of all foreign soldiers and the payment of compensation to the families of Iraqis killed by US troops.

Washington has been pressing Baghdad to agree to keep thousands of its troops beyond the 2011 deadline. It also wants the remaining troops to be granted immunity from prosecution.

See also:
Sadr rejects presence of US Military trainers in Iraq
Sadr bloc warns over keeping US military
Iraq’s move to revoke immunity for troops adds to US problems
After Nearly Nine Years of War and Occupation, America to Withdraw All Troops From Iraq
The U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq
U.S. role in Iraq comes to unsatisfying end
Timid leadership on US forces by Iraq’s politicians
As U.S.-Iraq troop talks faltered, Obama didn’t pick up the phone
With troops pulling out at year’s end, close U.S. Embassy in Iraq for diplomats’ safety
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Risk Key US Gen calls Iraq pullout ‘disaster’
Overheard on CNN.com: Iraq not ours to ‘win’
Soldiers, Pundits Debate Whether Iraq War Was Worth It

If anyone tries to tell you that the U.S. pullout from Iraq, without a trace, after begging to stay and being curtly rebuffed, isn’t a huge victory for Iran, they’re either naive, confused, or lying. Iran will dominate Iraq, economically, militarily, politically, and socially after we’re gone. The majority of Iraq’s government is already aligned with Iran.

Does anyone seriously believe that a U.S. embassy, with less than 200 troops, has any chance of checking Iran’s influence in Iraq? Hell, we’ll be lucky if our embassy isn’t overrun. Iraq could very well become another Iranian satellite state, like Lebanon. And hey, you thought taking military action against Iran’s nuclear program was already difficult at best? Try it without any leverage over or military footprint in Iraq.

/Obama’s Iran/Iraq policy, “not with a bang, but a whimper”

Making Iraq Unsafe For Christianity

Mission accomplished. There are now half as many Christians in Iraq as there were under the Saddam Hussein regime and the Christians that remain live in constant fear.

A Major Al-Qaida victory: Christmas is canceled in Iraq

The radical terrorist organization Al-Qaida not only subscribes to the idea that Islam is the only legitimate path to God but that countries with predominantly Moslem populations are sacred and should not include residents who are infidels. In what is clearly a major psychological victory for Ben-Ladan’s band of terrorst-fanatics, the Christian community in Iraq has decided to not publicly celebrate Christmas this year.

On October 31st, 68 Iraqi Christians were murdered during an Al-Qaida terrorist-assault on Our Lady of Salvation (Catholic) Church in Bagdad while mass was being conducted. Eye witness reports stated that the terrorists entered the Church and began shooting randomly at worshipers. Crying children only called attention to themselves and were shown no mercy.

In the days that followed, militants targeted the homes and neighborhoods of Christians throughout the Iraq. Since then, more than a 1,000 Christian Iraqi families have fled to the Kurdish controlled province of Kurdistan in the north. Tens of thousands of Christians have left the country in fear since the start of the war in 2003.

See also:
Christmas canceled in Iraq for fear of violence
Christmas festivities canceled in Iraq after new Al Qaeda threats
Iraqi Christians mark safer Christmas in Kurdistan
For some Iraqi Christians, this may be last Christmas in Baghdad
Iraqi Christians Exercise Caution for Christmas
Iraqi churches cancel Christmas festivities
Iraq Christians cancel Christmas celebrations amid threats
Iraqis defy threats to pack massacre church on Xmas
Iraqi Christians Cancel Christmas
Iraq Christians cancel Christmas festivities
Christian exodus from Iraq gathers pace

Remember Colin Powell’s supposed Pottery Barn rule. “you break it, you buy it”. This is happening on our watch. Just something to think about.

/oh, and this just in, Islam is way beyond vile, an evil festering pus sore on the face of the Earth

The American Combat Mission In Iraq Is Over

Hey, Obama said it, so it must be true, right?

So, what’s the difference between an old fashioned combat brigade and a newfangled “advise and assist” brigade? Apparently, not much, besides the tortured semantics spewing from Obama’s enormous piehole.

U.S. soldiers help repel deadly attack on Iraq army headquarters

American soldiers helped Iraqi troops battle insurgents in downtown Baghdad on Sunday, repelling a major attack in the heart of the capital five days after President Obama declared an end to U.S. combat operations.

At least 18 people were killed and 39 injured in the midday attack in which a group of suicide bombers and gunmen attempted to storm the Iraqi army’s east Baghdad headquarters, located in a former Ministry of Defense building in a busy market district alongside the Tigris River.

2 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq

Two American soldiers were killed and nine were injured Tuesday when a man wearing an Iraqi army uniform opened fire on them in an Iraqi commando compound in the province of Salahuddin, an attack that highlighted the danger U.S. troops continue to face in Iraq despite the formal end of combat operations announced by President Obama last week.

The soldiers were members of a security detail guarding a U.S. company commander who was meeting with Iraqi security forces, according to a statement issued by the U.S. military. The military said it wasn’t clear whether the assailant was an Iraqi soldier, but Iraqi and Kurdish officials said the shooting occurred after an altercation between the American soldiers and a Kurdish Iraqi soldier.

See also:
US Forces engage in response to Iraq attack
Al-Qaida group claims attack killing 12 in Baghdad
Gunmen attack Iraq army base, kill 12
Attack Shows Lasting Threat to U.S. in Iraq
First U.S. troops killed in Iraq after Obama declared U.S. combat mission over
Iraqi soldier kills 2 U.S. soldiers
Iraqi Kills 2 U.S. Soldiers, Wounds 9
US soldiers killed in Iraq
U.S. troops in Iraq go from shock and awe to ‘advise and assist’
First U.S. Advise and Assist Brigade Arrives In Iraq Under New Dawn
Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal
Journalists face challenge: Is it really ‘end of combat’ in Iraq?
A Rose by Any Other Name (Make that A Combat Brigade by any Other Name…)

Now, does all this sound like U.S. combat operations ii Iraq are over? Simply renaming combat brigades as “advise and assist” brigades so that Obama can claim that the American combat mission in Iraq is over is nothing more than a cheap political stunt that does nothing to change the literal ground truth. For the 50,000 U.S. troops left in Iraq, combat is certainly not over, no matter what lies Obama tells.

/then again, it’s hardly surprising, this is the same Clown Car Club of an Obama administration that insists on pretending there is no war on terror and no terrorism by euphemistically relabeling these concrete, real world concepts as “overseas contingency operations” and “man caused disasters”

Who Does He See To Get His Reputation Back?

Navy SEAL not guilty of charges in Iraq

The first of three Navy SEALs accused of mishandling a suspect in the high-profile killings of contractors in Iraq was found not guilty at a court-martial Thursday.

A military jury cleared U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas of all charges, a military spokesman said.

Huertas and two other Navy SEALs — Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe and Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe — have been facing charges in connection with the assault of Iraqi detainee Ahmed Hashim Abed.

U.S. authorities accuse Abed of being the mastermind in the slayings and mutilation of four U.S. contractors in Falluja in 2004, one of the Iraq war’s most notorious crimes against Americans.

During Huertas’ court-martial, Abed testified Wednesday that he was handcuffed, blindfolded and beaten.

Huertas and Keefe had been charged with dereliction of duty, based on the allegation that they failed to safeguard the detainee, according to the military. Huertas also was charged with impeding an investigation by attempting to influence the testimony of another sailor.

Keefe’s court-martial was supposed to have opened Monday, but it was delayed after defense attorneys were stuck in Europe because of flight delays due to ash from the Icelandic volcano. That court-martial is expected to begin Friday morning.

McCabe, who is charged with assault, will be tried May 3 in Norfolk, Virginia.

See also:
US Navy Seal cleared over attack on ‘Blackwater killer’
US Navy Seal cleared over beating of Iraqi terrorist suspect
Navy SEAL found not guilty of covering up assault
Local Navy SEAL Cleared in Court Martial
US Navy seal cleared of all prisoner abuse charges in Iraq
Court martial clears US sailor in Iraq: military
Navy SEAL cleared of beating suspect
Sailor not guilty of Iraq charges
Free All The SEALs From Travesty
Support The Navy SEALs who Captured Ahmed Hashim Abed

It’s absolutely disgusting that these three SEALs were, on the word of a scumbag terrorist, charged with these crimes in the first place. Instead of being court martialed, they should have been awarded medals for capturing, and not killing outright, the vile piece of Islamic [expletive deleted] responsible for this:

/one acquittal down, two to go, and this whole sordid episode of military command asshattery had better not ruin their careers either

It’s Allawi By A Nose

Allawi wins thin plurality in Iraq election

A secular Shiite, Ayad Allawi, has won a narrow plurality in Iraq’s national election, but it is a religious Shia party that will likely determine if he’ll form a government.

Mr. Allawi’s Iraqiya party took 91 of the 325 seats in Iraq’s Council of Representatives, electoral officials declared yesterday, 19 days after 12 million Iraqis went to the polls.

The current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, whose party won 89 seats, immediately announced he would not accept the results and called for a recount.

But it is the third-place Iraqi National Alliance (INA), a coalition dominated by two religious Shia parties, that is in the driver’s seat.

With 163 members needed to form a majority, the result means that unless Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki join forces – which is highly unlikely, since they despise one other – the only way either man can likely form a government is with the support of the INA. Any coalition formed without it would be too fragmented and give undue clout to smaller parties.

Mr. Maliki, leader of the Shia religious Dawa party, would seem a natural partner for the INA, the product of a union between the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, led by Ammar al-Hakim, and the Sadrist followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. All three parties are pro-Iranian.

But two things stand in the way of such a coalition. The Sadrists want no part of a government led by Mr. Maliki, the man who crushed the Sadrist militia in Basra and Baghdad, while Mr. Hakim professes to have learned his lesson in last year’s provincial election that it is more important to emphasize broad national interests than narrow sectarian ones.

Indeed, it was the 2005 coalition government of these three elements, along with major Kurdish parties, that contributed to the country’s bloody sectarian conflict and the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Nevertheless, many Iraq watchers believe that Iran would still prefer to see these three Shia parties hook up again. That was reportedly Tehran’s view last summer when the three considered a union, but it was Mr. Maliki who turned his back on the idea, preferring to go it alone with his State of Law bloc. Now it’s Mr. Maliki who needs allies.

New life was breathed into the idea of a reunion of the pro-Iranian groups by a Supreme Court decision handed down this week. The court held that the stipulation in the constitution that the bloc with the largest number of seats gets the first chance to form a government is not limited to a bloc that ran in the election. It also could mean a group of parties formed after the vote. In other words, a quickly formed coalition of the three Shia religious parties could claim the right to try to form the next government.

For his part, Mr. Allawi, who served as the first, provisional prime minister in 2004, can argue that such a coalition will only stoke the fires of sectarianism, something that most Iraqis want to avoid.

Indeed, Mr. Allawi’s success is testament to that. A secular Shiite, he ran in partnership with several Sunni political figures determined to get a share of power. Mr. Allawi polled well in Sunni districts but, as Iraq-watcher Reidar Visser observed last night, his victory was more than just about his appeal across the sectarian divide.

“By winning more seats than expected south of Baghdad [where Shiites predominate], and almost as many seats as Maliki in [religiously mixed] Baghdad, Allawi has proved that he is more than ‘the candidate of the Sunnis’,” Mr. Visser wrote on his highly regarded historiae.org website.

With the support of the INA’s 70 members, plus a handful of others, Mr. Allawi could form a government. While some analysts, such as Mr. Visser, caution that uniting Iraqiya with the INA could “mean another oversized, ineffective government populated by parties with little in common,” not everyone agrees. Sheik Jalal Eddin al-Saghir, the INA’s most senior council member, says he has tried to get Mr. Allawi to join their alliance in the past.

“We can work with him,” said Sheik al-Saghir, imam of Baghdad’s most important Shia mosque.

Some of Mr. Allawi’s Sunni partners may have trouble working with the INA, however.

It was the INA that launched an anti-Baathist campaign that prevented several Sunni politicians from running in the election. Many of those blocked from running hailed from Iraqiya. They argue that they hold no brief for the memory of Saddam Hussein and left the Baath party long ago. Their history, they say, should not bar them from political office.

These same Iraqiya politicians may also have a difficult time teaming up with some of Iraq’s Kurdish political leaders. Prominent in Mr. Allawi’s party is a group of arch-nationalists who are determined to prevent the Kurds from claiming territory in and around the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk that lie between the Kurds’ northern heartland and Sunni Arab population centres.

Indeed, the first move in the game of coalition-building may well be an attempt by the major Kurdish leaders to team up themselves with the INA. Both groups share a preference for Canadian-style decentralized federalism and together could parley their combined force into concessions from either Mr. Allawi or Mr. Maliki.

See also:
Alliance led by ex-Iraqi PM wins election narrowly
Reports: Former Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi wins most seats in Iraqi parliament
Allawi wins narrow victory in Iraqi vote
Secular bloc wins most seats in Iraq
Preliminary results show Allawi wins most seats in Iraq election
Iraq Election Results Give Allawi Group Largest Bloc (Update3)
Secular challenger hails Iraq election victory
Secularist former leader Allawi wins Iraq vote
Allawi wins Iraqi election; al-Maliki rejects results
Maliki seeks recount in Iraq elections
Poll body rejects Iraq recount call
Iraq’s Allawi ‘open to talks’ over new government
Allawi pledges to work with rivals as Iraq election result declared
Iraq’s Allawi extends hand to rival
Iraq’s Allawi says open to all in coalition talks
Iraq election front-runners court possible allies
After Win, Will Former U.S. Front Man Rule in Iraq?
Ayad Allawi, once seen as a U.S. puppet, returns to the center of Iraqi politics
Allawi Wins and the Media Misses the Significance
Analysis: Allawi win could curb Iran’s influence
In Iraq’s election, a defeat for Iran

Although the margin is razor thin and the election dust is far from settled, this is arguably a victory for the United States and a defeat for Iran, since Allawi is a pro-West secular candidate, whereas al-Maliki is a pro-Iran religious candidate. Hell, the fact that this election unfolded as smoothly as it did is, in and of itself, a victory for the United States. Iraq sure has come a long way since 2003.

/now, let the coalition wrangling begin!

What Does A Persian Have To Do To Get An Ass Kicking Around Here?

Iranians accused of seizing Iraq oil field

Iraq was last night seeking a diplomatic solution to what it said was an incursion of Iranian troops who crossed into its territory and occupied an oilfield on Thursday night.

The incursion, which Iran denies, raised the spectre of another confrontation between the two neighbours who fought a war from 1980 till 1988, partly caused by Iraqi claims of Iranian trespassing. Yesterday Iraq demanded that the troops withdraw, but after an emergency meeting of its national security council it said the two countries have begun negotiations to resolve it.

Since the last PoWs were exchanged in 2003, the Iraqi government, now headed by Nouri al-Maliki, has generally enjoyed good relations with Tehran. But the Iranian regime has been watching with keen interest the award of massive oil contracts across the border, and the incursion is seen as a strategic step to establish its claim in a disputed border area which is also rich in petroleum potential.

The Baghdad officials say the Iranians have “trespassed” into the al-Fakkah oilfield, one of the largest in the region, which straddles the border between the two countries, three times in the last month. But this time, they are said to have pulled down the Iraqi flag and raised their own.

Both countries claim that the No 4 well, the most productive in the field, belongs to them. “As well as the flag, they have also dug a trench around the oil well and deployed armoured cars,” said Brigadier-General Dhafir Nadhmi of the Iraqi army. “They have taken control of the field. We are waiting for orders from our government.”

In Baghdad, Mr Maliki called on fellow Iraqis to remain calm and insisted his government would not resort to military action at this point. But he also convened an emergency meeting of the country’s National Security Council, and additional units of border security guards were moved forward towards the oilfield.

In Tehran, Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency later quoted the National Iranian Oil Company, saying: “The company denies Iranian soldiers taking control of any oil well inside Iraqi territory.” But Iraq’s deputy foreign minister, Mohammed Haj Mahmoud, said: “This move by the Iranians took place at around 3.30pm. We are co-ordinating with the Oil Ministry on this. This is not the first time that the Iranians have tried to prevent Iraq from investing in oilfields in border areas. We might summon the Iranian ambassador to discuss this issue.”

The Iranian action led to oil prices rising on the international markets. In Washington the State Department said that although the Iranians have crossed the border before, they had never ventured this far forward, and the move was a “matter of concern”. No American troops are in the area.

See also:
Iraq says Iranian troops seize oil well near border
Iraq-Iran in oilfield dispute
US: Iraq not ‘pushed around’ by Iran
Iran seizes oil well in Iraq near border
Iran: Oil field is ours, not Iraq’s
Iran Claims an Oil Field It Seized
Iran acknowledges oil well takeover
Iraqis say oil well still being held; Iran denies claims
Iranian Forces Occupy Iraqi Fekka Oilfield, Iraqi Government Demands Iranian Withdrawal
Iraq official confirms Iran incursion in oil area

Gee, Iran causing international trouble, imagine that. How much more of this [expletive deleted] are we going to tolerate?

/I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, regime change in Iran would solve 80% of the world’s problems overnight