NYDN: WikiLeaks doc show how George W. Bush's misguided Iraq War made Iran a bigger threat

[JMS]

JMS, you look like you're more informed on the subject than I am. (Which, admittedly, isn't saying much.)

Thank you... I think.

Do you think we're actually seeing the spread of democracy in the region? Or are we simply seeing the overthrow of one batch of Dictators for another batch?

Typically in unstable times the best organized party tends to dominate regardless of what the revolution was about. Remember in the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin was in Geneva when the Czar was overthrown. The revolution was over by the time he was allowed to pass through German lines to re-enter Russia. The communists usurped that revolution after the fact. That's one of the reasons George Washington was such an incrediblly great man. Cause he easily could have been king, but rather he on several occassions pushed power away to support the estabilshment of a republic. A very rare thing in human history.

I must say the Moslem Brotherhood is by far the best organized and funded political group in many of these countries undergoing revolution. Their traditional stance is not for Democracy, but rather they mirror AlQuada's goal of returning the region to a Caliphate ( Golden age and high point of unified Islamic Monachy ).

So I would say we are cautiously optomistic on Democracies, but suspecting the worst. As to which will win, I think that struggle is ongoing and the most important country in this regards is Egypt. Very much up in the air. It was very chilling that the Moslem brotherhood instructed their people not to demonstrate against the military leaders last week, The Brotherhood feared the military would instill marshal law and postpone parlementary elections in Egypt, and the Brotherhood as the pre-ordained parlementary election winners didn't want the elections postponed. Sure enough the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party which is the political wing of the Brotherhood won the elections. ( most seats in Egypts new Parlement) 36% of votes.

And, if you agree with me that we are seeing at least an expression of a desire to move in a more democratic direction, then will that function as the Force that balances, and perhaps defeats, Iranian plans?

What we are seeing in the ME is first and formost a revolt against high food prices, and bad economies. The people are not revolting for political representation but for jobs. The ME is awash in young people who can't find work. 50% of Egypt is under the age of 24. That demographic is going to be true for the next 30 years and unemployment in that group is like 30% with no relief in site..

Egyptian Median age is 24... definition of median is half of population younger, half older..

http://www.indexmundi.com/egypt/median_age.html

Unemployment for Egyptians 15-29 is about 26% and growing... from the world bank.

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/243377/day9EgyptTunisia%20Presentation.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/243377/day9EgyptTunisia%20Presentation.pdf

That is true across the ME. There is certainly a demographic which is calling for Democratic reform, but the vast majority of the people have no experience or first hand knowledge of western political theory and really are more interested in economic relief.

[TimmySmith]

Well since you don't see any then I guess that settles it then......

:secret: Before you hand in your analysis of the region maybe you would like to talk to the Saudi King who apparently has a better view from his house.

His opinion was that we were handing Iraq to Iran on a gold platter. Hardly proof of anything, yet. His obvious concern has more to do with tribal politics than global ones.

[twa]

By not being able to oppose them the way they've been doing for decades?

.

How much did their opposition stop them though?

Was it nothing more than a lives costing distraction?

[AsburySkinsFan]

His opinion was that we were handing Iraq to Iran on a gold platter. Hardly proof of anything, yet. His obvious concern has more to do with tribal politics than global ones.

It is being handed to Iran, you seriously think that Iraq could stop an Iranian invasion? This is exactly why Iraq needed to be dealt with by the Middle East rather than the US because no one wants to clean up our mess, and we can't afford to stay anymore soo......?

[Prosperity]

"King" Abdullah is about as biased of a source in re Iran as you can find.

The house of saud has been pushing for a war with Iran for years now... not themselves of course, no they want the US to do it.

[elkabong82]

Hasn't the right used Iran as a scare tactic for some time now? I remember GW even calling them part of the axis of evil.

But now it seems that some righters in here are actually claiming Iran isn't that much of a threat? Why the change? Seems it's only a way to reduce blame for GW.

[JMS]

The question is how is Iraq going to aid Iran in all of these quests. Another question is why would anyone on the left be worried about Israel when the left has been trying to throw Israel to the wolves for 30 years.

Are you kidding me? Did you happen to note which arab population declined to partisipate in last week's Arab League call for tough sanctions on Syria for the treatment of their people?

Iraq broke with the United States and supported Iran in continued support for Syria's regime. That is sending ice water though the veins of US state dept folks today. Iran and Iraq have synchronized their policies and are in lock step, with many top Iraqi leaders regularly spending extended time in Iran.

The result of the US Invasion was to instill a Shia dominated government in Iraq. The first time ever the religious majority have tasted power.

[SkinsHokieFan]

"King" Abdullah is about as biased of a source in re Iran as you can find.

The house of saud has been pushing for a war with Iran for years now... not themselves of course, no they want the US to do it.

Yup. The House of Saud will burn in hell as the most hypocritcal kingdom in the history of Earth.

I don't trust them on Iran. The "Iranian Threat" might be the most overblown this decade

[JMS]

His opinion was that we were handing Iraq to Iran on a gold platter. Hardly proof of anything, yet. His obvious concern has more to do with tribal politics than global ones.

Hardly proof of anything? It doesn't take a world class mathmatician to understand if you create a popular democracy in a country which is 70% Shia you will be handing Iraq over to Iran's allies.

[twa]

It is being handed to Iran, you seriously think that Iraq could stop an Iranian invasion? This is exactly why Iraq needed to be dealt with by the Middle East rather than the US because no one wants to clean up our mess, and we can't afford to stay anymore soo......?

Yes they could by simply accepting help(which we of course have at the ready,and in place)

Iraq's military is not toothless itself either if it came down to it.

Why would they invade though if we already gave them Iraq?

add

So it is the Shia that are the real threat JMS?

Which sect?....or are they all the same?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Seems it's only a way to reduce blame for GW.

Right: Iran is a threat and they are even more of a threat in the past 10 years, but that has nothing to do with Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[thebluefood]

I thought this was well known already? I mean it's a pretty obvious result and if they didn't see it coming when they decided to go into Iraq, I want some of what they're smoking.

+1

Old news is old.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes they could by simply accepting help(which we of course have at the ready,and in place)

Iraq's military is not toothless itself either if it came down to it.

Why would they invade though if we already gave them Iraq?

add

So it is the Shia that are the real threat JMS?

Which sect?....or are they all the same?

You're right Bush stabilized the Middle East with his pre-emptive Iraqi invasion.

[Predicto]

Hardly proof of anything? It doesn't take a world class mathmatician to understand if you create a popular democracy in a country which is 70% Shia you will be handing Iraq over to Iran's allies.

In the short run.

In the long run, you are giving power to the people and moderating the nation. (I say this as someone who opposed the Iraq debacle from the beginning).

As Americans, we should not be so shortsighted, and we should not fear the ascendancy of democracy. Supporting the legitimate democratic aspirations of the people who live in the rest of the world will only rebound to our advantage in the long run.

[twa]

You're right Bush stabilized the Middle East with his pre-emptive Iraqi invasion.

Bush 1 or 2?

Still waiting to hear how invading Iraq made Iran expand it's WMD programs that were in effect well before that,or how Hezbollah had no history outside Iran.

Stabilization (if it ever comes) will be from within there,and sure as hell was not a product of Saddam being left in power.

[jpyaks3]

Thank you... I think.

Typically in unstable times the best organized party tends to dominate regardless of what the revolution was about. Remember in the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin was in Geneva when the Czar was overthrown. The revolution was over by the time he was allowed to pass through German lines to re-enter Russia. The communists usurped that revolution after the fact. That's one of the reasons George Washington was such an incrediblly great man. Cause he easily could have been king, but rather he on several occassions pushed power away to support the estabilshment of a republic. A very rare thing in human history.

I must say the Moslem Brotherhood is by far the best organized and funded political group in many of these countries undergoing revolution. Their traditional stance is not for Democracy, but rather they mirror AlQuada's goal of returning the region to a Caliphate ( Golden age and high point of unified Islamic Monachy ).

So I would say we are cautiously optomistic on Democracies, but suspecting the worst. As to which will win, I think that struggle is ongoing and the most important country in this regards is Egypt. Very much up in the air. It was very chilling that the Moslem brotherhood instructed their people not to demonstrate against the military leaders last week, The Brotherhood feared the military would instill marshal law and postpone parlementary elections in Egypt, and the Brotherhood as the pre-ordained parlementary election winners didn't want the elections postponed. Sure enough the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party which is the political wing of the Brotherhood won the elections. ( most seats in Egypts new Parlement) 36% of votes.

I think you miss the boat a bit on the Muslim Brotherhood, the reason they are winning the election is Egypt is partially because they are the best organized but they are also the only opposition group that has stood up to the Mubarak regime and has consistently been helping and working for the people for the past 30 years. They denounced violence in the 80's and have been working for more democratic representation since well before that. You say that the Muslim Brotherhoods goals mirror Al Qaeda's but I disagree entirely. The Muslim Brotherhood may believe that "Islam is the solution" but it also believes that the solution must be come to through democratic means. They have shown this again and again and they have worked with quite a few groups forming electoral alliances and working with the judges to bring about democratic reform or attempted democratic reform prior to the revolution. Also the Muslim Brotherhood isn't just some thing or single bloc it is a very fractured group that has schisms along many different lines from ideology to age to techniques its difficult to characterize it as only one thing or ideology because there are a hell of a lot of currents of thoughts in the organizations.

You want to know why the Freedom and Justice Party is winning these elections? Its because they are the only ones out on the streets helping the poor, building schools, feeding people, providing healthcare and education. They have been doing it for decades and guess what a whole lot of Egyptians think very highly of them because they are the only ones that are actually out there working for the people, they provided for the social good when the state failed. They have street cred if you will. Now yes with regards to protests and stuff like that the Brotherhoods leadership in Egypt has been very very conservative, you cite them telling their members not to protest against the military last week but they also told them not to protest on January 25th, or the 26th, or the 27th. The leadership is very careful and slow moving and pragmatic and that is one of the reasons we are seeing these schisms and splits between wings of the Brotherhood and ideological differences. So I think you misrepresent the nature of the Brotherhood in quite a few ways. However, if you gave the left wing and liberal parties another 3 months/year/whatever you wouldn't see a hell of a lot of change in the numbers because right now they are disconnected from the people and fundamentally misunderstand why they aren't making progress with the average Egyptian.

What we are seeing in the ME is first and formost a revolt against high food prices, and bad economies. The people are not revolting for political representation but for jobs. The ME is awash in young people who can't find work. 50% of Egypt is under the age of 24. That demographic is going to be true for the next 30 years and unemployment in that group is like 30% with no relief in site..

Egyptian Median age is 24... definition of median is half of population younger, half older..

http://www.indexmundi.com/egypt/median_age.html

Unemployment for Egyptians 15-29 is about 26% and growing... from the world bank.

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/243377/day9EgyptTunisia%20Presentation.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/243377/day9EgyptTunisia%20Presentation.pdf

That is true across the ME. There is certainly a demographic which is calling for Democratic reform, but the vast majority of the people have no experience or first hand knowledge of western political theory and really are more interested in economic relief.

Yes unemployment and sluggish economies play a role in the Arab Spring but you miss the larger factors, these protests are for freedom and justice and an end to authoritarian rule. Hell, the inequality in America is worse than it was in either Egypt or Tunisia prior to their revolutions. The economic conditions definitely played a role but they certainly weren't the only driving factor and I would argue they weren't even some of the biggest factors. These protests were about the regimes and the lack of freedom, accountability, the corruption, and the brutal dictators that ran these countries without regards to the people.

[JMS]

Yes they could by simply accepting help(which we of course have at the ready,and in place)

Iraq's military is not toothless itself either if it came down to it.

Why would they invade though if we already gave them Iraq?

Well to bring up historical Precident. Iraq fought Iran to a stand still for the entire 1980's. A decade long stalemate.

So absolutely Iraq had the potential to engage and mitigate an Iranian threat.

add

So it is the Shia that are the real threat JMS?

Which sect?....or are they all the same?

For the terms of our discussion they are pretty much the same.

85% of all Shia are Twevers which is the prodominat branch of Shia Islam found in Iran. The other two surviving branches of Shia islam are Zaidi and Ismaili.

The Zaidi Shia are predominantly found in Yemen . Ismailis are dominant group in Badakhshan. They form small communities in across the ME and Asia.

All three groups differ primarily in different line of sucession of the first 10 Imamate. (first 10 prophets after Mohomed) Which would seem to be irrelivent to our discussion.

One component of Shia Islam is a preoccupation with social justice believe it or not, one of Shia's core 5 prinsiples.. This stated goal twards rightousness is one of the traditional appeals of Shia Islam to the masses whom are traditionally controlled by Sunni leaders.

[PeterMP]

Typically in unstable times the best organized party tends to dominate regardless of what the revolution was about. Remember in the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin was in Geneva when the Czar was overthrown. The revolution was over by the time he was allowed to pass through German lines to re-enter Russia. The communists usurped that revolution after the fact. That's one of the reasons George Washington was such an incrediblly great man. Cause he easily could have been king, but rather he on several occassions pushed power away to support the estabilshment of a republic. A very rare thing in human history.

"Revolutions" frequently go through multiple stages.

As an example, look at the French. The absolute French monarchy was initially affectively terminated in 1789 w/ the storming of the Bastille, Louis the 16th wasn't actually completely removed from the thrown and killed until several years later (he was killed 1793). The country was then in essentially a state of continual civil war to very extents involving various parties until 1796. You then truly have the French Republic for about 3 years, and then essentially Napoleon seizes power in 1799.

But that didn't even really settle things. From there the French go through a change in government at most every 15 or 20 years. The French even went back to non-democratic/republican government after WWII (albeit it was admittedly at the time believed to be a transient government), established a Republic a in 1946, only to end that Republic and create another one in 1954, which FINALLY created the French government we know today.

It could EASILY be decades of relatively short lived governments until we have stable governments in some of these Middle East countries.

[JMS]

I think you miss the boat a bit on the Muslim Brotherhood, the reason they are winning the election is Egypt is partially because they are the best organized but they are also the only opposition group that has stood up to the Mubarak regime and has consistently been helping and working for the people for the past 30 years.

That's a little like saying Lennin while out of power before the Oct revolution was working to help the Russian people. He certainly was, if you believed in Communism. The historical reality doesn't support it though.

The brotherhood traditionally has not been a benign political group they represent themselves as. Traditionally they have been a revolutionary party bent on violent overthrow of governments to obtain their goals. Those goals being a return to Shia law and the Caliphate... As such the Brotherhood has been perpetrated some pretty significant acts of terrorism...

assassination of Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha, the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1948

assassination of Egyptian President Sadat in 1979 for signing peace treaty with Israel.

More recently prominent leaders within the brotherhood (Mamoun Darkazanli and Youssef Nada) have been linked to AlQuada who notable shares their overall goals of a return to the Caliphate and Sharia Law across the ME, Across North Africa, and into Europe..

They denounced violence in the 80's and have been working for more democratic representation since well before that.

You mean they murdered the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for the crime of signing a peace treaty with Israel, Were hunted to near extinction by Sadat's allies namely Mubarac in reprisal. And softenned their message to try to maintain their appeal and seek mercy from the Egyptian Regime.

Yeah that's really an endorsement right there...

The Brotherhood's founding prinsiple has not changed since it's inception. A return to religious rule, a return to religious laws, reconquest of all lands which once belonged to the Caliphate. You are correct that their tactics have evolved after one of their bloodiest and most senseless acts of political terrorism in the history of the Region. Murdering a Nobel Prize winner who was arguable Egypts greatest leader of the modern era.

---------- Post added December-1st-2011 at 03:28 PM ----------

Yes unemployment and sluggish economies play a role in the Arab Spring but you miss the larger factors, these protests are for freedom and justice and an end to authoritarian rule. Hell, the inequality in America is worse than it was in either Egypt or Tunisia prior to their revolutions. The economic conditions definitely played a role but they certainly weren't the only driving factor and I would argue they weren't even some of the biggest factors. These protests were about the regimes and the lack of freedom, accountability, the corruption, and the brutal dictators that ran these countries without regards to the people. .

Yeah I don't think so. These protests are for food, jobs, and a better economic future. If democratic reforms can give those things, that would be great. But that is really our experience and our misconception....

Egyptians were happiest under socialist systems where the government guaranteed them jobs. Mubaric became unpopular largely because his economic reformed closed down these government make work jobs and contributed to Egyptian unemployment. Now we in the west could say that Mubaric did it wrong and that is the root of the problem. The man on the street in Egypt doesn't really care if he's a socialist or a capitalist, lives under a dictatorship or a democratic governemnt. The man on the street is looking for work and a consistant source of food.

The older men largely have jobs, young men which are the fastest growing democraphic don't and have no hope of ever finding work. That is the 10,000 lb gerilla in the room. Which ever philosophy most expediently solves that egyptian problem will rule Egypt for the next 50 years, and it looks like the Brotherhood is going to get the first crack at the pinata.

[jpyaks3]

That's a little like saying Lennin while out of power before the Oct revolution was working to help the Russian people. He certainly was, if you believed in Communism. The historical reality doesn't support it though.

The brotherhood traditionally has not been a benign political group they represent themselves as. Traditionally they have been a revolutionary party bent on violent overthrow of governments to obtain their goals. Those goals being a return to Shia law and the Caliphate... As such the Brotherhood has been perpetrated some pretty significant acts of terrorism...

assassination of Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha, the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1948

assassination of Egyptian President Sadat in 1979 for signing peace treaty with Israel.

More recently prominent leaders within the brotherhood (Mamoun Darkazanli and Youssef Nada) have been linked to AlQuada who notable shares their overall goals of a return to the Caliphate and Sharia Law across the ME, Across North Africa, and into Europe..

Once again I point to the fissures and break off groups from the Brotherhood, there have been quite a few since they renounced using violence (actually in the 1970's I misspoke). Your characterization of the Brotherhood is incorrect with regard to leadership and organizational structures. The Brotherhood isn't some unified group that has total organizational control over its half dozen "branches" and offshoots across the Arab world. Hell it doesn't even have control over its own organizational structure in its founding country.

Once again yes they do look to Islam for solutions but to suggest that their goals are an Islamic Caliphate and to take over all of MENA and into Europe is pretty incorrect, you are using a ideologically wide brush when you really should be looking at the actual facts on the ground. You are using a lot of generalizations that really don't paint an accurate picture, you are also trying to make the argument that the Brotherhood hasn't changed since its inception which is patently untrue the Brotherhood has gone through quite a few radical transitions and changes in approach, policy, and philosophy to paint it as some unchanging thing is wrong.

The Muslim Brotherhood has done a hell of a lot of good in Egypt, they have fought for democracy, and guess what now they are winning elections because of that.

You mean they murdered the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for the crime of signing a peace treaty with Israel, Were hunted to near extinction by Sadat's allies namely Mubarac in reprisal. And softenned their message to try to maintain their appeal and seek mercy from the Egyptian Regime.

Yeah that's really an endorsement right there...

The Brotherhood's founding prinsiple has not changed since it's inception. A return to religious rule, a return to religious laws, reconquest of all lands which once belonged to the Caliphate. You are correct that their tactics have evolved after one of their bloodiest and most senseless acts of political terrorism in the history of the Region. Murdering a Nobel Prize winner who was arguable Egypts greatest leader of the modern era.

You realize that wasn't the Brotherhood that killed Sadat right? It was either Islamic Jihad or al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya who had already broken with the Brotherhood. You keep trying to paint this boogeyman picture of the Brotherhood but you refuse to acknowledge that the last 40 years have happened.

[Predicto]

I forget which boogeyman we are supposed to be exaggerating in this thread. Is it supposed to be Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or the Muslim Brotherhood? It get so confusing.

[jpyaks3]

I forget which boogeyman we are supposed to be exaggerating in this thread. Is it supposed to be Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or the Muslim Brotherhood? It get so confusing.

I am sure Glenn Beck can explain it all very succinctly.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102050001

[Larry]

I forget which boogeyman we are supposed to be exaggerating in this thread. Is it supposed to be Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or the Muslim Brotherhood? It get so confusing.

I think if that's an attempt to claim that Iran is a boogeyman, I think I'd disagree with you.

No, they aren't an imminent threat to conquer the US and impose Sharia Law on our children. But there's a whole lot of territory between that, and "boogeyman".

[visionary]

This thread is all over the place.

Lots of interesting comments though.

But it's all a good discussion.

I'll just point out that the statement made earlier about the revolutions being primarly about jobs and such, isn't exactly true.

Otherwise you wouldn't see uprisings in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Syria.

(Syria especially started off primarly because of freedom of speech and detention of children for insulting the regime)

[jpyaks3]

This thread is all over the place.

Lots of interesting comments though.

But it's all a good discussion.

I'll just point out that the statement made earlier about the revolutions being primarly about jobs and such, isn't exactly true.

Otherwise you wouldn't see uprisings in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Syria.

(Syria especially started off primarly because of freedom of speech and detention of children for insulting the regime)

I think its difficult to not be all over the place when you are dealing with the complex relationships of actors in any region especially one such as the Middle East.