Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 6, 2011
U.S. To Unleash Anti-Iran Death Squads In Iraq

In a obviously planted story the Wall Street Journal gives a preview of how the U.S. wants to control Iraq after the U.S. military officially will have left at the end of this year:

U.S. Eyes Covert Plan to Counter Iran in Iraq

Military commanders and intelligence officers are pushing for greater authority to conduct covert operations to thwart Iranian influence in neighboring Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

There is a request for a presidential finding that would allow unrestricted CIA and military Special Operations in Iraq after the U.S. left. But the article makes it clear that the original initiative for this is coming from the White House. The finding therefore will be, or probably has already been, granted.

The excuse is the alleged Iranian influence in Iraq. As there is never evidence of such beyond the relatively friendly normal Iraq-Iran relations between neighbors this will be conveniently used to continue to unleash U.S. death squads on Iraq.

After December, the job of ensuring that Tehran can’t mount attacks in Iraq, arm militia groups or destabilize the government in Baghdad will fall more heavily on U.S. intelligence.

Why? Why would Iran mount attacks in Iraq? And if there were such would it not be the genuine task of the Iraqi government to prevent such? Why is that supposed to be U.S. business? The piece gives no answers to these obvious questions.

The CIA isn’t expected to draw down in Iraq as quickly as the military after December.

If the presidential finding for an expansion of covert action is approved—and if some special operations forces remain in Iraq—they could be assigned to operate temporarily under CIA authority. The agency, under the National Security Act, is the only U.S. entity that can conduct covert operations.

Special operations forces would have the ability to carry out risky capture-or-kill missions that the CIA may not be able to conduct on its own.

Next to the piece the WSJ shows a photo of explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) with the caption: “The U.S. says Iran smuggles bomb parts like these to Iraqi insurgents.” Here is where the propaganda becomes ridiculous. It was the WSJ’s Yochi Dreazen who reported, as did other media, that these EFPs were made in Iraq.

But it proves that the Iran-meddling accusations are just an excuse. The U.S. will keep a large secret intelligence force in Iraq and it will have a military component for “capture-or-kill” operations.

That is, of course, only if the Iraqis will allow such to take place.

Comments

It is pretty clear to me that the Iraqis are not going to allow many Americans to stay in Iraq after December. Far less than the Pentagon, the media, etc imagine. That is, those who have planted this story.
So this story is probably not realistic anyway.
It is hard to get one’s head around what a big change it is going to be, even if there are some last minute concessions (as I imagine there will be).
It’s certain that the parliament would have to vote on any major change to the agreement. And everyone who keeps up on Iraq, knows that the parliament will never vote for a significant change. And certainly not after that congressman asked Maliki to refund America’s costs in the war. Maliki can be blackmailed or pressured. The parliament can’t.
Just imagine the queues of trucks nose-to-tail over months needed to evacuate even a fair proportion of the materiel brought into Iraq. (To be fair they’ve already started some time ago).
The only thing they don’t have to evacuate is the new embassy.
That agreement of 2008 is the real reason why the US lost the war, and didn’t win it as they keep claiming.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 6 2011 15:25 utc | 1

When the US says “anti-Iran” it means anti-Shia. That way, the piece makes sense. The US will work with the corrupt, nominally Shia ruling elite to wipe out agitators among the Shia masses in Iraq. And they may extend their missions into other places with Shia resistance movements, like the Gulf and Lebanon (Hezbollah). This would placate both Israel and the Saudis. And by calling them Iranians, as the Saudis and Israelis do, the US keeps anti-Iranian warmongers in Congress and in the national security establishment at bay until the appropriate moment for more forceful action.

Posted by: JohnH | Sep 6 2011 15:44 utc | 2

I can see where the US is coming from, but someone needs to inform them that they lost. The US “wants to counter Iranian influence in Iraq” well I hate to be the person to tell them this but they lost Iraq to Iranian influence back in March 2003 when they brought “democracy” to a country with a 65% Shia population (figures now suggest it has grown to 70%). Iran has hands down won.
I disagree with you B on the question of Iranian involvement in Iraq’s militias. I would say of course they helped the Shia militias just like they helped Hezbollah in the 1980’s. Just look at the Mahdi Army it is an exact copy of Hezbollah (tactically, organisational structure, politically, training). And why wouldn’t Iran support the Mahdi Army? In 2004-2007 it looked like the US was going to attack Iran next, it was in Irans interest to keep the Americans bogged down in Iraq so they couldn’t launch an attack on Iran.
Who knows who first tested out the EFP version of the IED. My guess is that it was first designed the Quds Brigade of the Revolutionary Guard for Hezbollah to use in Southern Lebanon and they ended up showing the Shia militias how to make them. For an even more interesting connection though look at the so called “flying IED’s” known as IRAM’s. They seem to have been first used by Hezbollah during the Israeli invasion (and freaked the Israelis out when they heard about flying IEDs I’d imagine) but in June of this year was used in Iraq in the attack on the safehouse housing 6 Americans.
Muqada Al Sadr has made no secret of the fact that Hassan Nasrallah is one of his personal heroes (I would go as far as saying the relationship seems to verge on hero worship). In fact this seems to be a really interesting relationship since Nassrallah as a young man spent several years in Najaf, Iraq learning from Muqada’s cousin Musa Al Sadr (who inspired the Shia revolution in 1979 and the Shia resistance in Lebanon and resistance to Saddam in Iraq). Musa Al Sadr is the guy who got Nassrallah involved in the Lebanese resistance.
Of course Musa Al Sadr disappered on a visit to Libya (thought to have been killed by Gaddaffi reason unknown.) Just last week in his Quds Day speech Nassrallah again brought up Musa Al Sadr as a reason why Gaddaffi should have been taken out.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Sep 6 2011 16:55 utc | 3

just to thank you b, for keeping your eye on the many balls being jungled in the air by empire. it is invaluable, your work
the empire was already lost when the einsatzgruppen intellectuals met at the pentagon for their dirty little war. they sd they would create their own reality, what they created was a self mate, an own goal that the empire cannot ever recover from

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 6 2011 17:58 utc | 4

Colm,
for the sake of accuracy I would like to point out that the US brought “democracy” only after Sistani brought demonstrations. Before that there was talk about generations of occupation.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 6 2011 18:55 utc | 5

IRAM – that should stand for Irish Republican Army Mortar rather than Improvised Rocket Assisted Mortars. Homemade mortar tubes in the back of a truck was IRA SOP. The irony is that much of the knowledge used to perfect such weapons actually came from the British security services who shouldn’t laugh to visibly at the recent ATF gun-running fuck up in Mexico. The IRA shared a lot of this knowledge with the Palestinians who probably passed it on to Hezbollah when the Palestinians got kicked out of Lebanon.
I hope all those IRA-wannabe dickheads in Boston who funded the IRA understand the meaning of the word blowback.

Posted by: blowback | Sep 7 2011 0:14 utc | 6