Krauthammer on SCIRI

Charles Krauthammer, "The Shiite 'Menace,'" The Washington Post, May 2, 2003:

Before the war even began, the critics were predicting that Iraq was going to be the Bay of Pigs (plus "Desert One, Beirut and Somalia," said the ever-hyperbolic Chris Matthews). A week into the war, we were told Iraq was Vietnam. Now, after the war, they're telling us that Iraq is Iran -- that Iraq's Shiite majority will turn it into another intolerant Islamic republic.

The critics were wrong every time. They are wrong again. Of course there are telegenic elements among the Shiites who would like fundamentalist rule by the clerics. But even the majority of Iranians oppose the rule of the mullahs and consider the Islamic revolution a disaster. The Shiite demonstrators in Iraqi streets represent a highly organized minority, many of whom are affiliated with, infiltrated by and financed by Tehran, the headquarters for 20 years of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

These Iranian-oriented Shiite extremists are analogous to the Soviet-oriented communists in immediate post-World War II Italy and France. They too had a foreign patron. They too had foreign sources of money, agents and influence. They too had a coherent ideology. And they too were highly organized even before the end of the war. They too made a bid for power. And failed.

These days, of course, Krauthammer would have nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't want to see American troops fighting, killing, and dying for an indefinite period of time all for the sake of SCIRI's hold on power.

Comments

Weren't those protesters Sadrists? The SCIRI/SIIC/ISCI have been of the Shiite groups cooperating with the United States.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 1:04 PM

Matt, if someone dug through your posts on Iraq from 2003, do you think they would find any statements that, in hindsight, appear to be mistakes? I'm betting they would, but what would be the point? You are a pundit and write in real-time, based on your understanding of the situation at the time you are writing. Same with Krauthammer. So why wait five years to critique one of his columns? Krauthammer has a perfectly good column out today about Iraq that you can respond to: "The 100 Year Lie". It shouldn't take you five years to peck out a response to this one, should it?

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 1:11 PM

Fred, it's one thing to be wrong then and be right later. But Krauthammer is always wrong, because he always adapts to whatever lie is being pushed to justify an Iraq presence.

As for his "100 year lie" article, Krauthammer is again lying. Since there is no prospect of Iraq being at peace any time soon, and certainly not while U.S. troops are occupying the country, McCain is saying that he wants 100 years of war in Iraq. Yes, he'd prefer a peacetime presence, but he'd be happy to see Americans die in Iraq for 100 years too; the point is that we should stay in Iraq no matter what.

The Democrats would only be "lying" about McCain if he had indicated that he'd be willing to pull out the troops if things continue like this for several years. Since he isn't, then McCain wants Americans to die forever.

Posted by T.B. | March 28, 2008 1:17 PM

More to the point is Krauthammer's misrepresentation of the war opponents' case -- or rather, his taking the most extreme version of their case:

Now, after the war, they're telling us that Iraq is Iran -- that Iraq's Shiite majority will turn it into another intolerant Islamic republic.

I think the point is more that there's no reason to expect a primarily Shi'ite country to be a counterbalance to Iran, rather than a natural ally of Iran's. Democratic or theocratic, a non-Baathist Iraq was always an unlikely candidate for forwarding (the neocons' idea of) American interests in the region.

Posted by william | March 28, 2008 1:19 PM

These days, of course, Krauthammer would have nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't want to see American troops fighting, killing, and dying for an indefinite period of time all for the sake of SCIRI's hold on power.

Matthew has some typos in this sentence, as per usual. Let me fix it:

These days, of course, Krauthammer would have nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't want to see American troops fighting, killing, and dying for so long as we can reasonably forsee victory, all for the sake of the elected Iraqi government's hold on power.

You're welcome, Matthew.

Posted by Al | March 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Damn Matt. Good stuff.

That's white hot.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM

MY:
When will you ever learn. There is good reason why Krauthammer is known as Kraphammer(just like Goldberg is known as Doughy Pantload).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 28, 2008 1:28 PM

What Krauthammer wants to do is return to those halcyon days of the Cold War, no matter who the new Russkie has to be.

Posted by Daddy Love | March 28, 2008 1:33 PM

This old Krauthammer rant reminds me of how frequently the neocons - especially Richard Perle - used to trumpet the rise of the so-called "secular Shiites" in Iraq. This rising secular Shiite power bloc apparently consisted of Ahmed Chalabi and a few western-educated technocrats, and had no discernible popular base of support in Iraq. A consistent theme of the neoconservative faith is that Arabs are little more than cowardly dogs or cattle, who can be made to bend submissively under whatever yoke their naturally superior non-Arab masters wish to place around their necks.

One also recalls how the superintendents of Abu Ghraib received the sage advice from the Israelis - self-styled experts in the crushing of Arab spirits - that the means for inducing this abject Saracen submission were the tools of shame and humiliation. Because the "Arab mind" is supposed to be so dominated and enslaved by ideas of honor and dishonor, all it would take is some enforced nakedness and sexual humiliation to get the poor dolts to bow to our whims.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 28, 2008 1:38 PM

I agree with T.B about the "100 year 'lie'". McCain himself acknowledges that "the insurgency will go on for years and years and years." If John Mccain really believes that Americans can avoid "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" while there's an insurgency still going on, then he's a fool.

The fact that McCain & Krauthammer continue to throw around comparisons to our military presence in Japan, South Korea, & Kuwait is an indication of how deluded they are. In none of these countries were US troops ever involved in counterinsurgency operations.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 1:46 PM

"Victory" for whom, Al? SCIRI?

In this connection, see also last night's Post article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700781.html ):

“Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that ‘we can’t quite decipher' what is going on. It’s a question, he said, of 'who’s got the best conspiracy’ theory about why Maliki decided to act now.

“In Basra, three rival Shiite groups have been trying to position themselves, sometimes through force of arms, to dominate recently approved provincial elections.

“The U.S. officials, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said that they believe Iran has provided assistance in the past to all three groups—the Mahdi Army; the Badr Organization of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Iraq’s largest Shiite party; and forces loyal to the Fadhila Party, which holds the Basra governor’s seat. But the officials see the current conflict as a purely internal Iraqi dispute.

“Some officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing ‘the first salvo in upcoming elections,’ the administration official said.

” ‘His dog in that fight is that he is basically allied with the Badr Corps’ against forces loyal to Sadr, the official said. ‘It’s not a pretty picture.’ ”

Of course they have to say this OFF the record, since to the extent that Maliki looks bad the Bush Administration looks bad.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 28, 2008 1:55 PM

Now, after the war . .

So according to Krauthammer the war has been over in Iraq for 5 years. When do we get to start bringing the troops home, I wonder? Man, that demobilization process just takes forever.

Posted by Rob Mac | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM

Al:

These days, of course, Krauthammer would have nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't want to see American troops fighting, killing, and dying for so long as we can reasonably forsee victory

Of course, the Al branch of America's right believes we can still "reasonably foresee victory" in Vietnam. (Note: scorn not available if "victory" in Iraq, Vietnam or anywhere would require Al to fight personally.)

Posted by timmah | March 28, 2008 2:05 PM

I dig up old things I wrote in 2003 and throw them in my opponents' faces all the time, Al. There's this one bit about "SRGs with RPGs popping out from two-meter-wide alleys" that I'm particularly fond of.

Don't you do that with your old statements?

No?

Why do you think that is?

Posted by joe | March 28, 2008 2:32 PM

Oh snap!

Posted by joejoejoe | March 28, 2008 2:47 PM

Certainly Krauthammer's solution to any problem is that we should stay and fight, or if this is impossible because we are not yet there to stay, we should go and fight.

It is less clear that his view is that we should stay and fight for SCIRI. It is only a few months since he was suggesting we should create a different government coalition to stay and fight for.

Posted by Lon | March 28, 2008 2:52 PM

Funny too because Krauthammer is Canadian. McGill University '34! Go Crimson!

Posted by david m. | March 28, 2008 3:24 PM

'34? I guess he really does sleep in a coffin.

Posted by roac | March 28, 2008 4:31 PM

... (plus "Desert One, Beirut and Somalia," said the ever-hyperbolic Chris Matthews).

wow, Matthews should put that on billboards. His credibility could surely use the bolstering.

Posted by bend | March 28, 2008 4:57 PM

"This old Krauthammer rant reminds me of how frequently the neocons - especially Richard Perle - used to trumpet the rise of the so-called "secular Shiites" in Iraq. This rising secular Shiite power bloc apparently consisted of Ahmed Chalabi and a few western-educated technocrats, and had no discernible popular base of support in Iraq. A consistent theme of the neoconservative faith is that Arabs are little more than cowardly dogs or cattle, who can be made to bend submissively under whatever yoke their naturally superior non-Arab masters wish to place around their necks.

One also recalls how the superintendents of Abu Ghraib received the sage advice from the Israelis - self-styled experts in the crushing of Arab spirits - that the means for inducing this abject Saracen submission were the tools of shame and humiliation. Because the "Arab mind" is supposed to be so dominated and enslaved by ideas of honor and dishonor, all it would take is some enforced nakedness and sexual humiliation to get the poor dolts to bow to our whims.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 28, 2008 1:38 PM"

Very true. What else can we expect from a movement that takes their cues on Arabs from a book, "The Arab Mind," that says it's part of Arab culture for mothers to molest their sons in their cribs?

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 9:17 PM

Krauthammer did go to McGill (according to wikipedia), but he graduated in 1970. He was also in the Carter (!) administration.

On the other hand, the article quotes one Matthew Yglesias as a critic of Krauthammer, so perhaps we should take it with a grain of salt.

Well, if I triple post this baby, I'm blaming Krauthammer's minions on the Atlantic staff. It keeps telling me it requires a name and email address, which are both present (if not actually valid).

Posted by mwg | March 28, 2008 10:45 PM

I wonder if Krauthammer ever found a Republican to use a dishonest lie against a liberal. My guess is that part was on the editing room floor.

Posted by Sephiroethlisberger | March 29, 2008 5:54 AM

SCIRI, on the streets in 2003, is now the government. Apparently a government that might lose the provincial elections. Where is the problem in that? Well, the Sadrists want a timetable for US withdrawal, so they can't be allowed to win.

Juan Cole on juancole.com:

People are asking me the significance of the fighting going on in Basra and elsewhere. My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. It is admittedly a big 'if.'

Posted by Arun | March 29, 2008 11:58 AM

It never fails to amaze me that people like Krauthammer could be SO unbelievable wrong on SO many levels about Iraq, and yet, somehow, they have the gall to continue making invalid prognostications on Iraq, while claiming, with a straight face that their opinion should still be valued.

Posted by Joe | March 29, 2008 2:33 PM

People are asking me the significance of the fighting going on in Basra and elsewhere. My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. It is admittedly a big 'if.'

You see, we need to bring them American-style democracy.

For example, I'll bet Justice Scalia is just champing at the bit to sort this one out . . .

Posted by MichaelPScott | March 30, 2008 2:06 AM