It is pretty darn obvious that the Saudies are concerned with the "seemingly" incompetent actions taken by the bush admin, and the influence that Iran is gaining over parts of Iraq as a result of this perceived incompetence.
But is this not a direct result of the real neocon agenda that is succeeding at ripping apart Iraq through Civil War?
It just happens that some of the parts that may break off are gaining strong Iranian influences.
Taken from the Timesonline:
Tougher language is being heard in the Arab world, where Iran has been a foe from the time of the Persians. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, said: "We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason."
Under the provisions of Iraq's federal constitution, which will go before a referendum on October 15, provinces will be allowed to create regional authorities. That has given rise to fears that the Shias in the south, with the support of Iran, will seek to create a mini Shia Islamic state, as Mr al-Hakim has already stated he wants.
I think the reasoning behind their message to the bush admin. becomes pretty darn clear when you read what the Saudi Foreign minister says up there.
They are freaking about Iranian influence that has resulted from the tensions created by the US.
Taken from the Timesonline:
A Shia militia force of 12,000 trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and blamed for a spate of recent killings of Sunni Muslims. Thought to control several cities in southern Iraq
Islamic Dawaa Party
Shia party that has strong links to Iran. Its leader, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the present Prime Minister, has vowed to improve ties between the two neighbours
Received arms and volunteers from Iran during its battle against US and British troops last year. Ahmed al-Fartusi, its commander in Basra, was arrested by British forces last weekend
Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq
Tehran-backed militia blamed for the murder of six British Royal Military Police soldiers in Majar el-Kabir in 2003
Thar Allah (Vengeance of God)
Iranian-backed terror group blamed for killing former members of the ruling Baath party and enforcing strict Islamic law
Jamaat al-Fudalah (Group of the Virtuous)
Paramilitary group that imposes Islamic rules on Shia areas; attacks shops selling alcohol and music
Secret political movement financed by Iran. Thought to have many members among provincial officials
Al-Quawaid al-Islamiya (Islamic Bases)
Iranian-backed Islamic movement that uses force to impose Islamic law
From a Saudi perspective... Things aren't quite what they'd hoped for, huh?
Never mind that seems like civil war, and possibly what the bushies were trying for.
This only magnifies that point:
The western media has laboured hard in portraying the "Sunni community" as the major source of delay in the drafting process. The Bush administration has habitually presented events in Iraq as sectarian and ethnically biased; this presentation is not arbitrary or due to "misunderstanding" as some have claimed.
More truthfully, differing visions of Iraq are what delayed and essentially prevented the constitutional process from achieving consensual support. On the one hand we have an American-endorsed vision that proposes dividing Iraq up and we have the view of the opposition, which accepts nothing less than a unified Iraq.
In the autumn of 2004 the RAND Corporation, an American research company, published a research brief for the United States Navy arguing "cleavages within the Muslim world pose challenges and opportunities ... for US interests and strategy".
"I am making an appeal to all Iraqi citizens. Please do not divide yourselves anymore than you already have, and by dividing you empower the occupation and their agendas for your natural resources."
The RAND study highlights current divisions in the Muslim world between the Sunni and Shia, as well as between Arabs and non-Arabs as crucial to US interests.
The ethnic and sectarian federalism that has been proposed in Iraq fits well into this divisive framework. This insight into the strategic thinking of US thinktanks provides a contextual background to any assessment of US involvement in the Arab and Muslim world.
Here is a link to Rand's article U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11 (the one refered to in the Al Jazeera article).
In the entire Rand article there is one little sentence that sums up "what might happen?" if the US policy fails hidden inside the pages of optimism..
Beyond these long-term factors, certain catalytic events have shifted the political environment in the Muslim world toward radicalism. Major events include the Iranian revolution, the Afghan war with the Soviets, the Gulf War of 1991, and the global war on terrorism after September 11. The Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein have surely had an effect on the Muslim world, but the long-term implications remain to be seen. A stable, pluralistic, and democratic Iraq would challenge anti-Western views in the Middle East and would undermine extremist arguments. On the other hand, if Iraq reverts to authoritarianism or fragments into ethnic enclaves, then U.S. credibility would diminish and radical groups would have greater opportunities to take hold.
And, golly gee... Is it ever happening.
But what if that was the bushies intention all along?
You can read almost any of Dahr Jamail's "Iraqi Dispatches" to get the true sense of how they are constantly creating more problems amongst the different Iraqi groups. At times it is almost like they are doing it all on purpose:
The failed siege of Fallujah
Thus, rather than improving security and stability in Fallujah and Iraq, the siege of Fallujah has accomplished nothing more than devastating the city and spreading the Iraqi resistance into other cities, such as Qaim, Beji, Baquba, Mosul, Ramadi, Latifiya and many areas of Baghdad.
It could easily be argued now that the siege of Fallujah accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goals - rather than bringing increased security and stability, it has inflamed tempers, deepened sectarian rifts and spurred the Iraqi resistance into levels of attack rarely seen prior to the siege.
He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes, sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas where women sleep.
"The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs," he said. "Nobody wants the Americans here."
Two US attempts were made to destroy this symbol of defiance last year. The first, in April, fizzled out after Iraqi politicians, including many who supported the invasion of their country, condemned the use of air strikes to terrorise an entire city.
One thing is certain: the attack on Falluja has done nothing to still the insurgency against the US-British occupation nor produced the death of al-Zarqawi - any more than the invasion of Afghanistan achieved the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Thousands of bereaved and homeless Falluja families have a new reason to hate the US and its allies.
This decade's unforgettable monument to brutality and overkill is Falluja, a text-book case of how not to handle an insurgency, and a reminder that unpopular occupations will always degenerate into desperation and atrocity.
The spokesman's point is clear: After decades of repression, now is the time for the Shiites to have power, no matter the price. "Most of the Sunnis are accepted by us, but there are those among them who don't want the Shia in the government, nor the Kurds. Some Sunnis will either kill us or make us slaves. We accept these elections now," says Asadi, pulling the abaya close over his shoulders. "But many Shias and Kurds believe dividing the country is the only real solution."
With Shiite domination in the National Assembly, they will have much power in writing Iraq's new constitution. Will this lopsided dynamic provoke a violent reaction from the Sunni-dominated insurgency? If it does, will the Shiite militias, like the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), strike back, igniting a civil war?
When examining the statements of some political and religious leaders from both communities, one gets the sense that civil war is indeed imminent. Sheik Asadi's venom toward the Sunni is matched by that of some of his Sunni counterparts toward the Shiites. But Western media outlets, focusing on the sensational, have played up the potential for civil war, muting the voices of Sunni and Shiite leaders who are skeptical of such predictions and united against partition.
That last part in bold is the kicker... The media is "playing up the potential for civil war" and bushies policies only inflame the situation.
We see this every day as one seemingly incompetent decision follows another.
It makes it all pretty darn clear what the Saudies see as a problem. They cannot believe that the Bush administration is truely this incompetenet. The Saudis believe that the US is trying to create civil war in the hopes of ripping the country apart.
Perhaps the Bush admin. wants to divide the country up and, per usual, the media is only helping them along. And maybe neocons want Iraq to descend into civil war which will, theoretically, make each part more manageable for America.
Either that or they are completely incompetent and clueless as to how much the US forces continued presence there, and their actions based on Bush policies, are the cause of most of the problems in Iraq.
Based on what ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson has to say about it all I have come to the conclusion that the Bush administration is really just that incompetent:
How do I know? Foreign officials with the job of tracking and fighting aspiring terrorists tell me so. During the last year I have provided briefings on terrorist trends to senior leaders from Pakistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Mali. Although they come from different countries they convey the same message—what the hell are you doing?
Our friends and allies naively believe that we have a plan and know what we are doing. Nonetheless, they also tell me that just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created Bin Laden and his ilk that our invasion of Iraq is creating the next generation of terrorists. They see that their societies are becoming more anti-U.S. than pro. They see a new generation of idealistic youth falling under the conviction that God (Allah) is calling them to fight the infidel. They are genuinely afraid that we have lit a fuze on a bomb that will detonate in the next few years unless we demonstrate we are in control.
We have all seen the resulting chaos from neocon theory thus far. Regardless of what the Bush administration and the neocon's "supposed" real plans are or were, the results aren't pretty. They have failed miserably in every aspect and every step of the way.
Just ignore the thousands that had to die to create this chaos. And ignore the fact that it leaves Iranians with more influence in the region. And ignore that this is creating more instability in the Middle-East, even amongst our few allies there.