While Bush has been noisily warning us of the dangers of the Sunni insurgency, he has been quiet about another disaster looming before us. The Shiites who live in the Southern region of Iraq (and remember they represent Iraq’s largest religious faction) have formed close political, cultural and military links with the country of Iraq. America hasn't publically acknowledged this, nor shown any real effort in solving this problem, although it's as dangerous as the insurgency situation.

Some have speculated that Southern Iraq could turn into Western Iran. The Iraqi constitution emphasizes autonomy for the 3 religious factions who make up the country. And it was the Shias who pushed for this notion to be part of the Iraqi constitution. Iran has been infiltrating Southern Iraq for the last few years and has been acting like it’s big sister for quite some time now

Bush keeps emphasizing how dangerous the Sunni terrorists are to our well-being, but never outlines for the American people the true dangers that exist in the very real possibility of the Southern Shiite region of Iraq becoming an Iranian satellite.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-world-big-pix

Newsday. com.

RADICAL ROOTS TAKE HOLD IN SOUTHERN IRAQ

BY TIMOTHY M. PHELPS
STAFF CORRESPONDENT

September 21, 2005

BASRA, Iraq -- While the United States battles Sunni extremists in northern Iraq, different but potentially more enduring Islamic radicals - many with close ties to Iran - have been allowed to take root in the South.

This was painfully evident Monday, when the British Army attacked the Iraqi police force they had trained for two years, only to find the police had handed two British soldiers over to the most hardline Shia militia.

Shia radicals have imposed their intolerant views on what used to be the Persian Gulf's freest city, where Kuwaitis were known to flock on the weekends to escape their puritanical society just 100 miles away. Instead, Basra has become like Tehran, where morals are enforced not by family but by religious militias

This is no aberration, but quite possibly the future of Iraq.

The religious parties in control here are mostly regional variations of those now running the central government in Baghdad. The Shia-sponsored assassinations, politically or religiously motivated, that have been going on here for more than a year are beginning to happen in Baghdad as well. "This is our greatest fear, that the religious people will take over Iraq," said one secular Iraqi diplomat.

Agents of Iran - quite possibly the U.S. government's next adversary in the Middle East - have thoroughly infiltrated both the local security police in Basra and the elite paramilitary brigades sent in by the Interior Ministry in Baghdad, according to sources with access to U.S. intelligence. They are also heavily involved in the militias of some of the governing political parties.

What is happening in Basra, until recently little noticed in the international press, is described by one U.S. diplomat as "our dirty little secret."

The U.S. government was warned about this by Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They argued before the Iraq war that the secular Hussein, though reprehensible, was an effective barrier to Islamic fundamentalism, and that his removal would "open the floodgates." Now, the United States must contend in Iraq with both Sunni and Shia fundamentalism, bitterly opposing forces in agreement on one thing: their antipathy toward the West.

But the Bush administration's zeal for establishing a base for democracy in the Middle East carried the day, one administration official said, "snuffing out" concerns about Islamic ideology.

"What we are seeing in Basra is not just Islam, but an extraordinary version of Islam which looks at Israel and the U.S. as the source of Islamic impotence," the official said. "We could have won this battle if we had been able to provide electricity and services in the first 6 or 12 months."

In April of last year, just as the money and machinery for large-scale reconstruction were becoming available in the South, a militia controlled by a young Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, rebelled against the U.S. and British occupation. While U.S. news reports focused on his short-lived fighting with U.S. troops in the holy city of Najaf, British troops and diplomats came under attack in Basra for the rest of the year.

There was also a previously unreported attempt last year on the life of the top U.S. diplomat in Basra, Richard Olson, which officials believe was organized by al-Sadr.

While Basra was relatively quiet for the first half of the year, once again the British are finding themselves battling al-Sadr's militia, the "Mahdi's Army." Frustrated by several roadside bombs that killed British soldiers - and four U.S. civilian security men this month - the British on Sunday arrested several Basra leaders of the Mahdi Army. When two British soldiers working undercover got into a shootout with Mahdi Army members, Iraqi police arrested them and then promptly handed them over to the Mahdi Army as apparent hostages - to be bartered for the militia men in British custody. The British assault Monday against the central police station and a nearby house freed the soldiers, but left angry Iraqi officials in Basra and Baghdad asking who was in charge of their country.

The fact that Shia militias appear to be behind some of these continuing attacks is a bad omen for the future of Iraq. The Shia are the very people who benefited most from the coalition invasion. Under Hussein, the Sunni minority ruled Iraq with ruthless contempt. Since January's elections, the Shias have been in firm control.

Most foreign reconstruction companies have stayed out of the South, and services have not improved for many Iraqis here, creating bitterness toward the United States and Britain.

Perhaps more important for the future of the country, it has helped fuel a drive for regional autonomy in the South that many fear could lead to the fragmentation, or even the disintegration, of Iraq.

Adamant that Basra get the benefit of the oil that lies almost within its precincts, a wide spectrum of political movements here is advocating a southern region with considerable autonomy from the central government in Baghdad, 300 miles to the north, and the right to control much of the oil money.

If the American people really understood the dangers and consequences of fighting and dying for such a shattered country things might change sooner rather than latter.

The manufactured border between the indigenous Shia of Iran and southern Iraq is quite a recent development, in historical terms. Those same peoples will be there long after the next re-drawing of the map (which is imminent).

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

We still sacrifice the lives of our troops, and our national treasure, even as the South of Iraq is evolving into Iran's sister state. If the American people had a better understanding of the kind of self defeating policies we are engaged in, they would clamor to end this war immediately.

only to suggest to you that we have also sacrificed the lives of many Iraqis as well, and the American people - contrary to what some reactionaries might wish to believe - have always shown a natural compassion for the peoples of other nations (whenever they were able to find out what was actually happening there).

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

The whole war is nothing bus a GIANT F-UP

You now have Iran influencing Iraq. You now have terrorists training in Iraq. You now have fundamentalism reaching into Iraq that was not there before.

And what does George Bush say:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-06-bush_x.htm
Hmmm. I have a question for George.

Would we even have the slightest worry about Zarqawi or bin Laden gaining control of Iraq without US actions. Obvious answer..NO. So basically this means the US actions in Iraq have been a failure in fighting the war on terror.

This quote from the article is especially salient.

Answering critics who say the USA is less safe since the invasion of Iraq, Bush asked, "Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with (terrorist leaders Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi and (Osama) bin Laden in control of Iraq?"

In this quote Bush is using the catch 22 circular logic that is the province of all con men.

Circular logic is designed to confuse and ultimately control those who it is directed against.

Lets follow Bush’s circular twisted logic:

1.Bush’s original premise is that removing Saddam was necessary because he had massive stockpiles of WMD even though they were never manufactured in the first place. . Also by removing Saddam we could somehow eliminate the terrorist threat against the U.S and western nations because Saddam’s Iraq was at the center of terrorist training, planning and was a chief supplier of weapons.

2.Having removed Saddam, we find ourselves bogged down in a war against a resilient insurgency. This war has inspired the growth of more American hating terrorists and turned Iraq into a deadly training camp for the new recruits who are experimenting with new weapons used against soldiers and civilians. In other words Iraq is now terror central. .

3.Thus removing Saddam has been successful because we no longer have to worry about Iraq becoming the center of terrorism under Saddam.

4.And now that we’ve prevented Iraq from becoming the center of terrorism, we now must defend it against Zaqawii and Osama who threaten to take control

5.After all the presence of Zaqawii and the Sunni insurgency has shown us that though Iraq is free of becoming the center of terror under Saddam, it is now terror central. (supressed lauphter)

6.And once we remove the threat of Zaqawi and Osama taking control of Iraq, Iraq will once again be free from becoming terror central. And we can prove this by demonstrating how affectively we eliminated Iraq from being the center of terror when we removed Saddam.

7.And why did we remove Saddam? Go back to number 1