Hold off on the pats on the back in Iraq

Below is an item that I wrote almost 6 months ago. Unfortunately, since I wrote this further evidence of the continued success of Iran’s political war strategy has mounted as the America foreign policy, political and media establishments have ignored or dismissed the indicators. Each doing this for their own reasons which unfortunately are going to cost the American people and our cause greatly. I have said it literally hundreds of times, the terrorists in Iraq and their masters in Iran, Syria and to some extent Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will never defeat the United States militarily with IED’s, Mortars and Suicide bombings. However they will defeat the US through a careful political warfare strategy that will lead to our ejection from Iraq and the consolidation of Iranian control or perhaps worse for the people of the Middle East a Balkanization of Iraq. I hope I am wrong and the celebratory feelings found today in Iraq win out, but hope and rose colored glasses are a luxuries that often one can not afford in international affairs.


Iran's Grand Strategy in Iraq

Christopher Brown
Wednesday, July 27, 2005

In order to understand how to win a lasting victory in Iraq, we must first understand how we may in fact end up losing Iraq. There is an organizing influence and strategy at work in that country that many in the United States, including most of the media and some in government, either do not or cannot understand.

To begin with, no matter how many improvised explosive devices (IEDs) go off or suicide attacks occur, the terrorist forces inside Iraq will not be able to tactically defeat the United States military. Those organizing and directing these attacks know this as well as anyone else.

The attacks are not primarily to achieve the tactical gains of destroying Humvees or supply convoys but are instead strategic weapons in an overall political war strategy. Those bombs going off in Baghdad are directed more at Kansas, Oregon, Alabama – anywhere in America that has a television, newspaper or Internet connection. The violence of these acts is being directed at the people of America and the heart of our resolve.

This strategic target, if successful, will do more to speed our withdrawal and therefore the enemies' victory than the hundreds of attacks ever could.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that these attacks are also targeting the finite attention of American policymakers. After all, "if it bleeds it leads" in the media; and if it leads in the media, it often leads in Washington. This second characteristic of the strategic nature of these attacks is unfortunately serving to distract us from the many other more subtle instruments of statecraft being used against us in Iraq.

In addition to supporting, encouraging and at times directing the terrorists in Iraq, the governments of Iran and Syria were preparing, even before the fall of Baghdad, a series of efforts intended to bring about their political purposes in Iraq. These policies include almost every aspect of public life, including religion, politics, media and popular culture.

On the religious front, the government of Iran has worked hard to try and superimpose the heretical Khomeini ideology of the Wilayat al-Faqih on the Shi'a community and religious leadership in Iraq. Its weapons in this effort have ranged from assassinations of senior religious leaders to the co-opting of local mosques and their associated social services, including schools. The ultimate goal is to replace Grand Ayatollah Sistani with someone more accepting of Iranian leadership.

To properly understand this, it cannot be seen solely as an Iraq strategy but also a war for the soul of Shi'a Islam, as the Iranians already control Qom and its associated school in Iran and now they have their sights set on Najaf and its school. Unfortunately for the United States, many of these efforts have already resulted in the implementation of the Wilayat al-Faqih version of Sharia as the law of the land in many communities throughout Iraq.

Tehran has political and financial relations with many of the largest political parties in Iraq, and the governments of Iran and Syria have supported the creation of several new legitimate and covert political parties, groups and factions. Tehran would never be able to truly consolidate its hold over the country if its puppets came to power through wholly illegitimate means. However, if these people are – to use the term very loosely – "democratically elected" under the rules we have helped establish, then the United States and the international community would have no choice but to accept the results.

This strategy recently paid off with the announcement from Tehran, by the interim government of Iraq, of an agreement of cooperation between Iraq and Iran on defense issues, something that was completely rejected by Iraq just last year. Unfortunately, this is not the first nor is it likely to be the last such significant gain made by Tehran.

Some of the potentially greater inroads of Iranian influence within Iraq are not on the national level but on the local level of tribes and communities. After all, when one controls much of the violence, then one can ensure that those areas loyal to your cause are secure, thereby encouraging the people to support such agents of influence. This is a significant advantage for Tehran, for their agents can truly promise something that the United States cannot: a quick end to the violence.

Unless these political actions are soon prevented and rolled back through a proactive counter-strategy, the only potential alternatives left for the United States to address these trends would have serious long-term and negative repercussions for the war on terror and the greater U.S. Middle East strategy.

These political efforts have been supplemented further by an overt and covert media strategy. This has included such obvious methods as television and radio broadcasts originating from Iran directed at Iraq. In terms of numbers, sources and amount of content from these stations, the effort has quickly overwhelmed the U.S. effort. Also, a great number of clandestine short-range radio units have been smuggled into Iraq and placed in important urban areas. These units are difficult for the United States to find and shut down.

In addition, waves of printed material are being created in Syria, Iran and on presses located inside Iraq. This material has the advantage of not facing international media scrutiny as it is dismissed as simple propaganda or agitation material. Unfortunately, this dismissive attitude has found many allies in the existing U.S. diplomatic establishment.

This has meant that rather than try to counter such activities we have ignored them, to the point that the lies told about the United States are beginning to be accepted as fact. This only further complicates the efforts of our would-be allies in Iraq and, for that matter, the entire region as they are tossed alone into a sea of lies left to fend for themselves.

On the popular-culture front, the Iranian efforts have successfully begun to create centers of control and influence throughout Iraq. These areas are like a cancer, and just as in that disease, most of the early growth has gone undetected. After all, a seemingly peaceful area is not going to make the evening news if the woman are suddenly forced to wear veils and the Jumuah (Friday prayer) at the local mosque has taken on a different flavor. Such subtle changes will simply not attract camera time and the associated attention of America.

These cultural nexus points then spread out into the surrounding neighborhoods until the entire culture that existed in a town, city or region for decades has been subsumed. Any who do not adopt the new "popular" culture are self-identified as persons of interest for the forces at work creating this new culture and could quickly become examples of the ultimate cost of defiance.

There is one very important question that has not been addressed, at least publicly, by any of those who have been warning of the Iranian and Syrian efforts in Iraq, and that is this: What is the political reason that would motivate Iran and Syria to pursue these potentially dangerous strategies?

After all, most would agree that it is very dangerous to continually harass the United States, because if there is anything that the United States has shown great skill at over the years, it is breaking things. Syria and Iran could easily find themselves on the receiving end of such an action by the United States, so why risk such a strategy?

Simply put, both the Syrian and Iranian regimes are domestically very unpopular. In recent years groups have organized and openly worked to change their governments from the dictatorship of Assad, who maintains control through the minority Alawite community in Syria, and from the "mullahocracy" of Iran to democratic representative governments. These efforts threaten the political and financial positions – not to mention the lives – of the leadership elites in both countries.

With the chaos and violence aided by both regimes occurring daily in Iraq, both governments are able to point to the potential consequences of a transition from an authoritarian regime to democracy. This has the effect of weakening the recruitment efforts of pro-democratic groups within the Iranian and Syrian populations, thereby protecting the control of the two governments. This of course is in addition to the larger strategic regional and international goals that Iran and Syria are seeking to accomplish.

If the United States loses Iraq, it will not be for military reasons. Although there can and should be debate about troop levels, supplies, postwar planning, and any number of other issues within the United States, the simple truth is that these minutiae will not cost us Iraq.

What will cost us Iraq is if we do not soon awaken to the political battle being waged against us, which began even before we arrived in Baghdad. This is not a battle that can be won with tanks or planes, but must utilize other resources in departments and agencies in Washington that currently seem more interested in affixing the blame on the Pentagon or organizing the party circuit in the green zone in Baghdad than doing their own jobs to secure Iraq.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/26/141132.shtml