If Maliki and Ahmedinejad buddy up, that leaves us where, exactly?

Holy crap!

There are pictures of them holding hands. Maybe they're becoming serious about each other.

But then, Maliki doesn't really care much about what the U.S. does and doesn't welcome, does he?

I guess the threat that the U.S. might invade gets somewhat weakened in his case.

The Great Game? Sad that we won't have a leader smart enough to play it for 16 more months at least.

"Lynch's assertion is the latest in a series of accusations leveled by military officials against Iran. They have warned that Iraq's neighbor is actively supplying Shiite insurgents - specifically, the Mahdi Army - with deadly weapons that have killed dozens of U.S. soldiers."

Shiite 'insurgents?' Aren't we getting our terminology a bit confused? The Sunni insurgents are by far the greatest threat to US soldiers (see Juan Cole). At least now it becomes clear why Iran would be giving arms to 'insurgents,' a claim made earlier that was preposterous on its face. Iran would never give arms or train Sunni insurgents. The Shiites and Iran have a natural alliance and such cooperation is quite normal, although not wanted by the US. But of course the US deposed Saddam and his Baathist government and railed against its genocide of Shiites and Kurds as one 'moral' cause for the invasion. So, don't we want the majority Shiites to remain in power now? Maybe not. That darn Shiite crescent. They plumb forgot about it in the planning.

Why yes. I imagine that is unlikely to be welcomed by the U.S.

How would you know that Kevin? Since the Bush Administration has not said either way, saying that is just jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I suspect what's really going on is Bush and his ally Maliki are concerned about the continued interference by Iran in the internal affairs of Iraq, and Maliki has decided to act as Bush's emissary to relay their shared concerns to Ahmadinejad.
Maliki is going to tell Ahmadinejad if he doesn't change his behavior soon, Bush and Maliki are going to take harsh and punitive action against Ahmadinejad and his theocratic Islamic government. With both the head of the Iraqi and American government strongly opposed to Ahmadinejad and the Surge pacifying the Iranian terrorists, Ahmadinejad is going to be pressured to pull the the terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from Iraq marking a major victory for Bush, Maliki, and the Surge.

For the first time, the U.S. military said on Sunday that Iranian soldiers are in Iraq training insurgents to attack American forces.

*yawn*

Wake me up when there are 160k Iranian troops in Mexico securing their oil reserves and preparing to launch an attack on the US.

As Al rightly says, the United States Government has discovered that the Revolutionary Guard are a bunch of terrorists . . .

And then the United States Army announces that the area which it is occupying and, er, terrorizing, is absolutely swarming with Revolutionary Guardsmen, all terrorists, as one may tell by the beards.

Can these events possibly be related?

Rarely is the question answered: are our Surges working?

(In the Eastern Cape, by the way, we have a highly effient laxative called SURGE.)

"For the first time, the U.S. military said on Sunday that Iranian soldiers are in Iraq training insurgents to attack American forces."

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a top U.S. commander who is in charge of a large swath of Iraq south of Baghdad, believes there are about 50 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in his battlefield area, military spokeswoman Maj. Alayne Conway said."

See, the problem I have--where's the proof? The military make all sorts of claims, but their track record with truth is not exactly stellar. So it's impossible to know to what extent Iran is involved in the mayhem in Iraq because the the powers that be in the US military just...make shit up. All the time. So if they ever do tell the truth, how on earth will we know it?

al: Since the Bush Administration has not said either way, saying that is just jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

so the 1% doctrine is dead?

Al - thanks, you always brighten up my day with your superb comments, keep them coming.

Al flails and comes up with: "I suspect... Maliki has decided to act as Bush's emissary to relay their shared concerns to Ahmadinejad."

Shya right. Cuz that's how concerns are relayed: you invite the "enemy" to your country for a diplomatic visit...

Al, that doesn't pass the laugh test. The real pattern here - the simple awful truth -- is simply that Iran has more clout than ever, now that the US has removed Iran's enemies from power. By any measure, Iranian influence will be stronger than ever in Iraq for decades to come, and fundamentalist and nationalist control IN Iran will be "emboldened" as long as the US insists on talking about attacking Iran.

Thanks, neoconservative idiots in charge.

Juan Cole on Iranian accusations:

"The US military hasn't found any Iranian trainers in Iraq or any training camps, but like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, that you can't find them doesn't mean they are not there. What I cannot understand is why the Pentagon needs Iranians in Iraq as a plot device. The Iraqi Badr Corps, tens of thousands strong, was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and it has been alleged that some Badr corpsmen are still on the Iranian payroll. It is the paramilitary of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, America's chief ally in Iraq. What would the IRGC know that Badr does not? Why bother to send revolutionary guardsmen when the country is thick with Badr fighters anyway (who have all the same training)? I think the US is just embarrassed because Badr is its major ally in Iraq, and Pentagon spokesmen are over-compensating by imagining Iranian training camps inside Iraq. What an idea. I mean, don't we have, like, satellites that would see them? Wouldn't they be visible on google earth? Every day the Pentagon b.s. about Iran gets more fantastic and frantic. Methinks some people, like Patton, are upset that the politicians always pull them back and leave them one more war to fight."

For the first time, the U.S. military said on Sunday that Iranian soldiers are in Iraq training insurgents to attack American forces.

Dude! That's like when Rambo went back to Vietnam and not only found POWs, but Red Army officers doing the torturin'!

Why won't Rambo help us now???

Also from Juan Cole's site is this observation by a Vietnam vet that states what I've been thinking for a couple of months now:

The unspoken leaden shoe that's possibly going to drop soon is: by arming Sunni Arab tribal sheiks, we now have a "proxy army" which is effectively being used against al-Qaeda (Salafist) terrorists). The successes racked up to these new proxy units seems impressive. I read one article which indicated these tribal Sunni militia, were given 10 rounds to fire. I guess someone thought, they can't get into too much trouble with ten rounds. But unspoken, of course, and generally unnoticed by most American journalists save Michael Ware, of CNN, is what these tribal units will do once al-Qaeda is effectively broken!

I'd contend, every Iraqi shiite knows exactly what these Sunni militia will be used for once al-Qaeda is broken: namely, they will join the Americans in fighting Shiite militia. ...

The line that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are training Iraqi militas to kill Americans is an attempt to grease the skids for military action against Iran.

I can hear President Bush now "We cannot allow Iran to kill Americans troops. They must be stopped".

Ah, Kevin.

Actually, I'm sure the U.S. would welcome Ahmadinajad to come out of his little hole in Iran and come to Iraq. He'll be away from his power center. I'm sure Condoleeza Rice is smacking her chops just thinking about the thought of cornering Ahmadinajad in enemy territory.

I can see Condi saying "Hmmm, Ahmadinajad. See all those fed up Sunni's out there who are fed up with your anti-American antics. How would you like to go shake hands with them?"

This is going to play right into the Administrations hands! Score another one for President Bush!

The unspoken leaden shoe that's possibly going to drop soon is: by arming Sunni Arab tribal sheiks, we now have a "proxy army" which is effectively being used against al-Qaeda (Salafist) terrorists).
---

I think we've figured out for many months now that it is pointless to support the Shia and the Kurds any longer and that it is far easier just to support the Sunni Arabs (backed by Saudi) and side with Turkey with respect to the Kurds instead. The failure of Israel to take out Hezbollah last year was the turning point. It would be far easier to deal with predictable establishments such as the Saudis and the Turks. If Turkey made a land grab on Kurdistan and the Sunni Arabs took back control of the Iraqi government and imposed another authoritarian state we could probably care less at this point as long as:

1) We could stop wasting so much money there and could get out.
2) Oil got transported out of Kurdistan through Turkey; Oil got transported out of Southern Iraq.
3) Let the Sunni Arabs dispense with the AQ in Iraq problem.
4) Our quibble with Iran could be solved with a proxy army not our own.

Perhaps the Maj Gen Lynch could borrow the Sony DVD video camera used by David Lynch in "Inland Empire" to film those Iranian troops, possibly performing "Do the locomotion", and then we might understand.

As Bush's war has turned into a large scale version of Inland Empire, would fit.

Doc at the Radar Station has it pretty well summed up. It was probably the agenda during Cheney's November 2006 (the day after Thanksgiving!!!) to SA.

See, the problem I have--where's the proof?

Just call it Operation Ipse Dixit, and make sure it starts before the elections...

If the Guard is in Iraq it was either invited by Maliki or would leave if he asked. Maliki favors a Shia country and will support efforts to make it so.

But he is only in charge, what do his opinions matter to George and his imperialist army.

If it's right for Obama to meet with enemy tyrants, why isn't it right for Malaki?

Why am I not surprised that the troll-for-hire ex-lib is now working for the HRC campaign?

For the first time, the U.S. military said on Sunday that Iranian soldiers are in Iraq training insurgents to attack American forces.

Um, many insurgents are joining the military and police force and being trained by *US*. Hopefully, diplomatic action can prevent the need for full military escalation against ourselves.

If it's right for Obama to meet with enemy tyrants, why isn't it right for Malaki?

Lovely disingenuous phrasing there, "ex-liberal" -- of course, obama hasn't "met with enemy tyrants," but rather discussed it hypothetically.

But if he did negotiate with america's enemies, he'd do so to advance America's interest. There's no reason to believe Maliki is doing so, and plenty of reason to beleive the opposite. Thus the answer to your question.

But you knew that, "ex-liberal," you stinking, dishonest neocon toad. Your question was, as ever, posed in bad faith. You really do get a sick thrill out of posting the most insulting, dishonest neocon talking points you can think of, and you usually run away from the responsies correcting you -- not that it matters, because you aren't here for good-faith debate and continue to post your long-debunked bullshit regardless. Why Kevin's moderator(s) tolerate your bullshit is a mystery.

"I think we've figured out for many months now that it is pointless to support the Shia and the Kurds any longer and that it is far easier just to support the Sunni Arabs (backed by Saudi) and side with Turkey with respect to the Kurds instead"

Doc,

This is what I suspect too. The Pentagon hasn't said it outright, but that's sure the way it looks. Nothing like changing boats in the middle of the stream...

"I think we've figured out for many months now that it is pointless to support the Shia and the Kurds any longer and that it is far easier just to support the Sunni Arabs (backed by Saudi) and side with Turkey with respect to the Kurds instead"

I suspect the staying power of the U.S. in Iraq is less than the desire of the Shia and Kurds to rule themselves. We can switch sides to try and manipulate the outcome in Iraq, but we can't undo the revolution we instigated when we toppled Saddam Hussein.

Just where does the idea come from that all of Iraq's interests are the same as the United States'? Or that the Iraqi government should only do what WE approve of? I thought they were supposed to be independent?
The majority of Iraqis are Shi'a; so are the majority of Iranians. Why shouldn't the prime minister of a Shi'a-majority Iraq meet the president of a Shi'a majority Iran? Sooner or later (my money is on sooner), the US will be leaving Iraq; al-Maliki might as well get started preparing for it.