Unbelievable, especially given the fact that all political parties know that without strong financing then a candidate doesn't stand a chance of winning. The United States unwillingness to help finance modertate Iraqis during the Iraqi election, no doubt threw the election to the radical Islamics supported by Iran. Truth is, that election was the United States "one chance" to ensure that Iraq got some quality people to run the government and give Iraq a "reasonable" chance at stability. But unfortunately, once again ideology trumpted commen sense. Which is why now Iraq is well on it's way to become an Islamic (Shiite) Republic. An Islamic Republic is not worth American lives and treasure, but when the dust settles that what it's going to be. All one has to do is look at where Maliki's and a number of other Iraqi politicans to see where their loyalites "truely" lie. The sad thing is, the United States can't do a damn thing about overthrowing that government, without Bush admitting that his (and the neo-conservative) vision of a democracy in Iraq was a failure. Cam't imagine the current President EVER admitting to that.
quote:
Bush's Lost Iraqi Election (with the help of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then House minority leader, and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser - cuh)
By David Ignatius Thursday, August 30, 2007
Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections.
"Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not," Allawi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us."
Behind Allawi's comment lies a tale of intrigue and indecision by the United States over whether to mount a covert-action program to confront Iran's political meddling. Such a plan was crafted by the Central Intelligence Agency and then withdrawn -- because of opposition from an unlikely coalition that is said to have included Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then House minority leader, and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser.
As recounted by former U.S. officials, the story embodies the mix of hubris and naivete that has characterized so much of the Iraq effort. From President Bush on down, U.S. officials enthused about Iraqi democracy while pursuing a course of action that made it virtually certain that Iran and its proxies would emerge as the dominant political force.
The CIA warned in the summer and fall of 2004 that the Iranians were pumping money into Iraq to steer the Jan. 30, 2005, elections toward the coalition of Shiite religious parties known as the United Iraqi Alliance. By one CIA estimate, Iranian covert funding was running at $11 million a week for media and political operations on behalf of candidates who would be friendly to Iran, under the banner of Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The CIA reported that in the run-up to the election, as many as 5,000 Iranians a week were crossing the border with counterfeit ration cards to register to vote in Iraq's southern provinces.
To counter this Iranian tide, the CIA proposed a political action program, initially at roughly $20 million but with no ceiling. The activities would include funding for moderate Iraqi candidates, outreach to Sunni tribal leaders and other efforts to counter Iranian influence. A covert-action finding was prepared in the fall of 2004 and signed by President Bush. As required by law, senior members of Congress, including Pelosi, were briefed.
But less than a week after the finding was signed, CIA officials were told that it had been withdrawn. Agency officials in Baghdad were ordered to meet with Iraqi political figures and get them to return whatever money had been distributed. Mystified by this turn of events, CIA officers were told that Rice had agreed with Pelosi that the United States couldn't on the one hand celebrate Iraqi democracy and on the other try to manipulate it secretly.
Ethically, that was certainly a principled view. But on the ground in Iraq, the start-stop maneuver had the effect of pulling the rug out from under moderate, secular Iraqis who might have contained extremist forces. (Asked about the withdrawal of the intelligence finding, spokesmen for Rice and Pelosi declined to comment.)
"The Iranians had complete command of the field," recalls one former U.S. official who was in Iraq at the time. "The Iraqis were bewildered. They didn't understand what the U.S. was doing. It looked like we were giving the country to Iran. We told Washington this was a calamitous event, from which it would be hard to recover."
Allawi, in a telephone interview Tuesday from Amman, Jordan, confirmed that the United States had shelved its political program. "The initial attitude of the U.S. was to support moderate forces, financially and in the media," he said. "This was brought to a halt, under the pretext that the U.S. does not want to interfere." Allawi said the American decision was "understandable" but ceded the field to Iran and its well-financed proxies.
Allawi said he is trying to gather support for a new coalition of Kurds, Sunnis and secular Shiites as an alternative to the Shiite religious coalition that installed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power. Some commentators see Allawi's recent decision to hire a Washington public relations firm as a sign of the Bush administration's support, but the opposite is probably the case. If Allawi had U.S. government backing, he wouldn't need the lobbyists.
Future historians should record that the Bush administration actually lived by its pro-democracy rhetoric about a new Iraq -- to the point that it scuttled a covert action program aimed at countering Iranian influence. Now the administration says it wants to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq, but it is probably too late.
i think if the dems would start to support the efforts in iraq it would all go a little smoother.... you know they do see and hear what our politicians do say and if they think that we are not serious and not going the distance they will embrace those that will...iran....
Blame the "dems", what an orginal thought. Did you come up with that one by yourself? As far as going the "distance", you think the American military has that capacity at this point in time? Seems to me, that it's bleeding to death from "a thousand little cuts". Not enought people, not enough equipment, the list goes on and on and on. Hate to bust your bubble, but Iraq was stupid idea born of a "naive ideology" that had almost "no chance" of success, even under the best of circumstances. And the Bush Administration throughout the war/occupation has never missed a opportunity to "hose" something up. Blowing "happy smoke up GIs asses" isn't going to change one damn thing in Iraq. Unfortunately, there are many that come to this site that actually believe in the "happy smoke" BS. How sad.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: cleaneduphippy,
David Ignatius Columnist, The Washington Post, and Board Member, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
David Ignatius is a columnist for The Washington Post. His twice-weekly column on global politics, economics, and international affairs began appearing on the op-ed page of the Post in January 1999. He continued to write weekly after becoming executive editor of the Paris-based International Herald Tribune in September 2000. When the Post sold its interest in the IHT in January 2003, Mr. Ignatius resumed writing twice a week for the op-ed page and was syndicated worldwide by The Washington Post Writers Group. Prior to becoming a columnist, Mr. Ignatius was the Post’s assistant managing editor in charge of business news, a position he assumed in 1993. He served as the Post’s foreign editor from 1990 to 1992, supervising the paper’s Pulitzer Prize–winning coverage of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From 1986 to 1990, he was editor of Sunday “Outlook” section.
Before joining the Post in 1986, Mr. Ignatius spent 10 years as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. He covered the steel industry in Pittsburgh, the Justice Department, the CIA, and the U.S. Senate in Washington, and was the Middle East correspondent and chief diplomatic correspondent. He has published five novels and is finishing a sixth.
You might want to try to find some of David Ignatius columns on Iraq and the Middle East. David makes a lot of sense and no he's not a liberal, not by a long stretch.
No hippy, he isn't a liberal, not by a long shot, which is why he is buying this Haley Barbour-flavored kool-aid. Allawi didn't lose because he hadn't been anywhere near Iraq for twenty years ... not in Iran, but in Britain, a place where his family still lives and he holds a passport. It had nothing to do with his long and well-known ties to the CIA. He lost an election in which most of the people who voted did so because their mullahs told them to because we didn't throw enough money at him ... since he was unable to leverage anything out of being the incumbent ... or pretty much the only candidate with a public face, since it was too dangerous for anyone else to appear on TV. It isn't so much that we didn't tamper with the march of democracy in Iraq ... only that we didn't tamper with it enough. Lovey meme if you can sell it, but call me skeptical.
quote: Now the administration says it wants to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq, but it is probably too late.
It is never too late. Iran must be delt with if we ever expect to see an end to this mess.
dmuhler,
Don't know if your comment regarding Iran, means the United States taking a "military solution", but if so, then perhaps this article from American Conservative magazine, might give you a "pause". Last thing the United States need to do, at this point in time, is get involved in a "Land War" with Iraq.
