As it happened, the overwhelming share of the 603 US servicemen the Pentagon claims to have been killed by Iranian proxies were actually victims of the Mahdi Army uprisings during 2003-2007. These attacks were led by the above mentioned Iraqi nationalist firebrand and son of the movements founder, Muqtada al-Sadr.[1]Mr. Stockman deals with the issue often raised by the hysterics who claim Iran was responsible for supplying the Explosively Formed Penetrators used to attack United States troops in Iraq in their early years there. He also makes it clear that the Iranians played a crucial role in defeating ISIS and that the U.S. directly and indirectly played a major role in ensuring that ISIS was well armed. This is a complete inversion of the U.S. version that has us as the Saladins who kicked ISIS's ass and the Iranians as penny ante dogs in the manger of U.S. wonderfulness who could only muster the will to enage in "terrorism."
Stockman's piece is a healthy counterweight to the hysteria in the land about Iranian eviltude and nefariosity. Not least useful is his brief treatment of what it was that Soleimani was doing in Baghdad on the night of his death. Contrary to the hysteria of Dan Bongino on Fox last night, he wasn't there to kick off another round a terrorism or attacks on U.S. troops.
Notes
[1] "The Donald’s Assassination of General Soleimani—As Stupid As It Gets." By David Stockman, The Unz Review, 1/7/20. I've already posted about how Craig Murray deals with that 600 death toll. Basically, he and Stockman agree, Stockman also pointing out that Sadr, the Iraqi, had "derided the Iran-aligned militias" and had also, not surprisingly, fought back when the U.S. leadership under Gen. Petraeus initiated its "surge" campaign targeting Sadr's forces.
2 comments:
I think this argument is silly (ie who is more at fault for the development of IEDs). A tempest in a teapot. Stockman is a crackpot these days. Boo hoo. So many tears for an evil man and an evil regime. Get real.
Always glad to receive a thoughtful comment.
You may think it is silly to argue who is "more at fault" for the development of IEDs (or supplying thereo) but that is the point about which the Iranophobes obsesses and dissemble.
Stockman may strike you as a crackpot but that unfairly disregards the voluminous research and analysis that his articles demonstrate. The point about the exact identity of the militia that US forces encountered in the famous "surge" is exactly the right one to make. Instead we get the moronic regurgitation of the dastardly "Iranian proxies" stupidity which reflects zero understanding of the factional realities of Iraq then. As though al-Nusraqaida, ISIS, the Saudis, the Danes, the Germans, the French, and the British are not our "proxies."
From what I can see, that's a good summary of your understanding -- zero- of anything over there. "Evil man," "evil regime," "brutal dictator," "proxies," "chief sponsor of terror,""expansionism," and "collusion" are the kind of terms reserved for the kiddie pool when genuine understanding of our involvment in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, and Russia is desperately needed.
Maybe a more substantive comment would be in order. Just a thought.
Post a Comment