Odierno: Ahmadinejad Felt Safe Because He Funds Baghdad Militias
Monday, March 3, 2008 at 09:57PM LT GEN Odierno, second in command in Iraq until last month, sat down with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s the Situation Room today and discussed Iranian President’s visit to Baghdad, Iraq, where Ahmadinejad said he was safer in Baghdad than U.S. diplomats and that no one in Iraq liked the U.S.
Odierno suggested Mahmoud feels safe walking the streets in Iraq’s capital city because of the Shia militias he’s funding in Baghdad. Think of them as Mahmoud’s bodyguards.
Watch the full interview with Odierno on Ahmadinejad. (4 min 1 sec)
Although Ahmadinejad taunted the U.S. and praised his reception, the Iraqi people took to the streets in protest. Iraqi politicians protested the visit, too. Democracy at work.
Wolf Blitzer asked a good question about Ahmadinejad’s reception in Baghdad, which was, “Is this what we went to war for?”
Fair enough. While it looks disconcerting, there are several things to keep in mind:
- Iran and Iraq maintained a dysfunctional relationship throughout the Saddam years and as a new, sovereign country with new leadership, Iraq must have diplomatic ties with its neighbors.
- Middle Eastern culture usually involves dignitaries holding the hand of their guests. Iraqi leaders did the same when George Bush and Tony Blair made their trips to Iraq as well. It’s customary.
- The people of Iraq protested the visit.
There is a note of caution: If Democrats continue to threaten Iraq with troop withdrawal, making an easy resurgence for al-Qaeda, don’t doubt that Iran will be there ready to swoop in and help Iraq, and don’t doubt Mahmoud will point out to Iraq that the U.S. let them down. Again.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1635597
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (19)
Typically, CNN reports NOTHING of Ahmedinejad's pilgrimage to the Shrine of the Imam he honors in the footage. This is the actual primary script; Iran's cleric-led government desires control over the holiest sites in Shia Islam located in Kerbala, Najaf and Samarra, Iraq. Of course for most Americans, religion is a mere private issue with no relevance in international relations or national security.
That's most unfortunate.
If Wolf Blitzer ever truly asked a good question, he'd certainly no longer be welcome on CNN ... :)
IN 1984 Orwell has all of his totalitarian states opposing, yet relying on one another since the greater fear is their own people. Saddam was the centerpiece of the middle east autocracy.
Fix4RSO, touche'!
Johnny, what would be the angle on report? The west already nas virtually no concept of Islam or Sunni/Shia.. in what context do you think reporting on Ahmadinejad's pilgrimmage should have been reported?
If so, Amy, that must mean the surge is working.
Irony intended.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/04/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Clearly, this must mean the surge is working.
Finally you're getting it, mud.
Amy:
This is what I was talking about Pres. Ahmedinejad doing at the shrine of the Imam Abdul-Qadir al-Giland tomb in Baghdad:
"Gulick describes his visit to the tomb-shrine of (Shiite) Abdul-Qadir al-Giland in Baghdad:
It was a crowded day, and so I was able to observe one pilgrim with some care. He stood close to the grillwork facing the tomb and grasped the grillwork with both hands so tightly that his knuckles were white, and his mouth opened and closed in silent prayer or entreaty. Every few moments he would release his grasp, step backwards a couple of paces, run the palms of his hands all over his body, and then step forward grasping the grillwork again. To this man, it would seem, that baraka of the saint was a palpable though invisible substance, applicable to his body like an ointment. This was no “superstition-ridden peasant” or laborer. He was dressed in a western-style business suit, with shirt and necktie, and he set his briefcase on the floor beside him. (88)
Gulick’s observation points to the significant fact that it is not just the Traditional Arabs who are involved in such practices, but Transitionals and sometimes Moderns believe in the value of this type of behavior."
Reaching the Arabs, by Tim Matheny, © 1981 by William Carey Press
The Iranians would love to have control of the Shiite holy sites in Iraq in Kerbala, Najaf, Samarra and Baghdad. As of now, they must content themselves with pilgrimages to these holy sites in Iraq. As a state ruled by Shiite clerics, it seems improper that their holiest sites reside in neighboring Iraq. Sadr subscribes to a model of government like that in Tehran. So what the MSM missed is the informal strengthening of religious ties between Iran and Iraq's radical Shiites symbolized by Ahmedinejad's ritual prayer at the shrine in Baghdad. I would seriously doubt any western journalist would even have a clue as to what was going on there.
Oops. Wrong Imam. Its the shrine of Imam Musa Kadhim...
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1675.htm
In this video taken from Al-Arabiya TV on January 18, 2008
Former Terrorist of the "Islamic Army" in Iraq Abu Azzam Al-Tamimi explains why 'An American Withdrawal Will Spell Disaster - Iranian Occupation More Dangerous'
In an unexpectedly bizarre twist, he explains that Al Qaeda has strong support from (of all places) Tehran (!). I don't know what to think about that one.
"he was safer in Iraq than U.S. diplomats"
ok, i'll agree with him on this. but not for the reason he gave. there are two sides to this war and he backs the insurgents.
who would be most likely do him harm? wouldn't it be the side we back? and who would do harm to one of our diplomats? wouldn't be the side he backs?
now, is there any doubts as to whom would be safer within a insurgent stronghold? it surely wouldn't be the diplomat. and who should be safer in a coalition stronghold? wouldn't be the diplomat?
if he thinks that he is more safer then that says more about the people we back then it does for the preople he backs.
Wow, talk about spin.
Hi there,
I've often wondered about the general problem of ownership of holy lands. Could there be a state-within-a-state solution, along the lines of a Vatican city? It's more complicated when multiple religions are interested in a site (eg. Jerusalem), but for a purely Muslim holy site, I (naively) imagine that something like that could satisfy all national interests.
Any big roadblocks with something like that? I'd particularly hope to get Johnny's thoughts on this.
How cute.
Jez, for all intents and purposes, Kerbala and Najaf are 'open holy cities' now. Shia pilgrims from all over the world have been flocking to the shrines, tombs and holy sites in Southern Iraq since Saddam was deposed by Coalition Forces in 2003. The problem is within Islam itself; as a faith, it allows for jihad (many types and interpretations) against taqfirists (false believers) and this often taken to wild extremes about what actions are within the pale of orthodoxy.
Religion brings out man's best and man's deepest feelings of devotion. It also can bring out the worst when it misinterpreted or applied apart from the spirit of brotherhood.
Vatican is a great example, but unique in human history. It was traditionally protected by the Holy Roman Empire; Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabi are as close as Islam has to something somewhat similar, but the Kingdom of the Saudis is a state and can control/regulate pilgrimages to its holy cities.
In this country we are free to believe what ever we want. Our right to free expression ends where your fist meets my nose.
Thanks,
Good point about the Vatican being backed up by Rome. No good declaring an independent state if there's no military backing.
Really, I don't see how it's rational for Iran to seek control of the Shiite sites you mentioned, so long as their openness is assured. But maybe Iraq is unable to satisfy Iran that it is capable of guaranteeing that openness yet. I think there's a strong argument for continued foreign presence to ensure holy cities remain open -- maybe even the UN would agree to that.
Rome never fell, did it?