posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
I think you have entirely misinterpreted his comments. To begin with I must say he hit the nail on the head throughout most of the interview and I
must agree with him on all points with reservations around the way Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda should have been approached.
While claiming Iraq will now be a puppet state is over blowing the situation I must agree that Iraq is, has been and will likely continue to gravitate
towards Iran for several reasons.
a) The majority of the country and government is made of of Shiite Muslims likely to sympathize with Irans Shiite government.
b) The primeminister has strong ties with Iran and Iraq has been visited by Ahmedinijad. The last time Iraq was visited by an Iranian leader was prior
to the Iran-Iraq war.
c) Iraq's military is weak, most of its military infastructure and defense capabilities have been destroyed and the military America has rebuilt is
nothing compared to that of Saddam's even after Kuwait. Iraq cannot compete with Iran in the region and when America leaves (which could happen
sooner then later seeing the state of the US economy) Iraq will need to look to a world and regional power to keep it safe in its turbulent political
environment. It will likely look to Iran and by extentions (and even possibly directly) to China.
d) They both share animosity towards Israel. While I know the politics are much more complicated I can't but help to bring up the old saying "an
enemy of my enemy is my freind".
e) It needs help to keep the diverse and fractured ethnic groups living in relative harmony (I don't mean peace when I say harmony). It'll need Iran
to keep those Kurds in check and even possibly those Sunni's in line.
You have blown up his comments. He seems to have been against the Iraq war (as any rational human would have been) and he highlighted the strategic
failures and massive damage which it has caused to American power. America is far worse off then it was before 9/11.