Good rhetoric – where’s the proof?
Bush has again threatened Syria and Iran with unnamed consequences should they not cease their support of the Iraqi resistance but, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that either Syria or Iran is actually involved in the resistance – - at least the Bush administration has not presented any sort of compelling evidence to back up these charges.
As much as I personally consider that Bush would like to have the world believe that the fighting in Iraq is the result of foreign instigation the evidence for that is just not there. Until those of us on the left side of the stage see some solid evidence to the contrary we’re going to stick to the home grown insurgency working at kicking an occupying military out of their country.
I personally don’t doubt that both Syria and Iran are more interested in supporting the Iraqi insurgency than in supporting a successful American occupation. Doesn’t that make sense to you?
I believe it is quite likely that Syria is one some level supporting the insurgency, or at the very least turning a blind eye to those in that country that are. Speculation is that prior to the U.S. invasion Saddam Hussein transfered several hundred million dollars to ‘allies’ in Syria and that much of that money is now finding its way back to the insurgency. But this doesn’t mean that much of the insurgency is in fact Iraqi’s and not foreigners. In fact, the pictures of Iraqi’s killing election workers that we all saw today is clear evidence of the support the insurgency has among the general population. I say that because the killers of the election workers did not wear masks. This tells me that they do not fear the general public knowing who they are. They do not fear the general public turning them in to the Iraqi police of the American military. Since they do not fear these things, it tells me that much of the Iraqi population in that area is actively supporting the insurgency or quietly supporting it by turning a blind eye to the perpetrators of these crimes.
Iran on the other hand is more likely to want elections to occur fully aware that the likely outcome is a pro-Iranian Shiite government led religiously, if not politically, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who himself is Iranian born. Also part of this group is Ahmed Chalabi who we all know as a once close ally of the United States but more recently accused of allegedly funneling American secrets to the Iranian government. Iran would love nothing more than see a Iran become Shiite controlled since Iran is really the only major Shiite controlled nation in the region. So, for this reason I have my doubts that Iran would be supporting the insurgency. In fact, it was al Sistani which put a stop to the insurgency supported by Cleric Muqtada al Sadr and his militia.
I quite agree that the bulk of Iraqi insurgency is home grown. The US has made some very significant missteps in the occupation (setting aside their invasion for the moment), and the resistance is a predictable and understandable response to an apparently interminable occupation and the handover of Iraqi state assets to Coalition corporations.
Having said that, I think it’s silly to deny, or even doubt, that extranational Islamists are seeking to exploit and exacerbate the insurgency (another entirely predictable consequence of the invasion.)