Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: Iran . aL Qaeda vector

The north side of the White House, home and work place of the U.S. president

Hd_ouropinion USA TODAY, Secret author? iGNORANT

A12_iran11

With al-Qaeda on the run, Bush turns focus to Iran

The Iraq war has featured a changing cast of U.S. adversaries. Saddam Hussein. Sunni insurgents. Foreign fighters. Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

In the latest shift, the two top U.S. officials in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, focused in this week's congressional testimony on "special groups" — Iranian-backed militias — as the greatest long-term threat to Iraqi democracy.

(Photo - In Basra: An Iraqi army colonel says these weapons found during a raid were made in Iran / AFP/Getty Images)

On Thursday, President Bush endorsed the officials' troop recommendations and again recast the enemy. Iraq, he said toward the end of his speech, is "the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: al-Qaeda and Iran."

There's no question that al-Qaeda and Iran represent threats. But to conflate the two is disingenuous and misleading:

THIS IS A NEWS ORG. THAT IS MISSING THE FACTS, AND PUTTING OUT A MISLEADING OPINION. THERE IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAN AND AL QAEDA .G

* Al-Qaeda in Iraq is an enemy, pure and simple. It is an offshoot of the al-Qaeda network of Sunni Muslim fanatics that attacked the United States on 9/11, killing 3,000 people. It must be rooted out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and anyplace else it establishes its malignant presence.

This is an easy sell to the American public, and, in the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the news is good. It's on the run, in part because of the U.S. troop surge and in part because local Sunnis have turned against its medieval brutality.

* Iran and Iranian-backed militias are a different matter. Iran is a strategic adversary that hasn't attacked the U.S. homeland. Its engagement with Iraq, its neighbor, is inevitable. Iran's strategy in Iraq appears to be to back many different groups of its fellow Shiites, including the Iraqi leadership.

AND aL QAEDA SUPPORT, MONEY, ARMS, AMMUNITION, AND MEDICAL SERVICES, TRAINING, IED's, EVEN DIPLOMATIC COVER. G

As Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out with some irritation at Tuesday's hearings, Iran's hard-line, anti-U.S. president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was greeted in Iraq recently with red carpet treatment and kisses.

Dealing with Iran, and the militias it backs, is not as straightforward as dealing with al-Qaeda. Iran is a country, not a terror network. It's a rising power in the region, vying for influence with the United States. It has the potential to make great mischief, both in Iraq and through its sponsorship of Middle East militants.

AND DEVELOPEMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.G

In fact, the United States and Iran are facing off in a duel almost as complex as that between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This requires a whole range of tools, beyond Bush's bellicose warning on Thursday that Tehran "has a choice to make." One key is to reinforce the sense of nationalism among Iraqi Shiites, many of whom are wary of too much Iranian influence, don't want to be sucked into the extremism of Iran's ayatollahs and have lingering resentment from the Iran-Iraq war.

Sunni al-Qaeda and Shiite Iran pose different challenges and require separate strategies. About the only thing they have in common is that neither would have a foothold in Iraq today had the United States not invaded and then mismanaged the aftermath.

PURE FABRICATION, NOT CONNECTED TO REALITY, THE AUTHOR SHOULD HAVE SOME FAMMILARITY WITH IRAQ BEFORE WRITING SUCH AN UNEDUCATED OPINION FOR USA TODAY.

"Sunni al-Qaeda and Shiite Iran...neither would have a foothold in Iraq today had the United States not invaded and then mismanaged the aftermath."

THE LACK OF LOGIC AND IGNORANCE OF THAT STATEMENT SHOULD CAUSE SOME FIRINGS AT USA TODAY.

IF USA HAD MANAGED THE AFTERMATH PERFECTLY, AL QAEDA AND IRAN WOULD HAVE STAYED OUT? THERE IS NO CAUSAL EFFECT EVEN REMOTELY RELATED.

ITS LIKE SAYING IN THE MIDDLE OF WWII IF USA HAD STAYED OUT OF EUROPE HITLER WOULDN'T HAVE A FOOTHOLD IN SPAIN? JUST IGNORANT.

MAYBE THEY ARE SAYING SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN CHARGE OF IRAQ IF USA HAD NOT INVADED? BUT THEY DID NOT SAY THAT, BUT MAYBE THAT IS THEIR HYPOTHESIS BUT ARE TO COWARDLY TO JUST SAY THEY PREFER SADDAM TO A DEMOCRATIC IRAQ?

SUCH TRASH. YELLOW JOURNALISM AND ANTI-AMERICAN,

GERALD

ANTHROPOLOGIST