As Secretary Rice prates on about how the Iraqi government must respond to the "legitimate aspirations the Iraqi people," the facts on the ground are solidifying. From the Washington Post aka, the Bandar Beacon.
KIRKUK, Iraq -- Hundreds of Shiite Muslim militiamen have deployed in recent weeks to this restive city -- widely considered the most likely flash point for an Iraqi civil war -- vowing to fight any attempt to shift control over Kirkuk to the Kurdish-governed north, according to U.S. commanders and diplomats, local police and politicians.Until recently, the presence of the militias here was minimal. U.S. officials have called the Shiite armed groups the deadliest threat to security in much of the country. They have been blamed for hundreds of killings during mounting sectarian violence in central and southern Iraq since the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in February.
The Mahdi Army, led by firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, has sent at least two companies, each with about 120 fighters, according to Thomas Wise, political counselor for the U.S. Embassy's Kirkuk regional office, which has been tracking militia activity. The Badr Organization, the armed wing of Iraq's largest Shiite political party, has also boosted its presence and opened several offices across the region, military officers here said...
The fate of oil-rich Kirkuk -- Iraq's third-largest city with about a million residents and sizable ethnic Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen communities -- has been a pivotal and divisive issue since long before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iraq's constitution, endorsed in nationwide balloting in October, calls for a referendum on the future of the region by the end of 2007, but many key details are in dispute, such as who will be permitted to vote.
Kurdish leaders speak openly of their intention to use force if necessary to gain control of the city, which they consider the historical capital of a vast Kurdish nation also extending into Iran and Turkey. During the rule of President Saddam Hussein, Arabs brought in from elsewhere in Iraq displaced thousands of Kurds. As many as 300,000 Kurds who were pushed out have returned to the area, according to U.S. estimates, establishing vast settlements on the outskirts of the city and making them its largest ethnic community. Kurds also occupy most of the top provincial political and security jobs...
If the war has to come, I would bet on the Peshmerga. The Shi'ites may be fanatical, but they are nothing more than amateurs used to murder in the dark: faced with a real army that learned its business against Saddam Hussein, they would not in my view last long.
"the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people."
-- from a statement of Condoleeza Rice
What "Iraqi" people is that?
The "aspirations" of the "Iraqi people" (Sunni version) is to retain the political power that Sunnis have held for the entire history of modern Iraq, under the Hasehmnite monarchy, ably abetted by that constant plotter "strongman" Nuri al-Said (his corpse mutilated and dragged through the streets of Baghdad in 1958).
The "aspirations" of the "Iraqi people" (Shi'a Arab version) is to at long last hold power, and therefore also control the wealth of the country, and to redistribute both wealth and power so as to reflect the fact that 60-65% of the population in Iraq consists of Arab Shi'a.
The "aspirations" of the "Iraqi people" (Kurdish version) is at long last, having enjoyed the autonomy that American air cover provided, to now attain the independence that was promised in the 1920s for a "Kurdish state" (along with "an Arab state," a "Jewish state," and an "Armenian state"). In January 2005, at the same time as the first purple-thumbed vote was taken all over Iraq, a separate referendum was held in Kurdistan, and 98% of those voting declared themselves in favor of Kurdish independence.
The "aspiration" of the Sunni Arabs is to continue to dominate, and they allow themselves to believe that they constitute not 19% but 42% of the population (crazy theories such as this flourish among Muslims, as do conspiracy theories -- the habit of mental submission, and discouragement of free and critical inquiry, has its far-reaching consequences). They will never ever agree to Shi'a dominance.
The "aspiration" of the Shi'a Arabs is to acquire political and economic poweer, and to redistribute the oil wealth to make up for the last half-century of the state policy of seizing that oil wealth for Sunni benefit, and largely impoverishing the Shi'a, in the south and even in Baghdad.
The "aspiration" of the non-Arab Kurds is to form their own state.
Oh, the "aspiration" of the Christians in Iraq is a most modest one: they simply wnat to stay alive. That is the same "aspiration" of non-Muslims in Muslim states everywhere.
These are the various "aspirations" of the various components of the "Iraqi people" Rice continues to believe in or to believe she believes in.
Square this circle.
No, let's just let the American soldiers and Marines, in the regular forces, and in the Reserves, and don't forget the National Guard, let them try to create a sufficiently large "Iraqi" army and "Iraqi" police force (where the members of units are not shooting each other in the back -- or their American trainers either) try to square this circle. Go ahead. Try to achieve "victory" in Iraq, try to create that Shi'a-dominated Iraq that will be a Light Unto the (Sunni) Muslm Nationsl Go ahed, keep our officers and men on this expensive and dangerous fool's errand, and they are not even allowed to acquire enough information about Islam, or the history of Iraq, to understand early on just how thankless, and how impossible, and how foolish and inimicable to Western interests, rightly-conceived (an interest in not averting but welcoming those sectarian and ethnic fissures within Iraq and within the larger camp of Islam), is the policy they are risking their lives to implement. The thankless and impossible task they have been asked to achieve, and the ignorance that now amounts to cruelty, of those who continue to ask them to fulfill it -- will not be forgotten or forgiven.
But here is Bush, and Rice, and all the others. And the Democrats too -- who don't know where to put their feet and hands. They don't dare talk about the Jihad. They don't dare to suggest that what is wrong with the Iraq policy is the naivete of it all, the missing-the-point of it all, the misallocation of resources of it all, in this maddening failure to exploit the thousand natural fissures that Muslim flesh is heir to. Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing from our point of view, or not? It was a very good thing. Get out of Iraq, ignore the phony "realists" of the Scowcroft-Zinni-
Wilkerson-Baker school who are now quick to say "oh, we can't do that, we have to keep Iraq intact, we owe it to them." These are not realists, but appeasers of Islam, appeasers of Saudi Arabia. Their criticisms of the Iraq folly are worthless. The only kind that make sense are those that are made because we are failing to exploit, we are even attmepting to avert, what otherwise would naturally occur and would just as naturally help to weaken the camp of Islam.
No, forget everything I've written above. Forget the hundreds of similar postings, put up here since late 2003, all of them saying the same thing about Iraq, all of them precdicting Sunni-Shia and Arab-Kurdish troubles at a time when, I believe, in the White House there was still some confusion over what these words "Sunni" and "Shi'a" meant and why they mattered. And do forget as well the crazy idea that had the $500 billion already committed now to Iraq {includiing expenses related to it that will continue even after withdreawal) been plowed into energy and conservation projects that the "money weapon" that the Arabs and Muslims acquired over the past 30 years could have been much diminished, and their perceived power, including the power to intimidate Western governments even when it comes to dealing with Muslims within the Dar al-Harb, that power, both real and perceived, that promotes the Jihad, would have been reduced to pre-1973, and therefore entirely manageable, levels.
Forget everything I've said.
Let's Stay the Course. Let's achieve "victory" in Iraq. Let's meet the "aspirations" of the "Iraqi people."
Why is al-sadr still around? He should be in Abu Gharib. If not six feet under.
Kirkuk in the past has been principally a battleground between Sunni, Kurd and Turk. The interjection of Shia militias into a region in which they've been historically absent should be a cautionary warning to everyone...that should America pull out and leave Iraq to its own devices, the most likely outcome is either a Shia-dominated religious state in which the aspirations of our Kurdish friends are eventually (and brutally) repressed, or a fracturing of Iraq where Turkey annexes the north to prevent the formation of a Kurdish state.
When one ponders machinations to empower Berbers and black African Muslims as a way of undermining Arab imperialism, one must remain cognizant of the fate of the Iraqi Kurds. Right now, they are not only free, but quite progressive by Middle-Eastern standards. An American withdrawal will leave them to the fate of circumstance, surrounded by enemies, Arab, Turk and Persian.
The notion that we can withdraw from Iraq, watch the country descend into chaos, and then re-insert ourselves to rescue the Kurds of Iraq should they face a mortal threat...is completely unrealistic. The American public would never accept - and US policymakers will never undertake - another round of US involvement in Iraq on the heels of having abandoned Iraq in the first place.
Whether it is in America's best interest to extract itself from the "tar-baby" of Iraq is a matter of opinion. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides.
But lets be clear about one thing. Should we abandon Iraq, we lose all leverage to defend and sustain the remarkable accomplishments of Iraqi Kurdistan.
"by Middle East standards."
Boy, that's a Hell of a qualifier!
Paolo - no doubt the extra training from the Israelis will be of benefit
This is one heck of a Civil war, in which Shiite combats Kurd, and Sunnis get stuck in the middle.
I doubt even Hugh contemplated this
I agree with GFB.
From 1991 to 2003, Kurdistan was protected from afar. American planes could prevent any other air force from doing damage, could target forces attacking the Kurds, could even drop supplies. An American military presence should be kept to a minimum -- but the non-presence of such troops depends on the arriving at a clear understanding with Turkey. To wit: Kurds will have a free hand to disrupt things in Syria and Iran, and will make no claims on the territory currently possessed by Turkey, and the Americans, the sole conceivable big-power ally of Kurdistan, will be the enforcer of that guarantee. If such a clear understanding is not reached, then American troops might be on the ground in Kurdistan.
But political reality suggests that no Administration can conceivably keep troops in Iraq beyond the next election. Look back to 1952, and Eisenhower's promise to "go to Korea." The promise now would not be to "go to Baghdad." It would be to declare the American involvement not a failure, not a success, but simply over:
"We've done all we can. Now it is up to the people of Iraq, Sunni and Shi'a, Arab and Kurd. Good night and God Bless." Oh, something like that. The usual. Then get out leaving not a gun or rifle behind. And certainly no tanks, no planes, no night-vision goggles. For god's sake, hasn't that lesson yet been learned? No major military stuff for any Muslim state (unless that equipment has been carefully sabotaged before hand, so that if used in ways America disapproves of, it will malfunction catastrophically, just like that supercomputer that was finally sold to the Soviet Union).
Shiite Muslim militiamen...
Militiamen? Wouldn't they be jihadists?
What we have here are activist Moslems taking their Akhbar against the another sect's Akhbar. Shiite on Sunni, Arabs lusting for a taste of the bloody Kurd-meat, with some petroleum war booty thrown in.
Here we go. The civil war is on. Hopefully this'll be just like the good old days when it was Saddam vs. the Ayatollah.
I wonder what sectarian jihadists yell at their enemies. Can't be Allahu Akhbar, cuz they worship the same koranic "god," so what is is their murder-call in these situations?
APF, the lowly cry of the animus jihadimus as it shreeks it's wretched call through the sandy wind.........K-KILL! K-KILL! K-KILL!!!!
I agree with Hugh's analysis. If we are really interested in weakening Islam, we should walk away and let them burn their resources fighting one another. Does anyone know how much al Saud, Kuwait, UAE, etc. have committed to the war in Iraq? Doubtful very much... But they are making billions through their investments with concerns like Carlisle Group, Haliburton and the like which have financial interests that stand to gain from continued US involvement in Iraq.
One has to wonder how the Chinese are enjoying the US burning up all of its resources to promote the big "D" in the Middle East. I am sure that get a big belly laugh over their dinner plates of dumplings. They might get a little upset if their petrodeal with Iran was disrupted by a little war between Shia and Sunni cults.
The big question is how can we sever the petroumbilical with the Middle East? It represents 15% of petroimports. We get most from our buddies Fox and Chavez, but we pay more than sweet deal with al Saud. Although I have seen that Iran has been visiting Venezuela a lot recently. I wonder why? Actively try to bring us to our knees? Inquiring minds want to know...
When will the public stop dreaming? Take the pacifier out and think for a change!
Iranian/Venezuelan Cooperation
Chavez visits Iran
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/may_2001/iran_venezuela_22501.htm
Mohammad Khatami visit Venezuela
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-03/2005-03-11-voa42.cfm?CFID=11311645&CFTOKEN=91720314
Oops... Time to be nice to Chavez:
http://www.petroleumworld.com/storyt06042501.htm
We can NOT walk away from that region until the Iranian nuclear threat has been firmly erased.
If moving bases to a safer areas (i.e. near the Kurds) helps make that a reality and at the same time allows the Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a to squabble without drawing American troops more and more into the fray, then I say do it.
Either way, there's a job to be done in Iran.
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/04/map-update-iranian-nuclear-facilities.html
I agree with Hugh's analysis. If we are really interested in weakening Islam...
If. If only that were true.
But I am slowly coming to the belated understanding that our leaders are not interested in weakening Islam. They see it as a religion, a misunderstood one, a troubled historical anomaly from the school of hard knocks that, like a stumblebum street drunk, needs a helping hand to help them get straighten themselves out.
Boy, are our "leaders" ever in for a nasty surprise.
MO HIJABS MO PUNJABS MO BACK-STABS MO BODILY CRABS LEFT JABS MO
HF not only called this civil war some time ago, he demanded it.
Oh how we cast a wistful backward glance, longing for the halcyon days of Saddam vs Ayatollah. That was worth a season of Saturday nights on HBO.
You know we have UPI,AP, REUTERS, AFP and REUTERS VIDEO NEWS, DUH we ALWAYS refer back to JIHAD WATCH. What's the problem?
We give the basics on these news stories, then come back to Jihad Watch for the interpretation. Duh!
http://thomsitic,blogpsot.com
p.s. Our site is about 950% more interesting than the Drudge Report--though you still need to check him out all the time, becuase I only pick up a portion of his news!
"We can NOT walk away from that region until the Iranian nuclear threat has been firmly erased."
-- from a posting above
Leaving Iraq is not the same thing as "walking away from that region." The latter would require the removal of all ships, all planes, in the Red Sea, in the Indian Ocean, on Guam, in the Mediterranean. That would be "walking away from that region." That is not desirable nor has it been suggested. Leaving Iraq so that the hostilities there will not only further set Sunni against Shi'a (and, at least in part, cause Sunni rulers if not Sunni masses to perhaps quietly acquiesce in the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities), and thus force Iran to pay attention not only to Iraq, but also to Sunni aid from outside Iraq, and to the effect of the turmoil on Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs (and possibly even Azeris) within Iran itself.
Leaving Iraq makes dealing with Iran much more possible, and therefore makes threats to Iran more plausible.
Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq was maintained from 1991 to 2003 because Saddam's Iraq was a paraih state and there was UN sanction for the establishment of the no-fly zones. These conditions no longer exist.
There are 12 million restive Kurds in Turkey's southeast, chafing under Turkish rule and eager to realize their national aspirations. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan would be an essential stepping-stone in that process. The Turks know it and they'll do everything in their power to prevent it.
Your insistence that they'd not only acquiesce to the creation of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, but would empower the Kurds to then subvert and then incorporate Kurdish regions of Syria and Iran into a greater Kurdistan...just amazes me. That would leave only Turkish Kurdistan outside the new Kurdish polity. The Turks would be empowering the one entity that could truly threaten their own territorial integrity. Your expectations just don't make any sense whatsoever and betray an amatuerism and wishful-thinking in deciphering geo-political tangibles.
The Turks have uncomfortably accepted the autonomous enclave in northern Iraq for the last 15 years because of their desire to accomodate Washington and Europe, because there was no formal declaration of Kurdish independence, and because the former region lacked the size and viability that today's Kurdish region possesses. Should the US walk from Iraq, abdicating its commitment to the region, the Turks will without question pursue their own national interests, and will do so at the expense of the Iraqi Kurds.
Meanwhile, your scenarios for subsequent intervention also have all the earmarks of fantasy. The USA is not about to walk away from a fight in Iraq against the most fanatical elements in the Muslim world, and then bomb our moderate Turkish allies over the fate of the Kurds.
So you want America to walk from Iraq. There's a certain wisdom to this (though personally, I disagree). At least the shedding of American blood will cease. But what of the fate of the Iraqi Kurds?
They are empowered today in a way they have never been in their history. They have complete and constitutionally-recognized autonomy. A Kurd sits as President of Iraq.
And you're ready to sacrifice this state of affairs in the Machiavellian hope that a Sunni-Shia Civil War in Iraq will somehow benefit the West. Well, that's fine. It might at that. But please let's stop this pretense that we can enlist the Turks to betray their national interests on behalf of Iraq's Kurds.
I'm finished.
Assalamau -Laikum all
The Kurds are a very clever peoples. In fact they were the inventors of Yougart.
Certainly they have had a hard time off the Sunni but they should not put too much relience on Amrika.
Once Amrika leaves, the Kurds will be left very much alone and exposed. Therefore they should be friends with the Shia ...with whom after all they have common enemy in the sunni (and to a smaller extent... Amrika).
Amrika will not dare to invade Iran and there are 3 overriding reasons for this.
1) Rightly or wrongly, Russia is increasing starting to flex it's muscles and supporting Iran more & more...both political & with arms...Amrika has to respect that.
2) Iran is setting deals with Russia, China & India...all big global players.
3) Amrika will soon be bankrupt. Your trade deficit is $9 trillion and increasing daily particularly trade with China & India.
This will start to erode Amrika's ability to wage war...they will lose respect of other countries and ultimately Amrika's powerbase will start to wane as will it's support for Israel (which will have increasingly have become more muslim anyway).
So I say to you...forget about Iran...take the troops at home and save your money for your childrens...they will need it to pay for the trade deficit & will not thank you for making it larger.
Now I know this may make you angry...but please take this out on your administration....take it out on your childrens...who have been spoilt & like to party & spend ...spend.... spend.
Get them only to spend a bit extra on best quality loudspeakers...as they will need to hear the Koran clearly.
Naseem:
As Amir Taheri points out, Russia's economy is on the brink. That's why it's trying to work both sides of the street, cozying up to Iran while it tries to deal with its own home-grown Islamists. We don't "respect" that. We take note of it and should treat Russia as the dangerous and untrustworthy interlocutor that it is.
When I so much as see a Cresent now, my blood pressure rises.
Turkish moderates? In the Middle East I suppose they are the closest thing to Moderates one is apt to find, but I call no Islamic states allies. Period.
The thing we need to realize is that we are dealing with opportunists that must forcibly change their own culture and adherance to Islam if they are EVER going to be trusted by any world nations that have sane and Westernized (or Eastern or Orthodox or Hindu or African for that matter!) leadership.
We keep troops in Afghannistan at BASES. Move the rest out of the cities. Bunker and fortify. Be in positions to take oil if we need it in an emergency.
The fact is this: we are GOING to get hit again. When the next strike to the West draws sufficient blood (i.e. biological, nuclear attack), then all the bases in the Middle East are going to be a spearhead for the next world war, which I am convinced has already begun. Our leaders simply do not have the courage to address this for what it is yet, so as usual, more innocents will have to die in order to give the rest backbone enough to do what is right.
To paraphrase: "Wise men do yesterday what fools do tomorrow."
War with Islam is inevitable. That's my honest opinion and conclusion from too many years of watching this nightmare unfold. And to top it off, I am privy to information from sources that I can not reveal that make me even more sure of my stance.
No, there is not going to be any "clean" solution to this. Islam will make damn sure of that.
This is going to get bloody, dirty and awful, but it has to get done.
edit: We keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq at BASES....
Amrika will not dare to invade Iran and there are 3 overriding reasons for this.
You are so wrong, you have no idea.
Targetted missile and air attacks without an invasion followed by incursions by secular Persians helped by U.S. and British Special Forces could topple the government of Iran in less than a month.
You could also toss in Special Forces from France, Australia, Israel, Germany. Don't think for a second that the Western world isn't talking the real talk behind closed doors about this nuclear threat. Only lunatics would let lunatics with a death wish and a Caliphate Complex start making nukes that will end up in the hands of unstable third-world nations, terrorists and dictators.
Dear Naseem,
Peace to you.
Well, that's exactly what the jihadists have been listening to, and memorizing it. And they have followed it to the word. They believe what they read, and are obeying it.
And no wonder, since the Qur'an gave us Surah at-Taubah, one of the last Surahs. And the "wonderful" "Sword Verse" (9:5) that has abrograted all the previous, peaceful verses of the Meccan stage (eg 2:256).
Hilali-Khan explains al-Mushrikun to be "the disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, idolaters, polytheists, pagans, etc."
May you know the real peace.
Kirkuk, "which they consider the historical capital of a vast Kurdish nation also extending into Iran and Turkey..."
More historical revisionism! The historical capital of the Kurds is Mahabad, now in Iranian Azerbaijan.
The name of 'Mahabad' (mah+abad) of the region is the Persian translation of the name of the ancient Mannaean of the region meaning place of moon which is also a cognate with the Kurdish word mang. Mannaeans were a branch of Hurrians (Khurrites) who are the main ancestors of the Kurds.
The Kurds expanded into Kirkuk in the wake of the Ottoman massacres of the Assyrians, just as they expanded into south-eastern Anatolia after the massacres of the Armenians.
Kirkuk is by all historical rights an Assyrian city and was promised to the Assyrians by Woodrow Wilson and the Allies during World War I. Tragically, the US has a record of breaking its international promises rivalled only by the late Soviet Union.
Under the current US occupation of Iraq, the Assyro-Chaldean Christians have been attacked with impunity by Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunni Arabs. In fact this seems to be the only thing these three unsavory groups can agree on.
Since the fall of Saddam and his secular Ba'athists, over two-half of the Iraqi Christians have fled to Syria. Yet under the US and its Afghan-born Muslim Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, these Christian refugees are not even on the radar screen of US policy.
Typo: That should read: over one-half of the Iraqi Christians have fled to Syria.
Actually, that "two-halfs" typo may be a subconscious prediction of the future of Christianity in Mesopotamia.
Kurds maybe not arabs but they are still muslims, and if the other sects of islma shia and sunni kill each other, we can just sit back let them destroy themselves.. when their countries are near empty , finish them off, and put in Christian churchs, and the Arab Christians, and Jews move in, and the oil will flow, along with a thousand years peace as promised in the Bible! poor Naseem, will be looking at that worn out furniture business, and should start to study the bible now before its too late!
So, it is "all about oil" to the Muslims?
The U.S. has betrayed the Kurds enough in the past (Kissinger in the 1970's, Bob Dole, etc.- after they were gassed- in the 80's) that they deserve a little honor and honesty this time from their American 'allies'.
They seem more stable, more life-loving, least dogmatically Koranic, and a bit more open to the West's riches (music, art, science) than the self-lacerating Shi'ites or inferiority-complex'd Sunnis in Iraq, so their help may form a wedge to jam into the schismic cracks in Islam. To keep the cult of the pedophile's latent Imperial urges diffused and off balance.
"The best way out is always through."
-Robert Frost.
I've met many Kurdish refugees in the UK and out of all the nominally "Islamic" people I've met they are most likely to integrate, work hard, learn the local language and not promote Jihad.
I support the Kurds - they deserve their own country free of Islamic and other influences.
Ahh, Ms. Rice,
Apparently, she has mistaken the term in English close to the phrase "cattle pooh", with "camel pooh."
Either way, our administration is shoveling something other than what they think it is.
Policy, in the American vernacular is not the same as policy by the Iraqi vernacular.
We are loosing this war. Iran's leadership must be destroyed, and we must slowly strangle the profit center of terror. If we do not achieve this, they will strangle us, and that is unthinkable, but probable at the present pace of the conflict.
Response to the posting by Naseem;
"Oh Nazz. There you go again, dreaming dreams.
"During the rule of President Saddam Hussein, Arabs brought in from elsewhere in Iraq displaced thousands of Kurds. As many as 300,000 Kurds who were pushed out have returned to the area, according to U.S. estimates, establishing vast settlements on the outskirts of the city and making them its largest ethnic community."
So here we have the Washpost frankly admitting --althugh very much sottovoce-- that the Arab nationalist government of Iraq performed ethnic cleansing on at least 300,000 Kurds and colonized the former homes of Kurds with Arabs. Yes, ethnic cleansing and colonization of others' homeland. And this was done by Arabs. So it much have been OK. At any rate, while these events were going on the Washpost and the NYT gave them little attention. Note that ethnic cleansing and colonization with outsiders are precisely accusations that the Arabs generally, the PLO and Arab League in particular, have been long making against Israel. And now it turns out that loyal Arab Iraq was doing those things to Kurds, and nobody complained at the Arab League. Nor did Ramsey Clark or George Galloway complain. By the way, in the early Sixties, an Arab League publication in the USA, maybe called Arab World, or whatever, published an article attacking Kurdish national aspirations. It was entitled "No Second Israel." [I have a copy somewhere]
Even the Shia militias are not united. Badr and Sadr brigades often clash with each other for power and position.
It seems to me that what is now happening in Iraq is similar to what happened in the Balkans after the umbrella construction "Yugoslavia" collapsed.
It will take many years and much misery for this enormous mess to sort out. We will not be able to control the outcome. What a colossal, reckless gamble!
p.s. Guam certainly isn't in the region. Did you mean Diego Garcia? [sounds like a Google prompt]