This NYT article on Iraq today is a good example of why it's so frustrating to try to follow news on Iraq through corporate media. Michael Gordon, who does some really good stuff on Iraq and often seems to fully understand the intricacies of the conflict, delivers up what reads like the stenography for which reporters are so often criticized by experts in various fields. In this case, the Bush administration is once again accusing Iran of causing problems in Iraq, this time by reportedly bringing in Hezbollah (an Arab, Lebanon-based Shia group formed to fight Israel and now a significant political and military force in Lebanon) officials to train Iraqi militia members. This is part of a continuing story in which the US blames problems in Iraq on nefarious neighbors, but anything is possible, so it's worth looking at the details of the report.
Or at least it would be if there *were any details* in the report. Most critically, it's important to note that there are many militias in Iraq. There's a (US-supported) Sunni militia in western Iraq (Anbar province), and in addition to several smaller tribal and political party-affiliated militias, the two major Shia political groups, ISCI and Sadrists, both have armed elements (the Badr Corps and the Mahdi Militia, respectively). So one would think an important detail of the story would be . . . which militia we're accusing Iran of training? Especially because the US has essentially come out in support of ISCI and its Badr Corps, as they are the main element keeping Prime Minister Maliki in power. Could the administration flacks be so cynical as to accuse Iran of training a "militia" that we tacitly support, and that is closely allied with our good buddy Maliki?
I suppose it's possible that the militia in question is the Mahdi Militia, but with Iran supposedly backing away from support of Sadrists, that seems less likely, and since the US opposes Mahdi so strongly, why not just say so if that's the case? The whole thing is very strange, and it's opaque to an extent that it's very suspicious.
