Click photo to play
Length: 4:43
WOLF BLITZER: So what's
the likelihood of this nightmare scenario?
We're going to talk about that now with our
Baghdad-based correspondent Michael Ware. He covered
-- he has covered the war from the very beginning. He
joins us from our New York bureau.
Here is the fundamental question -- Michael.
And you know these Iraqis now, having spent four
years or so on the scene for us.
Are they Iraqis first or are they Kurds or Shia or
Sunnis first?
Because so much of the U.S. strategy is based on this
notion that they're more committed to being an Iraqi
than to being a Kurd or a Shiite or a Sunni.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it very much
varies. But overall, there certainly was a point in
time where most of the ordinary people of that
country where Iraqis first. I mean, with the great
exception of the Kurds. The Kurds have always felt
that they were a separate nation from Iraq itself.
But certainly among the Arabs there was this
perception that, yes, we're Iraqis before we're
anything else.
Now to some degree, that was underestimated,
certainly when it came to the Sunni insurgency,
because many of the Sunni insurgents, while they're
being described as dead-enders, were actually
fighting a cause of nationalism. They felt very
Iraqi.
But what we now see is that people, ordinary people,
have been forced to choose sides in this great
sectarian battle, because as far as they see it,
Iraqi or not, the American forces aren't protecting
them and their own government isn't protecting them,
be it against al Qaeda or be it because many of the
death squads that are targeting the Sunnis are from
the government.
So very much that sense of being Iraqi is dissolving.
BLITZER: Sixty percent or so, if not more, of the
Iraqis, are Shiites.
WARE: Um-hmm.
BLITZER: They're Arabs. They're Iraqi Arabs. They're
Shiites. They're not Persians like the Shiites in
Iran.
Talk a little bit about this Iranian connection or
relationship with the Iraqi Shiites.
WARE: You know, that's a very complicated
relationship, and you've rightly touched on some of
the factors.
Now, it's, you know, Arab versus Persian, and it's
Iraqi versus Iranian. So it's always been a very
difficult relationship. But at the end of the day, I
guess you can sum it up with, you know, any port in a
storm.
I mean certainly under Saddam, tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shia fled to Iran for
sanctuary. They were being persecuted, not so much
for religious reasons, but for political reasons.
Now, many of these -- or a number of these people
then actually joined Iranian armed forces or were
formed into covert networks that worked against
Saddam's regime.
Now we see a lot of the apparatus still in place
today now working against U.S. interests. But what
we're seeing, by and large, is that whilst there's no
great simpatico, there's an alignment of interests.
And while that sustains, we will see a continuing
growth of Iranian influence. Indeed, Iran has more
sway in Baghdad than America does.
BLITZER: One final question, because we're almost out
of time.
What's the bottom line as far as this nightmare
scenario that Brian Todd was reporting on, that
eventually these well-trained Iraqi forces, equipped
by the United States, could turn against the United
States?
WARE: Look, there's absolutely no question of it. In
fact, I'm surprised that it is still a question. At
the end of the day, there is absolutely no doubt that
America is training and equipping, if not its
enemies, then people who certainly don't share
America's interests or agenda.
Now, these forces per se won't turn directly,
one-on-one, against American troops. But they will
continue to further their interests, which so happen
more closely align with Iran's than America's.
On the flip side, the Sunni, you could argue that
America is training elements of the insurgency, its
sympathizers or even future al Qaeda recruits.
BLITZER: Michael Ware reporting for us.
Michael, thanks very much.
Let's stay in New York.
Jack Cafferty has got The Cafferty File -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, that
stuff is just fascinating. It occurs to me, we should
get Michael Ware to go down to Washington and hold
some seminars for the people in the White House,
because it seems to me listening to his thoughts on
what's going on over there, he makes a lot more sense
and has a lot greater knowledge than most of the
stuff I'm hearing coming out of the administration.
BLITZER: Maybe they should invite him to testify
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
CAFFERTY: Or just to come talk to them and maybe if
they'd listen -- well, now, we don't have time to get
into that.