When our military left Iraq in 2011, we destined that country to division by leaving Nouri al-Maliki in charge. In the succeeding months, al-Maliki -- a Shiite -- did everything possible to exclude the Sunni and Kurdish populations from the business and affairs of state. So, when the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS), a Sunni terrorist group, began pounding on Iraq's door, the Sunni population accepted them because they understood that their interests were better served by a Sunni terrorist group than the Shiite-centered government in Baghdad. That's why ISIS was so quickly able to take over the Sunni cities in the north, like Mosul and Tikrit, with little or no resistance.
The chance for a political solution in Iraq is a ship that sailed in 2010 when al-Maliki was reelected and in 2011 when we left the country alone to politically mishandle what was given by our overthrow of Saddam Hussein. What President Obama doesn't seem to understand is that ISIS is not interested in a political solution. Their's is a single-minded goal to establish a Caliphate, or State of Islam, which would be run by a Caliph -- the holiest of Imams and a believed-to-be successor to the prophet Muhammad -- and which would mandate strict adherence to Sharia law and all people (Sunni, Shiites, Kurds, Jews, and Christians) within the Caliphate would be subject to Muhammad's 620 A.D. Constitution of Medina. For ISIS, there is no room for some Shiite-dominant Parliamentary style of government that is currently the rule in Iraq. There is no room for any political solution.
So, unless ISIS can be driven out of the country, Iraq is doomed to being divided with the long-hoped-for Sunni Caliphate being established. And, if that Caliphate is established, the U.S. will regret the day it happens. ISIS is a committed enemy of America and Israel. Even more radically dedicated to our downfall than Al Qaeda. Instead of having to worry about some pre-9/11 group of training camps in Afghanistan, we will then have to worry about a entire Islamic State, run by ISIS, and dedicated to the terrorism of this country. A state that would have access to oil revenues and, subsequently, able to fund all kinds of terrorist acts against adversaries like the U.S.
References:
Obama to send military advisors to Iraq but seeks political solution: http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-iraq-20140620-story.html#page=1
Caliphate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
Constitution of Medina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
Sharia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Iraq militants 'turning back clock' in captured Mosul: http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-militants-turning-back-clock-captured-mosul-133453638.html;_ylt=AwrBJR9J.qZTUTgAqznQtDMD
Showing posts with label Nouri al-Maliki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nouri al-Maliki. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Iraq No More
Iraq is a country that should never have been. It was never formed from any typical commonalities such as language, culture, religion, and/or political beliefs. Nor, was it formed by any alliance for trade or security purposes.
Instead, is was created by a mandate of the League of Nations in 1920 which gave Britain control of that area in what was to be called the State of Iraq and what we know today as, simply, Iraq. Completely ignored in that process was how secular the country was with two primary factions of Islam at odds with each other: the Shiites and the Sunnis. At the same time, that "League" mandate completely ignored the fact that the Kurds of northern Iraq -- although Sunnis by religion -- had no language or culture that was even close to being in common with the rest of the country.
So, in essence, Iraq was, at the very least, three countries in one; only held together all these years by a variety of ruling entities and never by any self rule.
Yet, the U.S. government -- after invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein -- foolishly thought it could turn this country into a self-ruled and cohesive state that could be governed fairly by a parliamentary style of government. But, the weakness of any parliamentary government is that, when there is an extremely dominant "ruling party" in charge, the minority party has little or no voice. So is the case in Iraq. What should have been done was to form had a power sharing triumvirate with the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis all having an equal say in control. But, that's hindsight.
The Shiites -- which make up 65% of the country -- have pretty much taken over through the elections of major chunks of the Parliament and by the election of "their" President, Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki, has, in turn, and where ever possible, replaced Sunnis with Shiites in government positions and in leadership roles within the military and police force. Thus you have a formula for revolt and/or all-out civil war.
What we are seeing right now with the incessant march of radical Sunnis -- known as ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria --- down through the Sunni-controlled northern center of the country and on their way to Baghdad was inevitable. Already, the northeastern Kurdish territory has been cutoff from Baghdad and ISIS has established control in almost all of the Sunni cities in northern Iraq. Whether ISIS can overrun and overtake Baghdad in the same way that cities were taken in the north is anyone's guess. But, make no mistake about it, new boundaries are being drawn and those boundaries will almost inevitably become borders of new countries and no one can stop it from happening.
Obama won't stop it because he won't allow any U.S. boots on the ground. Whether he authorizes airstrikes and whether or not those strikes can be effective remains to be seen and, the Iraqi army is too incompetent and has little heart to stop it either. So, in the end, Iraq will probably become the three countries it was always meant to be, and Iraq, in less than 100 years since 1920, will be no more.
Instead, is was created by a mandate of the League of Nations in 1920 which gave Britain control of that area in what was to be called the State of Iraq and what we know today as, simply, Iraq. Completely ignored in that process was how secular the country was with two primary factions of Islam at odds with each other: the Shiites and the Sunnis. At the same time, that "League" mandate completely ignored the fact that the Kurds of northern Iraq -- although Sunnis by religion -- had no language or culture that was even close to being in common with the rest of the country.
So, in essence, Iraq was, at the very least, three countries in one; only held together all these years by a variety of ruling entities and never by any self rule.
Yet, the U.S. government -- after invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein -- foolishly thought it could turn this country into a self-ruled and cohesive state that could be governed fairly by a parliamentary style of government. But, the weakness of any parliamentary government is that, when there is an extremely dominant "ruling party" in charge, the minority party has little or no voice. So is the case in Iraq. What should have been done was to form had a power sharing triumvirate with the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis all having an equal say in control. But, that's hindsight.
The Shiites -- which make up 65% of the country -- have pretty much taken over through the elections of major chunks of the Parliament and by the election of "their" President, Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki, has, in turn, and where ever possible, replaced Sunnis with Shiites in government positions and in leadership roles within the military and police force. Thus you have a formula for revolt and/or all-out civil war.
What we are seeing right now with the incessant march of radical Sunnis -- known as ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria --- down through the Sunni-controlled northern center of the country and on their way to Baghdad was inevitable. Already, the northeastern Kurdish territory has been cutoff from Baghdad and ISIS has established control in almost all of the Sunni cities in northern Iraq. Whether ISIS can overrun and overtake Baghdad in the same way that cities were taken in the north is anyone's guess. But, make no mistake about it, new boundaries are being drawn and those boundaries will almost inevitably become borders of new countries and no one can stop it from happening.
Obama won't stop it because he won't allow any U.S. boots on the ground. Whether he authorizes airstrikes and whether or not those strikes can be effective remains to be seen and, the Iraqi army is too incompetent and has little heart to stop it either. So, in the end, Iraq will probably become the three countries it was always meant to be, and Iraq, in less than 100 years since 1920, will be no more.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Not So Fast, Nancy!
Apparently, the German Magazine, Der Spiegel, conducted an interview with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in which he supposedly backed Senator Barack Obama's plan for a 16-month withdrawal of U.S. troops (See Full Story). That bombshell hit the streets yesterday. Today, the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister is backtracking on that claim by stating that Nouri al-Maliki's remarks were "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately" (See Full Story).
Yesterday, however, the ink wasn't even dry on the pages of that German Magazine and our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, had her hat and coat on, with purse in hand, and was ready to have high level talks with the Iraqi government to pull the troops (See Full Story). I am quite sure that not even an "atomic particle accelerator" could have clocked her speed in that effort. I hope she didn't break a heel!
I just wish that MoveOn.org and Code Pink "were" as interested in lower gasoline prices as they "are" in getting the troops out of Iraq. Maybe, then, we could see similar speeds out of Nancy Pelosi and "her" fellow Democrats in Congress on the out-of-control oil and gasoline prices in this country!
Pelosi and the Democrats are sure well-read. It never ceases to amaze me how fast they are willing to establish foreign policy based on a "single" article in a newspaper, like the "New York Times", or in a magazine like "Time" or "Newsweek" or, as in this case, some German magazine that is hardly even known to most Americans. Obviously, their reading is somehow "intuitively" tuned into only those news articles and opinion pieces that suit their cause. Somewhere, I do believe, there must be a warehouse full of newspapers and newspaper articles and magazines that have opposing viewpoints and which the Democrats just haven't had a "chance" to read. If so, that would explain a lot of things.
As closing comment, I think this also shows that the liberal "foriegn" press is just as much in the "bag" for Obama as our own national media.
Yesterday, however, the ink wasn't even dry on the pages of that German Magazine and our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, had her hat and coat on, with purse in hand, and was ready to have high level talks with the Iraqi government to pull the troops (See Full Story). I am quite sure that not even an "atomic particle accelerator" could have clocked her speed in that effort. I hope she didn't break a heel!
I just wish that MoveOn.org and Code Pink "were" as interested in lower gasoline prices as they "are" in getting the troops out of Iraq. Maybe, then, we could see similar speeds out of Nancy Pelosi and "her" fellow Democrats in Congress on the out-of-control oil and gasoline prices in this country!
Pelosi and the Democrats are sure well-read. It never ceases to amaze me how fast they are willing to establish foreign policy based on a "single" article in a newspaper, like the "New York Times", or in a magazine like "Time" or "Newsweek" or, as in this case, some German magazine that is hardly even known to most Americans. Obviously, their reading is somehow "intuitively" tuned into only those news articles and opinion pieces that suit their cause. Somewhere, I do believe, there must be a warehouse full of newspapers and newspaper articles and magazines that have opposing viewpoints and which the Democrats just haven't had a "chance" to read. If so, that would explain a lot of things.
As closing comment, I think this also shows that the liberal "foriegn" press is just as much in the "bag" for Obama as our own national media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
