Is there a solution to avoid it?
Nicholas Kristof writing for The New York Times opposes USA intervention in Iraq. I completely support him when he says, “Our 2003 invasion of Iraq should be a warning that military force sometimes transforms a genuine problem into something worse.” I cannot however but disagree when he says, “Iraq has formally requested American military intervention, and my fear is that we will be inadvertently sucked into a civil war — an echo of what happened to the United States in Lebanon from 1982 to ’84 or Somalia from 1992 to ’94. Look, failing to intervene is a bad option in this case. But intervening is a worse one… Many Sunnis in Iraq dislike ISIS, but they have learned to loathe and distrust Maliki even more. The way out of the mess in Iraq is for the government to share power with Sunnis and Kurds, accept decentralisation and empower moderate Sunni tribes.” (June 18, 2014)
I empathise with his fear for his country’s embroiling in another vortex. However, political deals for the devolution of central power, forced from outside, do not deliver, as history proves. In Afghanistan, increasing influence of Taliban and attacks on NATO and US forces make it strategically difficult for a complete withdrawal of the alien forces as proposed earlier. The Afghan scenario today is reminiscent of Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 resulted in replacing the Sunnis with elite Shias. The cascading effect was a civil war. Ending 2011, US withdrew its forces without leaving any residual force to allow time for Iraq to stabilise with a lighter presence. The complete drawdown resulted owing to an impasse over the legal immunity of residual US troops in Iraq post 2011.
Iraq has become a battleground for war between Shia and Sunni Muslims as viewed in Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan, all of which are battlegrounds of proxy wars. The existing religio-geographic dynamics cannot be overlooked. Hezbollah and Iran combined with Alawites of Syria have been aiming at reviving the Greater Iran, keeping in view their own schismatic ideology, the effects of which reflect in the current proxy war in Pakistan. The geographic link formed is Hezbollah on one end, Syria and Iraq forming the centre with Iran at the other end, converging to solidify a unified religious school of thought.
Back to Iraq now: Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to reconcile with the country’s Sunnis and Kurdish populations. In power since 2006, he has faced increasing insurgencies, in particular from a splinter group of Al-Qaeda named ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The ISIS has pushed out Nouri al-Maliki from many cities of Iraq. It has come to a point where increasingly the ‘minus 1’ formula is being supported, not only by the US but also by the Arab world. In a piece published by CNN, “There’s hope that a government bringing the Sunnis and Kurds into the political process would curb sympathies for ISIS by those who find themselves on the outside.” (June 19, 2014)
According to a report by Reuters, “Saudi Arabia gave an apparent warning to arch enemy Iran on Wednesday by saying outside powers should not intervene in the conflict in neighbouring Iraq. Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal also said Iraq was facing a full-scale civil war with grave consequences for the wider region. His remarks coincided with an Iranian warning that Tehran would not hesitate to defend Shi’ite Muslim holy sites in Iraq against “killers and terrorists”, following advances by Sunni militants there.” (Published June 18, 2014) Iran, of course, fears a unified anti-Iranian Iraq, a potential threat to Iran herself.
According to Kenneth M Pollack for a Brookings paper, “Senior Iraqi officials and political leaders from across the political spectrum grudgingly concede that no Iraqi can become prime minister without Tehran’s blessing. Indeed, Maliki’s re-election was engineered — much to his own chagrin — by the Iranians who forced him to partner with the Sadrists (and the Sadrists to partner with him), and then leaned on the Kurds to do the same, forcing Iraqiyya (and the Americans) to accept the current, dysfunctional government that serves no one’s interests in Iraq except Tehran’s.” (November 15, 2011)
What then are the options available for the US?
First, it can look away. It has withdrawn from Iraq, claiming victory. The invasion that was undertaken to destroy weapons of mass destruction unearthed none. The aim to destroy presence of Al-Qaeda revealed none, not at the time of invasion anyways. So US can just look away, shrugging away any moral responsibility.
Second, it can have American boots on ground. Here, I will agree with Kristof that the US may in all probability get sucked into a civil war it helped create as a result of ‘bad intelligence’. “That does not mean we have no further responsibility towards Iraq. The current mess is a consequence of the invasion; it is possible to argue that foreign forces should not have gone into the country in the way that they did, but also that they should not have left while the country remained so unstable. This is partly the fault of Maliki, who failed to negotiate terms under which the Americans would leave a small force in Iraq when they withdrew in 2011. Yet one of the striking things about ISIS is how small their numbers actually are, with some reports suggesting they took the city with a single battalion of between 500 and 800 fighters.”(Joan Smith June 15, 2014, in The Independent)
Iran may have offered to be an ally of the US in Iraq; however, the US understands that the desired outcome of the current Iraqi situation by both US and Iran may be diametrically different. Whereas Iran will desire continuation of a Shi’ite government, the US would want the present political dispensation to develop a broader base, including the Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis. The US would ideally like Iran to play a positive role in negotiating a settlement between Nouri al-Maliki’s government and its opponents. Iran, on the other hand, would like to see US beat down the ISIS.
However, should the Iraqi government make real efforts to woo the support of Kurds and the Sunnis, US can cooperate to bring better harmony by helping clobber an alliance between the existing governments with moderates in rebel ranks. The US can help coordinate the federal and KRG forces and, having occupied Iraq since 2003, US can offer invaluable logistical support.
Does this bring us back to Kristof’s option of putting together a political deal with the stakeholders? This then brings me to my next question: how long can this last even if achieved?
In the meanwhile, Obama has announced sending in around 300 troops back to Iraq. No, it’s not to help anyone but the “temporary relocation of some staff from the US Embassy in Baghdad to the US Consulates General in Basra and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman,” according to the accompanying letter from the Press Secretary’s office.
Tailpiece: Iraq may implode and the Middle East will go up in flames should it do so. The US, the only country that can help, can only do so in a limited capacity and that too is based on many ifs and buts. What is taking place on ground in Iraq, as I write, may well break Iraq up into three distinct states changing the face of Middle East.
Miss, instead of analyzing the situation in Iraq, focus on your own country. You are in a civil war, 40-50,000 casualitis are not a laughing matter. In your column Pakistan is referred only once. It deserve more ink of your precious pen. Can't you see what is happening all over the Pakistan. All these protracted negotiations with the terrorist gave them enough time to disperse & regroup somewhere else. Only some idiots will be sitting in N.Waziristan so your brave pilots can "pound them". Your news media writes like the Western tabloid's editors. More than one year ago I saw some masked men interviewed by Al-Jazeera; I could see they were not Baluchis; my suspicion came true. Now some Indians have started talking about Baluchistan, as if it is a disputed territory like Kashmir. Most of the Punjabi journalists blame MQM for the problems in Karachi; while completely ignoring the terror brought upon Karachiites by Gauhar Ayub. If you go deep inside Sind you will see PPP & Jiye Sind under the same disguise. NWFT people will never like the dominance of Punjab. Rulers of Pakistan from Punjab are treating the entire amputated Pakistan like British Raj did. All the Raj eventually leave. Look at the writing on the wall. No one will shed a tear when Pakistan will implode. Where would you go Dubai, UK, USA, or Canada ?
Such an impertinent response to Yasmeen's superb analysis of situation in a country which has been ravaged by the war and it does affect muslim world. Karachi is dying a slow death ever since the curse of MQM has afflicted it, A megalomaniac is holding the city hostage like a Mafiosi,
Dear Quddus. She is asking about rice and you insist that she talks about wheat. Although NWA and Iraq problems may one day merge into one, she is just expressing her opinion about what is certain to catastrophically happen in Iraq.
Respected Abdul Qudus sb , though its a hard to digest reality bite but too Loud to be heard around !!!
Lastly I must Add We are born in Pakistan and Here to Stay.
When Bush jr. and Blair decided to go to war with Iraq they were behind closed doors being pushed by the direct interests of Big business. It was nothing to do with stabilising the middle-east for the people in the USA/UK and saving the Iraqi people from Saddam but to stabilise the area for the giant corporations and their super-rich shareholders. Now this arm twisting to preserve western corporate self-interests globally, has made matters ten-times worse than it ever was under Saddam. The great problem of course is that the 90% of people who suffer do not live in easy street and where ultimately as usual, they are the ones who have to always pay the price of political and corporate decision-making that has other interests other than their people's long-term futures. Indeed according to Credit Suisse's 'Global Wealth Report' 2013, 90% of the people of the world only control 14% of the world's total wealth and according to Forbes the 'Global 2,000' controlled last year 51% of all global trade, leaving the remaining 49% to the rest of the world. This shows in my mind why wars are started and for why – to keep these vast corporations in business and to make sure that those on the pay role keep receiving the majority of the world's wealth every year. But the financial world's minority powerful have no empathy at all with the vast majority of people and where they have sold the West down the river for the last 30-years with our political classes. The great inequality that this has caused around the world is a direct result of global conflict but the rich and the powerful cannot see this. But they have created this monster that eventually we shall not be able to stop –
http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2…
Things simply have to change.
A little too late for Iraq…..for changes I feel?
Deep analysis. Forwarding to my friends
U.S. withdrawal from Iraq at end of 2011 of premature, as the current crisis demonstrates.he U.S. had responsibility to establish law & order, rule of law, & respect for religious freedom. Failed on all accounts.2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea. I opposed it at the time. But once in, U.S. had responsibility to Iraq.
USA can do the fire fighting as sectarian rivalry of Muslim remains the main cause. It is not USA but up to Muslim ummah's leadership to sit down and resolve their sectarian difference and stop genocide of each other. The power tussle started by Ummayads and Abbasides continues destroying the Muslim world.
nteresting article.But it ignores the role of Saudi Arabia and rich Saudis in officially and unofficially financing and promoting ISIS, jehadi and other extremist groups.
An option which could be considered is bringing together Saudi Arabia,Iran and other regional powers to arrive at a consensus solution which aims at non intervention.
Agreemen on "No destabilization,through external influence and financing."
Non state outside forces have largely been responsible for promoting terrorism be it in Syria,Libya,Lebanon or Yemen ,Baluchistan,FATA and indeed Pakistan.
Shams Z Abbas
Lahore
Excellent analysis Yasmeen. But the Shia – Sunni schism keeps on growing wider & deeper. The mistrust keeps on growing because of this religious divide. Iraq needs to become secular like they were under Saddam, with religion taking a back seat.
Seeing that the US government has spent about $2 trillion on these escapades (it was officially $1.283 trillion in 2011), someone had to make money on them.(Iraq & Afghanistan are the misadventures) Those people were Dwight Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex (MIC), with the new mega-intelligence complex tacked on for good measure. The people who make killing machines have done very, very well. As have the people who build spying machines.The worst losers, of course, were the dead. I’m not sure how many Iraqis died; estimates range from 100,000 to over a million. That’s a lot of dead people On the Westerner side, only a number of thousand died., many injured & And not only that, but returning soldiers are committing suicide in surprising numbers.
Was it worth it?
Two words : good design. Simple and clean design and with a good attention to details, flash photos on the front of homepage make the whole page active. They are both also easy to use, menus are clear, good size pictures, well done product descriptions and details
Comments are closed.