Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

[seekerz]

Petraeus: U.S. Must Not Become the Shia Militia’s Air Force
LONDON, England — David Petraeus, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, has issued a stark warning to those advocating U.S. military intervention against ISIS militias bearing down on Baghdad.

The architect of the successful “surge” strategy that helped to quell the last great outbreak of sectarian violence in Iraq almost a decade ago said there was a great risk that the U.S. would be seen as picking sides in a religious battle that has been waged for generations.

The former head of the CIA and one of the most highly respected generals in modern U.S. warfare said it was only wise to offer military support if the political conditions were exactly right in Iraq, a scenario that is virtually impossible to imagine in the near-future. “This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias, or a Shia on Sunni Arab fight,” he said.

Petraeus said the only way the U.S. could intervene without further destabilizing Iraq would be if the Shia-led government in Baghdad was seen as fair and representative throughout Iraq.

“If America is to support then it would be in support of a government against extremists rather than one side of what could be a sectarian civil war,” he said at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty in London. “It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists, who happen to be Sunni Arabs, but extremists that are wreaking havoc on a country."

…

“The surge in Iraq, the surge that mattered most was not the surge in forces it was the surge of ideas that changed our strategy,” he said. “You cannot have 18 to 20 percent of the population feeling disenfranchised; feeling that it has no stake in the success of the country, in fact it has a stake in the failure of Iraq. Of course we reached out to the Sunni Arabs.”

He said there was a chance in the post-surge environment for Iraq to avoid this kind of bitter sectarian warfare but it was allowed to slip away. “[Iraq] really had an enormous opportunity back in 2011, it has made progress in certain areas but has not capitalized on that opportunity in the way that we had all hoped that they would,” he said.

The United States helped to set up a series of initiatives designed to co-opt the Sunni community, but many of them were allowed to wither under Maliki. “Unfortunately those agreements have been undermined by sectarian actions, going after Sunni Arab political figures and so forth, and the failure to continue to pay salaries to certain individuals and the quite harsh treatment of demonstrators in the wake of some of the actions that led to protest so there has to be a huge idea here.

…

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/petraeus-u-s-must-not-become-the-shia-militia-s-air-force.html

He is like the 3rd or 4th prominent person who I have heard say something similar. I wonder if Obama is tying to build some kind of Sunni coalition.

I cyber-shake Petraeus’ hand. Without all of non-ISIS Iraq (or at least most of it) uniting against ISIS, intervention will just mean taking a side in a marathon feud. I would just add that if all of non-ISIS Iraq unites against ISIS, they shouldn’t ***need ***direct military intervention from outside.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

You are correct, except we never considered invading Nigeria to free the schoolgirls.

I’m not saying there is no role for America here, but I remember the days when the first response to talk of war, were peace talks. Now it’s how fast can we pick a side and jump in before people realize there are no WMDs or global terrorist threats or whatever…

I simply believe that the world cannot have it both ways. If the US is not the world’s police, then the US needs to leave countries and their citizens alone. That includes famine relief, rescuing schoolgirls, and the like. The US is not simply to be at the beck and call of foreign nations when it is conveninent, then to be chastized at other times for “meddling.”

OIf we are consistent, we will never involve ourselves in any of these affairs, though I do not think that will help the parents of the Nigerian schoolgirls sleep any better.

 

[gilliam]

Maliki doesn’t know he is the major part of the problem yet. He was just reelected in March too. His party needs to convince him to really include Sunni and Kurds in his government.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maliki doesn’t know he is the major part of the problem yet. He was just reelected in March too. His party needs to convince him to really include Sunni and Kurds in his government.

Thats why I was suggesting he has to go. I would think as far as blame there is no sense in the Bush-Obama dialogue, through the last couple years our role was withdrawn and escalated the dilemma. It is what it is to me. Maliki was exiled in Tehran for 10-years also, so he is in thick with Iran. The possibility of constructing an inclusive government, I can’t see. We need an effort in politics by all these tribes in relation to these terrorists. Our intel alone is fine but to what avail when we in essence will take a side?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why did the US have to fight Saddam? Really interested in knowing…Also, where were the “Islamic radicals” “coming” from?

I agree with your use of the word “mercenaries”. That is literally what we would be reducing our military too. Also, it just occurred to me that there is a reason the Iraqi military might choose to flee than to fight; it’s not necessarily cowardice - it could be the kind of pragmatism we seem STILL to have not acquired despite a decade of war there. Fighting radicalism is only a military matter as a LAST resort; and it’s a very poor last resort too. Maybe the soldiers who ran away quite rightly realize that only inclusive government and (Iraqi) statesmanship can win the day.

Iraq is not America’s stepchild - it is the responsibility of Iraqis to determine their own fate. The 2008 election has nothing to do with it.

The breakup of Iraq was predicted 10 or more years ago by some opponents of BW II. Listening to them might have saved thousands (make that hundreds of thousands) of lives. The proponents of war (who are busy now pushing for more war) claimed that Iraq had no history of sectarian violence and that such fears were unjustified. Apologies - - - - not forthcoming. The mayor of London had a word of advice for Tony Blair when he unapologetically spoke his piece on the current state of affairs in Iraq: he advised Blair to “put a sock in it” and opined that for Blair, this is now “paper bag over the head time”. US experts should listen to the mayor.

As for “something horrible going off in Europe”…are they free of that fear today?

I don’t suppose the U.S. HAD TO depose Saddam, any more than we HAD TO revolt from British rule. But Saddam was a manifestly dangerous man; one who had started two aggressive wars, utilizing WMD in one of them, and one of them practically a world war if you use participants as a yardstick.

The breakup of Iraq could have happened at Saddam’s death, his regime being ruthlessly sectarian. But while the U.S. was there in force, it didn’t happen.

Islamic radicals come from all over the Islamic world.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I don’t suppose the U.S. HAD TO depose Saddam, any more than we HAD TO revolt from British rule. But Saddam was a manifestly dangerous man; one who had started two aggressive wars, utilizing WMD in one of them, and one of them practically a world war if you use participants as a yardstick.

That is an exaggeration. First of all, we helped to install Saddam Hussein. We supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and we gave him what he needed to create those chemical weapons which, btw, Iran also used. In terms of Kuwait, he probably wouldn’t have done it if our ambassador hadn’t told him that we didn’t care if he invaded Kuwait or not. Saddam was contained and he was hardly a threat to the United States.

The breakup of Iraq could have happened at Saddam’s death, his regime being ruthlessly sectarian. But while the U.S. was there in force, it didn’t happen.

Iraq was in a state of sectarian civil war while we were there.

 

[Tomdstone]

Terrorist groups are only going to get bolder and stronger if they believe they can continue unabated, we need to put up some resistance to stop the tide of terror.

There are 56 countries which have terrorist groups which could launch attacks against the USA. Do you support sending American troops to all 56 countries? If you leave out some countries, and send troops to only 30 countries, then what is there to prevent these terrorist groups from moving to the remaining 26 countries which do not have American troops? And the number of terrorist groups has grown dramatically since the USA has invaded Iraq. This only proves that military moves are counterproductive. They have been counterproductive in the past, and the there is no reason to believe that the future would be any different. Military force has solved nothing, but only created more problems and more headaches for the USA.

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t suppose the U.S. HAD TO depose Saddam, any more than we HAD TO revolt from British rule. But Saddam was a manifestly dangerous man; one who had started two aggressive wars, utilizing WMD in one of them, and** one of them practically a world war if you use participants as a yardstick**.

And one in which the West supported him. Let’s not pretend that the USA and the UK were neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, we supported Saddam Hussein in waging this war. To use his starting a war that we supported him in as part of a justification for removing him is a bit rich.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Iraq was in a state of sectarian civil war while we were there.

It was before we were there too. It’s just that Saddam tortured and murdered those whom he even slightly suspected of being disloyal, especially Kurds and Shia. It doesn’t say much for him that he prevented sectarian conflicts by killing other sects wholesale. It’s still “sectarian violence”. We had a great deal more consensus among the groups than Saddam ever did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And one in which the West supported him. Let’s not pretend that the USA and the UK were neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, we supported Saddam Hussein in waging this war. To use his starting a war that we supported him in as part of a justification for removing him is a bit rich.

Actually, the U.S. gave rather limited aid to both sides in the Iran/Iraq war. It was policy not to allow either to have a decisive victory, as both were bad actors.

In talking about a “world war”, I was talking about his invasion of Kuwait. A tremendous number of nations, including Arab nations, provided military support for that.

 

[josie_L]

There are 56 countries which have terrorist groups which could launch attacks against the USA. Do you support sending American troops to all 56 countries? If you leave out some countries, and send troops to only 30 countries, then what is there to prevent these terrorist groups from moving to the remaining 26 countries which do not have American troops? And the number of terrorist groups has grown dramatically since the USA has invaded Iraq. This only proves that military moves are counterproductive. They have been counterproductive in the past, and the there is no reason to believe that the future would be any different. Military force has solved nothing, but only created more problems and more headaches for the USA.

I was referring to the center of this evil maelstrom, i.e., Iraq (and Syria). ISIS is clear about what it wants, and that is to say, it wants a caliphate. If we are to fight terrorism this would be a good start, moreover, as it stands, i.e., terrorism is spreading, we will have no choice but to intervene militarily at some point in time (they are not going to simply stop terrorizing on our account, i.e., just because we’re not intervening militarily).

p.s. And just for the record, there are many reasons why terrorism is spreading, least of which is Obama’s horribly weak foreign policy and leadership, i.e., the U.S. is losing political clout in the world.

 

[gilliam]

No grand coalition it seems:

Saudi Arabia has warned against foreign meddling in Iraq. Writing in the Telegraph, the Saudi ambassador to the UK, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saudi, said:

We oppose all foreign intervention and interference. There must be no meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, not by us or by the US, the UK or by any other government. This is Iraq’s problem and they must sort it out themselves. Any government that meddles in Iraq’s affairs runs the risk of escalating the situation, creating greater mistrust between the people of Iraq – both Sunni and Shia.

Instead, we urge all the people of Iraq, whatever their religious denominations, to unite to overcome the current threats and challenges facing the country.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10911559/Saudi-Arabia-This-is-Iraqs-problem-and-they-must-sort-it-out-themselves.html

 

[gilliam]

The US is reported to have demanded the resignation of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki as a condition for US military intervention. The Wall Street Journal says the US has signalled its desire for unity government in Iraq without Maliki.

independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-exclusive-us-rules-out-military-action-until-pm-nouri-almaliki-stands-down-9547311.html

online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signals-1403137521

Maliki’s government has rejected calls for the prime minister to quit. His spokesman, Zuhair al-Nahar, said the west should focus instead on providing immediate military help to the Iraqi government.

theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/iraq-maliki-us-strikes-air-isis-sunni?CMP=twt_fd&CMP=SOCxx2I2

Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, says his government accepts the need for a “radical” political solution to the country’s crisis. Speaking at conference of foreign ministers in Jeddah he said: “The military solution is not enough. We agree and confess that there should be a political and radical solution.” US vice president Joe Biden has spoken to three key Iraqi leaders to urge an inclusive government.

theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/iraq-crisis-us-urging-maliki-to-resign-live-updates#block-53a2a7a1e4b0093187a96065

 

[7_Sorrows]

No grand coalition it seems:

Saudi Arabia has warned against foreign meddling in Iraq. Writing in the Telegraph, the Saudi ambassador to the UK, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saudi, said:

We oppose all foreign intervention and interference. There must be no meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, not by us or by the US, the UK or by any other government. This is Iraq’s problem and they must sort it out themselves. Any government that meddles in Iraq’s affairs runs the risk of escalating the situation, creating greater mistrust between the people of Iraq – both Sunni and Shia.

What do you think of that statement? Isn’t Saudia Arabia biased towards one side?

Instead, we urge all the people of Iraq, whatever their religious denominations, to unite to overcome the current threats and challenges facing the country.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10911559/Saudi-Arabia-This-is-Iraqs-problem-and-they-must-sort-it-out-themselves.html

 

[gilliam]

BREAKING: Obama to speak about situation in Iraq from the White House Thursday afternoon.

note: not prime time, so probably not an announcement of anything dramatic

You can watch the President’s statement on Iraq around 12:30pm ET at wh.gov/live .

OK, here is what the announcement is: BREAKING: Pentagon Plans to Send 100 Special Forces to Iraq.

Also probably some pressure on Maliki to be more inclusive.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Isn’t Saudia Arabia biased as to who they want to win in Iraq?

 

[gilliam]

Isn’t Saudia Arabia biased as to who they want to win in Iraq?

Sure they are. Isn’t everyone? But I don’t think they want ISIS to win since ISIS considers the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia heretics and apostates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sure they are. Isn’t everyone? But I don’t think they want ISIS to win since ISIS considers the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia heretics and apostates.

Saudi Arabia surely doesn’t want an increase in Iran’s power over Iraq, either. Seems, then, that S.A.'s interests and those of the west are no different in wanting neither side to win.

My guess is that both the U.S. and S.A. would want the Sunnis to hold the Shia/Iran forces at a standstill, but for Sunni tribal leaders, religious leaders and former Army officers to take over from ISIS.

It’s impossible for me to believe nobody has any means of communicating with the former “Awakening council” Sunni leaders, to get some feel for where they are with all of this. Of course, it appears they are perhaps cozy with former Baath army people. So they might have their own thing in mind; something they aren’t yet willing to share with us.

Since we abandoned them, despite their pleas for us to stay in force, they’re not too likely to think too well of the U.S. But they might have some objectives consistent with U.S. interests, but for their own reasons. I very much doubt our serving as an adjunct to the Iranian Quds Force would be one of them.

 

[gilliam]

President is speaking

Working to secure embassy in Iraq. Some relocation and reinforcement.
Increased surveillance and intelligence in Iraq.
Joint operations centers in Iraq. Send a small number up to 300 military advisors. Not combat role.
More military assets in the region
Will take targeted military action if and when we feel it is needed.
Best response involve partnerships where local elements take a lead
Meetings being conducted with allies and partners
Call to Iraqi leaders to come together politically

Bottom line he wants to get across: American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq

 

[seekerz]

Quote of the presidency: “it’s not our job to choose Iraq’s leaders”.

Yes, yes, yes and yes! Right choice.