| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq: The Coming Violence Will Be Worse |
| 2009-08-25 |
| [Asharq al-Aswat] Following the terrorist attacks that rocked Baghdad [last week], the comments made by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyer Zebari were sharp and on edge, however they were also realistic and justified and deserve to be contemplated at length. Zebari said that he expected the coming violence "will be bigger." Following a careful reading of the situation, we can say that the Minister's comments were expected and correct, but unfortunately some in Iraq are analyzing events from a narrow perspective. I received some criticisms following my previous article "Why is Iraq Ablaze?" even though it is clear that by celebrating the withdrawal of US forces, the Iraqi government is making a strategic mistake. The government wished to portray this withdrawal as victory in order to give President al-Maliki momentum going into the forthcoming elections. It is common knowledge that the existing political system in Iraq was the product of a US operation from the ground up, as was its recent withdrawal, and the portrayal of this as an achievement of al-Maliki's has divided the Iraqis. This withdrawal -- even if it was inevitable -- represents a threat to Iraq so long as there is a lack of genuine political reconciliation which would reduce the risk of sectarian violence. The other mistake was an over-confidence in security; this manifested itself in the removal of blast-proof concrete walls from Baghdad. These concrete walls were also removed for electoral reasons, and the goal of this was to show the al-Maliki government in a strong light and demonstrate that it is in complete control of the security issue throughout Iraq. However all indications confirm that Iraqi security has been infiltrated, not just by the Baathists and Al Qaeda, but also by Iran and its agents. At this point, we must recall that Iraqi security apparatus are composed of members of Shiite militia who following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime carried out terrorist operations in Iraqi cities, not to mention the death squads. We must also recall the bank robberies that were committed by members of some security forces, not to mention the kidnapping of Britons from the Ministry of Finance which took place a few years ago and other events. One might ask, what have the Baathists got to do with the makeup of the Iraqi security apparatus? Why are accusations now being leveled at this outlawed party? The answer is very simple. What made it easy for these security personnel to betray their profession, rob banks and carry out assassinations? [The answer is] that it is easy to betray a country in its entirety. And so we say once and again, and for the thousandth time, victory in the Iraqi election must come throughout the door of genuine political accomplishments, and this is to solve the basic problems facing Iraq, the most important of which is reconciliation, instead of throwing away more lives and opportunities. National reconciliation is enough to prevent regional intervention, and is capable of sheltering Iraqi citizens in their own country, rather than them looking for a sectarian or foreign umbrella [to shelter under]. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 According to quran (which contains notice of inter-muslim strife) and hadith, the sunni-shiite civil war will not end until the "end of days." US troops cannot and should not police this inherent bloodshed, other than to implement containment policies against Syria, Iran, etc. Field troops in Iraq pay zero attention to the 1400 year old civil war. Although some operations address threats against the civil government structure. Even if the civil war heats up, the oil fields (both sides want the petro dollars to keep pouring in) and US theater troops will not be targeted. However, interpretation of Iraqization agreements and protocols permit indefinate US presence, should one side claim that a threat to either the government or Iraq sovereignty, is either present or forseeable. Hence, US troops aren't going anywhere, and any escalation will be manageable. |
| Posted by: Spanky Slamp9315 2009-08-25 16:15 |
| #4 lots of habits like nationalism, a sense of duty and real honor -- As valuable as those qualities can be, without widespread agreement on what the nation is, those qualities may also serve to worsen the violence of a civil war, e.g., the War Between the States here. Whom or what do these qualities serve? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-08-25 15:08 |
| #3 That's some strong Kumbaya juice, Moose. Iraqis are predominantly 1 Muslim 2 Arabs Their society is/has 1 Winner take all 2 Too many competing power blocks 3 Screw the infidels as soon as they feel they have the upper hand Violence is fore ordained. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-08-25 13:56 |
| #2 Hey, America spent hundreds of billions of dollars and over 4000 lives and tens of thousands of maimings, that strain military hospitals. Nation-destruction worked in Japan and Germany and elsewhere Nation-building has never worked in an Islamic garbage entity. Ergo: shell out more billions for nation-building |
| Posted by: Sheger McGurque5408 2009-08-25 13:24 |
| #1 I have a feeling that the Iraqi military will have something to say about those who try to ignite sectarian violence. They have been under the wing of the US Army and Marines for too long, and have picked up lots of habits like nationalism, a sense of duty and real honor, and a serious hatred of those who embrace primitivism and chaos. And I doubt they will be under particularly restrictive ROE in dealing with such scum. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-08-25 10:25 |