Comments

You have commented 0 times on Rantburg.

We're sorry, but only human beings are allowed to comment on Rantburg. If you're a human being, please take this simple test to prove it. If you're not, get lost.

The Hindenberg, though not its finest hour
This is a chicken. What are you?
Caveman
Some wine is red, some wine is white. Some people drink wine most every night
Drunken hussy in a shopping cart

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.

Submit your comments on this article

Iraq

Iraq will never be whole again, so what's next ?

2015-05-28

[Rooters] Is there hope for Iraq? It depends on what you are hoping for.

It is becoming clearer that there is little hope of destroying Islamic State in Iraq. Islamic State has no shortage of new recruits. Its fighters capture heavy weapons with such ease that the United States is forced to direct air strikes against equipment abandoned by the Iraqis -- even as it ships in more. Islamic State holds territory that will allow it to trade land for time, morph into an insurgency and preserve its forces by pulling back into Syrian territory it controls even if Iraq's government, with Iranian and American help, launches a major assault.

Islamic State maintains support among Iraq's Sunnis. The more the Shi'ites align against it, the more Sunnis see no other choice but to support Islamic State, as they did al Qaeda after the American invasion in 2003. Stories from Tikrit, where Shi'ite militia-led forces defeated Islamic State, describe "a ghost town ruled by gunmen." There are other reports of ethnic cleansing in the Euphrates Valley town of Jurf al-Sakhar. Absent a unified Iraq, there will always be an al Qaeda, an Islamic State or another iteration of it to defend the Sunnis.

The only way for Iraq to remain unified was a stalemate of force, with no side having the might to win nor weak enough to lose, with negotiations to follow. As the United States passively watched the Iranians become its proxy boots on the ground against Islamic State, all the while knowing Tehran's broader agenda was a Shi'ite Iraqi client, that possibility was lost.

The government all but abandoned the idea of a nonsectarian national army; it turned instead to a gang of Iranian-supported Shi'ite militias with a bundle of anti-Sunni agendas.

It's possible to pin down the failure to a single battle. The last hope that Iraq would not become an Iranian client was dashed after Islamic State's defeat in Tikrit. The victory triggered the Iraqi central government to dismiss American and Kurdish support for a drive toward strategically important Mosul. The government all but abandoned the idea of a nonsectarian national army; it turned instead to a gang of Iranian-supported Shi'ite militias with a bundle of anti-Sunni agendas. Baghdad pointed those forces toward Ramadi.

Islamic State is also in Ramadi, but it had already poked into most of the city over the past year. It needed only 400 fighters for the final push last week. The threat was not new. The move by Baghdad on Ramadi is thus more long-term political than short-term tactical: think of Ramadi not as a gate through which Islamic State must pass moving east toward Baghdad (Islamic State cannot occupy the Shi'ite city of four million, defended by untold militia, any more than the German army could capture Stalingrad) but as a gate the Shi'ite militias must traverse headed west to control the Sunni homeland of Anbar.

Posted by:Besoeker