Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Faces Opposing Regional Interests in Bid to Blunt Insurgency in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. Faces Opposing Regional Interests in Bid to Blunt Insurgency in Iraq

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-f...raq-1403480818

    U.S. Faces Opposing Regional Interests in Bid to Blunt Insurgency in Iraq

    John Kerry Must Maneuver in Mideast's Ethnic, Tribal and Sectarian Divisions





    By Jay Solomon



    Updated June 23, 2014 8:14 a.m. ET







    As fighting continues between Iraqi troops and ISIS in the Diyala province, the militant group hands out copies of the Quran to passersby in Mosul, the city they captured two weeks ago.





    AMMAN, Jordan—As the Obama administration's top diplomat arrived in the Middle East to gather support to blunt a Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. was colliding with the region's ethnic, tribal and sectarian divisions.

    Deep gaps between U.S. and Arab views over the crisis have grown more obvious in recent days, say American and regional officials, hampering Washington's response to the onslaught by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, which this month seized control of territories straddling Iraq and Syria.
    The task gained new urgency on Sunday when ISIS swept through new Iraq towns and overran two border crossings with Jordan and Syria, blocking the Iraqi government's access to its western frontier, security officials said.

    President Barack Obama raised the stakes on Sunday, telling CBS News that ISIS threatens American interests if it turns to global terrorism, two days after he announced plans to send U.S. military advisers and supplies to Iraq and called for a new, more inclusive government in Baghdad.








    The precipitous fall of Mosul two weeks ago and cities to its south offers a glimpse of the corruption, inefficiency and general institutional rot that has afflicted Iraq's U.S.-trained military. WSJ's Matt Bradley reports on the News Hub with Simon Constable. Photo: AP





    The crisis in Iraq has exposed contradictions in traditional Mideast alliances, in some ways placing the U.S. alongside its sworn enemy, Shiite-ruled Iran, in a joint effort to halt ISIS, while in other ways putting Washington at odds with longtime Sunni allies in the Persian Gulf, who want to weaken Iran's sway over Iraq.

    Days before Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Cairo and then Amman to seek support for U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq, U.S. officials said the chief American diplomat held a conference call with Sunni Arab leaders. What he heard from them, said a senior Arab diplomat briefed on the call, were expressions of bewilderment.
    "We felt the Americans were greatly misinformed," the diplomat said. "The insurgency isn't just about ISIS, but Sunnis fighting back against injustice."

    The White House has signaled to Iraqi politicians that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, should go because of his failure to build bridges to his country's major minorities—Sunnis and Kurds—during his eight years in power.

    But to create a new, more inclusive Iraqi government, U.S. officials will need to stitch together the vastly differing interests of the region's powers who view Iraq as the focal point for their struggle for influence.












    As political turmoil spreads through Iraq, many predict a similar future for Afghanistan. Cries of rigged elections have caused unrest among Afghan citizens. Jerry Seib explains the circumstances, and the political problems limiting the ability of the U.S. to act.





    For Iran, the Maliki government has proved a pliant partner and a symbol of resurgent Shiite power across the Mideast after decades of Sunni rule under Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Tehran won't accept a non-Shiite leader in Baghdad who isn't at least sympathetic to Iran's ambitions, if not supportive of them, said U.S. and Arab officials.

    Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, drove home the point on Sunday with a warning that Tehran will back Mr. Maliki.
    "We strongly oppose the intervention of the U.S. and others in the domestic affairs of Iraq," Mr. Khamenei said in remarks on the Fars news agency, his first since the crisis with ISIS began. "The main dispute in Iraq is between those who want Iraq to join the U.S. camp and those who seek an independent Iraq."
    The Sunni states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, are seeking a new Iraqi leader bereft of cozy ties to Iran and one more focused on promoting Iraq's Arab identity than its Shiite one.
    The Kurds, meanwhile, are demanding Baghdad's next government grant their region greater political, economic and strategic autonomy, or risk Irbil declaring formal independence.


    A fighter with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, distributed a copy of the Quran, Islam's holy book, on Sunday to a van in Mosul in northern Iraq. Sunni militants swept through new towns and overran two border crossings with Jordan and Syria, on Iraq's western frontier. Associated Press





    "This isn't a case of the Kurds breaking free from Iraq, but Iraq breaking free from us," said Karwan Zebari, the Kurdish Regional Government's ambassador to Washington, in an interview.
    The deliberations over Iraq that Mr. Kerry is pursuing will have ramifications beyond the country's borders, say U.S. and Arab diplomats.

    Any formula accepted by the Iraqis and the regional powers in the coming weeks could resuscitate the flagging international efforts to stop the civil war in neighboring Syria, where more than 160,000 people have died over the past three years, the diplomats say.

    The same Arab, Iranian and Kurdish forces that are now vying for power in Iraq, also are supporting the competing militias inside Syria.
    The U.S.'s deep involvement in Iraq over the past three decades repeatedly has placed Washington on the fault line between the region's Sunni and Shiite sects.

    The Reagan administration shared intelligence with Saddam Hussein's regime during Iraq's eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s, an effort viewed by Tehran as an overt American effort to back the Sunni Arabs and weaken Iran's revolutionary Shiite government.

    The George W. Bush administration overthrew Mr. Hussein in 2003, conversely, a move criticized by the Arab states, who said it would empower Iran, as Iraq's population is more than 60% Shiite.

    The crisis spurred a new political debate in the U.S. capital.
    Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Vice President **** Cheney clashed over the issue Sunday, with the senator, a possible presidential candidate, saying that as president he wouldn't involve U.S. troops in civil wars in Iraq and Syria. Mr. Cheney said the senator was pushing a misguided "isolationist" strategy.
    The disagreement, in televised interviews, underscored a potential issue for Republicans choosing a candidate in 2016.
    The current debate in Washington on whether to strike ISIS militarily is also being heavily influenced by sectarian considerations, according to U.S. officials.

    Sunni leaders in Iraq and other Mideast states have questioned why the U.S. would consider bombing militants to support a Shiite government in Iraq when it wouldn't attack the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad —who adheres to a Shiite offshoot—after it allegedly used chemical weapons on largely Sunni rebels last year.

    These sentiments led Mr. Obama to make clear last week the U.S. wouldn't pursue military operations "that support one sect of Iraq at the expense of another."
    A principal aim of Mr. Kerry's meetings with Arab, Kurdish and European leaders over the next week is to forge a more common understanding of the threat posed by ISIS and Iraq's burgeoning civil war.

    Members of Mr. Maliki's government and Iranian officials in recent days have framed the challenge almost solely through a counterterrorism lens. They cited ISIS's past links to al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations, and the alleged influx into Iraq of foreign fighters from other Arab states and Europe.

    "It is all coordinated, and it has international dimensions," said Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Lukman Faily. "These are not Iraqi fighters. These are jihadis."

    Sunni leaders in Iraq and elsewhere, however, describe ISIS as only part of a wider Sunni uprising against Mr. Maliki's government fueled by years in which their political rights and economic opportunities have diminished. They cite former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party as being part of the revolt, as well as Sunni tribes that only a few years ago were aligned with the U.S. in its fight against al Qaeda in western Iraq.
    The intense Sunni ire directed at Mr. Maliki has underpinned the belief held by many U.S. officials that the crisis in Iraq can't end while he remains in power.

    —Ali A. Nabhan and Matt Bradley in Baghdad contributed to this article.

  • #2
    I don't know what to do with Iraq anymore.

    I hear ISIL's top leaders were Saddam Hussein's officers. That is the reason why ISIL is looking so good in the battle field. Only about 1/4 are ISIL, with the others being a variety of Sunni tribes who can't take Maliki's despotic rule anymore.

    The Iranian Shia clerics are purposely trying to start a Sunni-Shia war with making brainwashing khutbahs on fighting Sunni's who are marching towards Baghdad.

    I don't like the Kurdish Pesmergha forces. How are they bad a$$e$ again? I don't recall them ever in battle prior to this month.

    Comment


    • #3
      It seems the Shiites and Kurds have the oil, and the Sunnis have mostly sand. ISIS picked a fight they are bound to lose.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by کیش View Post
        I don't know what to do with Iraq anymore.

        I hear ISIL's top leaders were Saddam Hussein's officers. That is the reason why ISIL is looking so good in the battle field. Only about 1/4 are ISIL, with the others being a variety of Sunni tribes who can't take Maliki's despotic rule anymore.

        The Iranian Shia clerics are purposely trying to start a Sunni-Shia war with making brainwashing khutbahs on fighting Sunni's who are marching towards Baghdad.

        I don't like the Kurdish Pesmergha forces. How are they bad a$$e$ again? I don't recall them ever in battle prior to this month.
        Why are you making this a religious war? You dumb twat!!

        Are you backing arabs and **** over your cousins who are somehow related to you long back? Or maybe you are an arab? Are you an arab? mix raced "said" etc!1

        I hope Wahabi Arabic influenced dogs or mostly arabs is forced back to their desert land where they came from 1300-1400 years ago invading Iranian tribes and our Pashtun soil! Remember Pashtuns should never forget injustice.
        To Paradise, with Pakhto, I will go.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Loy Afghanistan View Post
          Why are you making this a religious war? You dumb twat!!

          Are you backing arabs and **** over your cousins who are somehow related to you long back? Or maybe you are an arab? Are you an arab? mix raced "said" etc!1

          I hope Wahabi Arabic influenced dogs or mostly arabs is forced back to their desert land where they came from 1300-1400 years ago invading Iranian tribes and our Pashtun soil! Remember Pashtuns should never forget injustice.
          Listen, buddy nobody but the Shias are making it a sectarian war so learn how to talk first.

          I don't care about Iranians/Persians or whatever the hell they wanna call themselves. I am more related to Arabs through my Sayedgi Grandmother from N.Waz.

          And your Iranian tribes fell like dominoes compared to Pagan Arabs, learn the history, my friend.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by کیش View Post
            Listen, buddy nobody but the Shias are making it a sectarian war so learn how to talk first.

            I don't care about Iranians/Persians or whatever the hell they wanna call themselves. I am more related to Arabs through my Sayedgi Grandmother from N.Waz.

            And your Iranian tribes fell like dominoes compared to Pagan Arabs, learn the history, my friend.
            The difference between me and you is, you don't belong in this part of the world. Move back to your roots instead if you are not happy with Pashtunistan and the Iranian tribes/races around Central Asia. Because those who choice to be neutral or choice Afghanistan/Pashtunistan before foreigners and Arabs are welcome to stay. If your loyalty is not toward Pashtuns soil and your birth place, you don't belong here.

            This is why I hate people who are born in my ancestors soil and drinks its water, eat its fruits, use its fields, breathe its air and support SAUDI ARABIA or other foreign parasites over their born place, because they have some "roots" from there. Pashtun purify policy towards these kind of people are justified in the future, because I know my Pashtun ancestors didn't let, these backstabber and immigrants/seeds live in Pashtun soil if they knew what kind of disgusting plant it will grow up.

            Sometimes I feel like our noble ancestors showed to much hospitality towards these kind of desert people.
            To Paradise, with Pakhto, I will go.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Loy Afghanistan View Post
              Why are you making this a religious war? You dumb twat!!

              Are you backing arabs and **** over your cousins who are somehow related to you long back? Or maybe you are an arab? Are you an arab? mix raced "said" etc!1

              I hope Wahabi Arabic influenced dogs or mostly arabs is forced back to their desert land where they came from 1300-1400 years ago invading Iranian tribes and our Pashtun soil! Remember Pashtuns should never forget injustice.
              Lol Kurds don't care about afghans, infact many of them look down on afghans and think they're no different from pakis
              "I bow to no one, except ALLAH. I dont bow to punjabay, do not bow to kabulay and afghanay, do not bow to faujay and mullay, do not bow to asfandyarwalay and petty khanays...i am traitor to all of them." - Smartay

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tripledouble View Post
                Lol Kurds don't care about afghans, infact many of them look down on afghans and think they're no different from pakis
                So, that is because of low education and identity crises. And I know for fact, Kurds doesn't even have the basic knowledge about Pashtuns, and you have made up this bullcrap. Simply because they have been underpowered for more than 2500-3000 years.

                Do you think I priorities Kurds, "Persians" Iranian before my PASHTUN blood line and the ancient noble ones? What a fool, you trolling wrong guy!!

                It is about, how far you are related. Of course I choice Iranians, Kurds, and other Iranian people over Arabs, British Pakis, Europeans, Jews, any day any time. Why? Because, first Kurds has not touched Pashtuns, Iranians is complicated, it is not like we have not middle in their affairs and had previously wars with each other, and I completely understand Iranians action, if your neighbour is being occupied by NATO forces and your enemy only survives because of "muslim" TAXI porki. You need to do some work to make a precaution, that attacks etc doesn't come from that direction.

                The realtions between modern Pashtuns, and other modern educated Iranians is like you fight with your brother, the next day you forgive each other and move on.

                With 40 years of sanctions and standing alone in the world against World Bank, IMF, NATO, the most powerful forces. I have a huge respect for Iranian people. Their education system and progress is fantastic. I only hope the same progress for Pashtuns. Today Iran is a force a power in the region. Not even porkis with their nukes are so powerful.

                Like I choice India over British Pakis. And Pashtuns above all! It is about priority. Like pakis priorities dollar, pound above all. You know this very well mr nato taxi man.
                To Paradise, with Pakhto, I will go.

                Comment


                • #9
                  As political turmoil spreads through Iraq, many predict a similar future for Afghanistan. Cries of rigged elections have caused unrest among Afghan citizens. Jerry Seib explains the circumstances, and the political problems limiting the ability of the U.S. to act.

                  What do you infer from this, Khushal? Does it suggest Pashtuns should start buckling up for a Pashtun state? It also is increasingly sounding plausible to me the crisis in the ME will not be distinct to ME. There are other regions where almost similar conditions exist.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Loy Afghanistan View Post
                    The difference between me and you is, you don't belong in this part of the world. Move back to your roots instead if you are not happy with Pashtunistan and the Iranian tribes/races around Central Asia. Because those who choice to be neutral or choice Afghanistan/Pashtunistan before foreigners and Arabs are welcome to stay. If your loyalty is not toward Pashtuns soil and your birth place, you don't belong here.

                    This is why I hate people who are born in my ancestors soil and drinks its water, eat its fruits, use its fields, breathe its air and support SAUDI ARABIA or other foreign parasites over their born place, because they have some "roots" from there. Pashtun purify policy towards these kind of people are justified in the future, because I know my Pashtun ancestors didn't let, these backstabber and immigrants/seeds live in Pashtun soil if they knew what kind of disgusting plant it will grow up.

                    Sometimes I feel like our noble ancestors showed to much hospitality towards these kind of desert people.
                    Jeez Louise what the hell are you talking about? Are you Iranian, or a Pashtun/Afghan. You should change your name to Loy Iranistan by your obsession towards them.

                    Everything else in your post make no sense and has nothing to do with this topic. Read a book, and logoff the Internet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by کیش View Post
                      Jeez Louise what the hell are you talking about? Are you Iranian, or a Pashtun/Afghan. You should change your name to Loy Iranistan by your obsession towards them.

                      Everything else in your post make no sense and has nothing to do with this topic. Read a book, and logoff the Internet.
                      stfu american dog! what is jeez louise? We have different interest, you like Wahabi cannibal heart eating terrorist with the support and fundings by USA, SAUDI, Qatar, NATO, EU, Turkey etc that destroyed stable Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Libya, tried in Syria, and heading now to destroy more of Iraq. Their main goal is Iran. What you arab-american don't know, is that I choice Iranians over Arabs. Simple as that.
                      To Paradise, with Pakhto, I will go.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by khushal View Post
                        http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-f...raq-1403480818

                        U.S. Faces Opposing Regional Interests in Bid to Blunt Insurgency in Iraq

                        John Kerry Must Maneuver in Mideast's Ethnic, Tribal and Sectarian Divisions





                        By Jay Solomon



                        Updated June 23, 2014 8:14 a.m. ET







                        As fighting continues between Iraqi troops and ISIS in the Diyala province, the militant group hands out copies of the Quran to passersby in Mosul, the city they captured two weeks ago.





                        AMMAN, Jordan—As the Obama administration's top diplomat arrived in the Middle East to gather support to blunt a Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. was colliding with the region's ethnic, tribal and sectarian divisions.

                        Deep gaps between U.S. and Arab views over the crisis have grown more obvious in recent days, say American and regional officials, hampering Washington's response to the onslaught by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, which this month seized control of territories straddling Iraq and Syria.
                        The task gained new urgency on Sunday when ISIS swept through new Iraq towns and overran two border crossings with Jordan and Syria, blocking the Iraqi government's access to its western frontier, security officials said.

                        President Barack Obama raised the stakes on Sunday, telling CBS News that ISIS threatens American interests if it turns to global terrorism, two days after he announced plans to send U.S. military advisers and supplies to Iraq and called for a new, more inclusive government in Baghdad.








                        The precipitous fall of Mosul two weeks ago and cities to its south offers a glimpse of the corruption, inefficiency and general institutional rot that has afflicted Iraq's U.S.-trained military. WSJ's Matt Bradley reports on the News Hub with Simon Constable. Photo: AP





                        The crisis in Iraq has exposed contradictions in traditional Mideast alliances, in some ways placing the U.S. alongside its sworn enemy, Shiite-ruled Iran, in a joint effort to halt ISIS, while in other ways putting Washington at odds with longtime Sunni allies in the Persian Gulf, who want to weaken Iran's sway over Iraq.

                        Days before Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Cairo and then Amman to seek support for U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq, U.S. officials said the chief American diplomat held a conference call with Sunni Arab leaders. What he heard from them, said a senior Arab diplomat briefed on the call, were expressions of bewilderment.
                        "We felt the Americans were greatly misinformed," the diplomat said. "The insurgency isn't just about ISIS, but Sunnis fighting back against injustice."

                        The White House has signaled to Iraqi politicians that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, should go because of his failure to build bridges to his country's major minorities—Sunnis and Kurds—during his eight years in power.

                        But to create a new, more inclusive Iraqi government, U.S. officials will need to stitch together the vastly differing interests of the region's powers who view Iraq as the focal point for their struggle for influence.












                        As political turmoil spreads through Iraq, many predict a similar future for Afghanistan. Cries of rigged elections have caused unrest among Afghan citizens. Jerry Seib explains the circumstances, and the political problems limiting the ability of the U.S. to act.





                        For Iran, the Maliki government has proved a pliant partner and a symbol of resurgent Shiite power across the Mideast after decades of Sunni rule under Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Tehran won't accept a non-Shiite leader in Baghdad who isn't at least sympathetic to Iran's ambitions, if not supportive of them, said U.S. and Arab officials.

                        Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, drove home the point on Sunday with a warning that Tehran will back Mr. Maliki.
                        "We strongly oppose the intervention of the U.S. and others in the domestic affairs of Iraq," Mr. Khamenei said in remarks on the Fars news agency, his first since the crisis with ISIS began. "The main dispute in Iraq is between those who want Iraq to join the U.S. camp and those who seek an independent Iraq."
                        The Sunni states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, are seeking a new Iraqi leader bereft of cozy ties to Iran and one more focused on promoting Iraq's Arab identity than its Shiite one.
                        The Kurds, meanwhile, are demanding Baghdad's next government grant their region greater political, economic and strategic autonomy, or risk Irbil declaring formal independence.


                        A fighter with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, distributed a copy of the Quran, Islam's holy book, on Sunday to a van in Mosul in northern Iraq. Sunni militants swept through new towns and overran two border crossings with Jordan and Syria, on Iraq's western frontier. Associated Press





                        "This isn't a case of the Kurds breaking free from Iraq, but Iraq breaking free from us," said Karwan Zebari, the Kurdish Regional Government's ambassador to Washington, in an interview.
                        The deliberations over Iraq that Mr. Kerry is pursuing will have ramifications beyond the country's borders, say U.S. and Arab diplomats.

                        Any formula accepted by the Iraqis and the regional powers in the coming weeks could resuscitate the flagging international efforts to stop the civil war in neighboring Syria, where more than 160,000 people have died over the past three years, the diplomats say.

                        The same Arab, Iranian and Kurdish forces that are now vying for power in Iraq, also are supporting the competing militias inside Syria.
                        The U.S.'s deep involvement in Iraq over the past three decades repeatedly has placed Washington on the fault line between the region's Sunni and Shiite sects.

                        The Reagan administration shared intelligence with Saddam Hussein's regime during Iraq's eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s, an effort viewed by Tehran as an overt American effort to back the Sunni Arabs and weaken Iran's revolutionary Shiite government.

                        The George W. Bush administration overthrew Mr. Hussein in 2003, conversely, a move criticized by the Arab states, who said it would empower Iran, as Iraq's population is more than 60% Shiite.

                        The crisis spurred a new political debate in the U.S. capital.
                        Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Vice President **** Cheney clashed over the issue Sunday, with the senator, a possible presidential candidate, saying that as president he wouldn't involve U.S. troops in civil wars in Iraq and Syria. Mr. Cheney said the senator was pushing a misguided "isolationist" strategy.
                        The disagreement, in televised interviews, underscored a potential issue for Republicans choosing a candidate in 2016.
                        The current debate in Washington on whether to strike ISIS militarily is also being heavily influenced by sectarian considerations, according to U.S. officials.

                        Sunni leaders in Iraq and other Mideast states have questioned why the U.S. would consider bombing militants to support a Shiite government in Iraq when it wouldn't attack the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad —who adheres to a Shiite offshoot—after it allegedly used chemical weapons on largely Sunni rebels last year.

                        These sentiments led Mr. Obama to make clear last week the U.S. wouldn't pursue military operations "that support one sect of Iraq at the expense of another."
                        A principal aim of Mr. Kerry's meetings with Arab, Kurdish and European leaders over the next week is to forge a more common understanding of the threat posed by ISIS and Iraq's burgeoning civil war.

                        Members of Mr. Maliki's government and Iranian officials in recent days have framed the challenge almost solely through a counterterrorism lens. They cited ISIS's past links to al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations, and the alleged influx into Iraq of foreign fighters from other Arab states and Europe.

                        "It is all coordinated, and it has international dimensions," said Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Lukman Faily. "These are not Iraqi fighters. These are jihadis."

                        Sunni leaders in Iraq and elsewhere, however, describe ISIS as only part of a wider Sunni uprising against Mr. Maliki's government fueled by years in which their political rights and economic opportunities have diminished. They cite former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party as being part of the revolt, as well as Sunni tribes that only a few years ago were aligned with the U.S. in its fight against al Qaeda in western Iraq.
                        The intense Sunni ire directed at Mr. Maliki has underpinned the belief held by many U.S. officials that the crisis in Iraq can't end while he remains in power.

                        —Ali A. Nabhan and Matt Bradley in Baghdad contributed to this article.
                        Khushal, you are a hypocrite of worst degree. I asked you a question whether what is happening ME can be replicated in other places, e.g., in Central-South Asia leading to the creation of new states and more autonomous federating/confederating units and you are obviously avoiding my question.

                        That is the sign of a hypocrite that don't want to be forthcoming but rather wants to be deceptive and twisted.
                        Last edited by Toramana; 06-25-2014, 09:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Toramana View Post
                          As political turmoil spreads through Iraq, many predict a similar future for Afghanistan. Cries of rigged elections have caused unrest among Afghan citizens. Jerry Seib explains the circumstances, and the political problems limiting the ability of the U.S. to act.
                          What do you infer from this, Khushal? Does it suggest Pashtuns should start buckling up for a Pashtun state? It also is increasingly sounding plausible to me the crisis in the ME will not be distinct to ME. There are other regions where almost similar conditions exist.
                          Here is the video of Jerry Seib. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/0...n-afghanistan/

                          All those borders are designed so the people of the region yo bal asra okhree(can eat each other up). They are not designed to bring stability.

                          A part of me thinks its probably better in the long term if Abdullah takes the helm so each ethnic entity can govern themselves. But as long as Pakistan exists, Pashtuns would be the losers in such a scenario, especially the Pashtuns on the afghan side and as long as Pakistan exists what ever Abdullah is envisioning wont become reality since Pashtuns wont let go of the northern areas if they can not unite with their brethrens across the Durand and the existence of Pakistan would always be the main obstacle to that unity.

                          Al Afghani seems right, if Abdullah takes the helm, it would seem likely that Pashtuns would quit the afghan gov and would form an alliance with the Taliban just like the Sunni's did in Iraq. The Sunnis are capable of taking back all of Iraq without US interference and the Pashtuns are capable of taking back all of Afghanistan without US interference.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Toramana View Post
                            Khushal, you are a hypocrite of worst degree. I asked you a question whether what is happening ME can be replicated in other places, e.g., in Central-South Asia leading to the creation of new states and more autonomous federating/confederating units and you are obviously avoiding my question.

                            That is the sign of a hypocrite that don't want to be forthcoming but rather wants to be deceptive and twisted.
                            Give me some time Toramana, I am not on here 24/7.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sunni rebels in Iraq say they have fully captured the country's largest oil refinery at Baiji, north of Baghdad, after days of heavy fighting.

                              Iraq crisis: Key oil refinery 'seized by rebels'


                              Sunni rebels in Iraq say they have fully captured the country's main oil refinery at Baiji, north of Baghdad.
                              The refinery had been under siege for 10 days with the militant offensive being repulsed several times.
                              US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Irbil, northern Iraq, for a second day of talks with the country's leaders.
                              Insurgents, spearheaded by Islamists, have overrun a swathe of territory in the north and west including the second-biggest city, Mosul.
                              They are bearing down on a vital dam near Haditha and have captured all border crossings to Syria and Jordan.
                              The Baiji refinery, in Salahuddin province, supplies a third of Iraq's refined fuel and the battle has already led to petrol rationing.
                              A rebel spokesman said the complex would now be handed over to local tribes to administer.
                              The spokesman said that the advance towards Baghdad would continue

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X