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

  • #16
    U.S. Launches Bid to Wrest Sunni Tribes From Militants

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-l...hatsNewsSecond
    U.S. Launches Bid to Wrest Sunni Tribes From Militants

    Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to persuade the major Arab states to pitch in on an Iraq strategy of peeling Sunni tribes and fighters away from their tactical alliance with the radical Islamist militia that has seized large swaths of western Iraq in recent weeks.


    A less sectarian tack from Iraqi leader Maliki could be vital in urging Sunnis to part with militants. Prime Minister's Office/European Pressphoto Agency




    The initiative comes as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a televised address on Wednesday that he wouldn't bend to international appeals to create a less sectarian government to curb the swelling Sunni Muslim insurgency.

    Mr. Kerry said Wednesday in Brussels that despite Mr. Maliki's defiant-sounding speech, the Iraqi prime minister appeared committed to begin the formation of a new government in Baghdad early next week, as Mr. Kerry said he had agreed to do in talks on Monday in Baghdad.
    "In the prime minister's remarks today, he did follow through on the commitments he made in our discussions," Mr. Kerry said at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters.

    The Obama administration's new initiative, described by senior U.S. and Arab officials, is an attempt to broaden its approach beyond influencing the Baghdad government. It mirrors a key element of the "troop surge" strategy begun under President George W. Bush in 2007, which sent cash, advisers and weapons to Sunni fighters who allied with U.S. troops against extremists.
    The so-called Sons of Iraq program—closely linked to the Iraqi "Sahwa" or Awakening movement—offered a successful, grass-roots approach to winning hearts and minds while also nearly eradicating al Qaeda from Sunni-majority provinces.


    The program waned under Mr. Maliki as U.S. troops began departing Iraq in 2009. But under the onslaught of Sunni insurgents, officials are making a new bid to reconstitute parts of it.

    The U.S. isn't talking about providing arms to these tribes and fighters. But Mr. Kerry and other senior U.S. officials want their Arab allies to appeal to Sunni groups who are fighting alongside the extremists but who aren't seen as long-term military allies of the al Qaeda-linked force, which is seeking to enforce Islamic law.

    Known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, the extremist group is the organizational successor of the Sunni militants known as al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, targeted in the earlier U.S. campaign to win over less radical Sunnis.
    U.S. officials now working in Iraq said they have received reports from Sunni leaders of fighting between their groups and ISIS, and of executions carried out by the Islamist militants in western Iraq.

    "We're hearing from Sunni leaders across the board that they really want to do something about [ISIS]. They're figuring out how to do it," said a senior U.S. official who has been in contact with Sunnis in western Iraq.

    "A lot of them keep saying: 'We'll be stronger if there is a new prime minister,' " he added. "Our answer to that is, 'Look, you've got to pursue this in parallel. Political change comes through the government formation process, but it is not really responsible to let [ISIS] take over half the country, because once they do that you're not going to be able to fight back.'"









    President Obama has several options when it comes to Iraq. However, public opinion and weariness of war among Americans limits his possible moves. Jerry Seib dives into a new poll on U.S. attitudes toward Iraq.




    Mr. Kerry will meet Thursday in Paris with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan in a mini-summit that will be almost solely focused on confronting the ISIS threat in Iraq and Syria, according to U.S. officials.
    The top American diplomat then will travel to Saudi Arabia on Friday to meet King Abdullah.

    U.S. officials said they are seeking to work with the Sunni-dominated Arab states to help shore up their contacts with moderate Sunni leaders in western Iraq. American officials describe the Iraqi Sunnis as a mix of tribal chiefs, former Iraqi army officials, and Baath Party leaders.
    Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are seen as having significant political and religious influence over these Iraqi leaders, as well as the financial resources to try to help woo them away from ISIS.

    U.S. officials said that winning support from Iraq's Sunnis and the Arab states for reconciliation with Baghdad will require delicate negotiations that will involve Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish leaders, and potentially Iran.
    Arab governments and most of Iraq's Sunni leaders are demanding that Prime Minister Maliki resign before they re-engage with Baghdad.

    "We're ready to help in Iraq as soon as we see the Maliki exit ramp," said a senior Arab official involved in the Paris meetings.
    Mr. Kerry and senior U.S. officials feverishly worked in Baghdad this week to find a political formula for leadership more acceptable to the minority Sunni and Kurdish leaders.

    But it is unclear, especially after Mr. Maliki's speech, if he has any intention of leaving office, U.S. officials acknowledged. They maintained that the prime minister is committed to moving toward a new government next week, but recognized that he is dealing with a complex political drama in Baghdad.
    Sheik Awad Said, a leader in the western town of Haditha that is currently under siege by ISIS fighters, said he would consider signing up to a Sahwa-like effort if it were entirely underwritten and run by Americans.

    As far as trusting the Iraqi government is concerned, Sheikh Said said he had been burned far too many times.
    "If the Americans have a role, then this will encourage me and other tribal leaders to fight the terrorists," said Sheik Said. "Otherwise, we don't trust the Iraqi government."
    But U.S. military officials are divided over the utility of peeling moderate Sunni forces from the ISIS-led rebellion. Some officials believe the outreach must appeal to the rebellion as a whole, a defense official said.

    U.S. surveys late last years in western Iraq led some military officials to believe that that Sunni-dominated areas will accept a Shiite-led government in Baghdad as long as Mr. Maliki steps down and is not replaced with another Shiite leader seen as close ties to Iran, the defense official said.

    Some U.S. officials also believe that some Sunni groups may be satisfied if Mr. Maliki backs sweeping changes, but most officials believe that the rebellion will draw widespread Sunni favor as long as Mr. Maliki remains at the head of the government.

    Comment


    • #17
      http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-...ole-1403740267

      Iran Debates Its Regional Role

      Crisis in Iraq Sparks Dispute Over Value of Aiding Regimes in Damascus, Baghdad


      BEIRUT—After toiling more than a decade to shape Iraq and Syria into strong Arab allies of the Islamic Republic, Iran is now facing a daunting reality: supporting two states torn by war.
      The crisis in Iraq, where an al Qaeda offshoot is gaining ground, has sparked a debate among Iranian policy makers and political observers over whether Tehran's policies have paid off.

      Some argue that for all the military, financial and political capital that Iran has invested to bolster their Shiite-linked governments, the benefit has been small and it is time to change course.
      "Iran's geopolitical policies have failed. We have lost Hamas, overstretched Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now have al Qaeda spilling from Syria to Iraq," said Saeed Leylaz, a prominent political analyst close to the government.

      Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Iran's only Arab allies, still hold their posts but preside over countries mired in war. Both have seen their stature plunge at home and in the Arab world and beyond, where they have been denounced for undertaking religiously and ethnically divisive policies to buttress their power.


      Iran has been heavily involved in both countries' conflicts, officials say. In Syria, it has dispatched a senior commander and troops to help Syria's government train and strategize. It has also trained, funded and recruited Shiite volunteers from across the region to fight Syria's mostly Sunni resistance.


      In Iraq, Iran has deployed Quds Force commander-in-chief Qasem Sulaimani to advise the Iraqi army and deployed troops to fight and help protect Shiite holy cities and Baghdad. Iranian drones have been conducting surveillance flights over Iraq to provide intelligence to Baghdad, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

      An opinion piece by a conservative analyst Hadi Alami Fariman in Khabaronline, a news website affiliated with the influential head of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijani, criticized Tehran for being "too in love with Maliki's government" and urged the government of President Hasan Rouhani to pursue a more inclusive policy that would enfranchise moderate Sunnis.
      "We have to accept that there are other players in Iraq, as well. We must avoid rushing to actions and acting emotional," he wrote.

      Critics of Tehran's policy toward its Arab friends point out that Iran's military presence in Syria hasn't prevented the threat of al Qaeda from inching closer to the Islamic Republic's borders.
      In the past two weeks, the Sunni extremist group the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, has rapidly spread its influence in Iraq and taken control of cities in the country's north and west, as well country's largest oil refinery in Baiji. Its offensive has been propelled by the acquiescence—and in some instances, the active support—of Iraq's Sunni minority and tribal leaders, who have accused the government of marginalizing them.

      A senior adviser to Iran's Foreign Ministry said that Tehran has erred in its regional policies and gone too far in its unconditional support of governments in Iraq and Syria.
      The adviser said, however, that the help given to Sunni groups in both countries by rival countries such as Saudi Arabia—and Iran's need to counter it—was partly responsible for Tehran's predicament.

      "If there is a policy shift in the region, both sides [Iran and Saudi Arabia] should be committed to it," said the adviser.
      How to deal with the emergency in Iraq tops the Iranian government's agenda and its internal debates, said Mohamad Hussein Afsari, who sits on parliament's national-security committee.
      Mr. Afsari and some other policy makers argue that Mr. Assad's re-election last month—viewed by his opponents as a sham—and recent overtures by the Obama administration to discuss Iraq's security issues with Tehran are a vindication of Iranian policy in the region.

      "My impression is that Iran's strategy succeeded. We supported countries allied with us to ensure our interests, as we should, and will continue to do so," Sadegh Kharazi, a veteran policy maker and former diplomat, said in a telephone interview from Tehran.
      There were no signs that the wisdom of Iran's policy in Iraq and Syria was an issue with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who organized a pro-Iraqi government rally on Tuesday in Tehran's Imam Hussein Square.

      A video posted on Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Guards, showed thousands of men and women packed the plaza waving giant green-and-red flags emblazoned with the words "labeik ya Hussein," which proclaim the willingness to fight and serve Imam Hussein, the revered Shiite saint buried in Karbala, Iraq.Several men are pictured filling out printed forms, a hint that they were volunteering to go and fight in Iraq.
      "We are ready to fight whenever the supreme leader orders," said a man in military fatigues, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

      In the video, an Arabic broadcast of a speech winds up the crowd by comparing ISIS fighters to the killers of the founder of Shiite Islam, Imam Ali, and his sons, Imams Hassan and Hussein.
      Iranian officials and clerics attended the event, where the keynote speaker was Saeed Jalili, the former nuclear negotiator and presidential candidate.

      Mr. Khamenei recently appointed Mr. Jalili to the Foreign Relations Strategic Council, formed in 2006 to find and facilitate new foreign policies.

      The move, along with a few other appointments of ultra-conservatives to the Council, suggested that Mr. Khamenei—who has the last word on all state matters, including key foreign policy—is likely hardening his position not changing course.

      Comment


      • #18
        It looks like Maqtada Al Sadr wants to bring back Chalabi which is ironic because he is a CIA asset.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/wo...shed-past.html

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by khushal View Post
          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.
          Khushal, I agree with the part, "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 I absolutely don't agree when you say "the Pashtuns are capable of taking back all of Afghanistan without US interference". Why on earth would Pashtuns want to take all of Afg ? Isn't it hegemonic and chauvinistic?

          Pashtun should take what belong to them, i.e., the areas where they are in majority and should live in harmony with others.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Toramana View Post
            Khushal, I agree with the part, "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 I absolutely don't agree when you say "the Pashtuns are capable of taking back all of Afghanistan without US interference". Why on earth would Pashtuns want to take all of Afg ? Isn't it hegemonic and chauvinistic?

            Pashtun should take what belong to them, i.e., the areas where they are in majority and should live in harmony with others.

            Because the nation states of Pakistan, Afghanistan and others are designed that way. They are not designed to live in harmony. Pashtuns are supposed to rule Afghanistan and Punjab is supposed to rule Pakistan and the other ethnic groups are supposed to be submissive to the dominant ones. If the dominant group "lakay wa kee" rebels against the master(West), then the master can use the submissive groups against the dominant group easier than pushing a button. The current borders are designed to prevent harmony. You wont see long term harmony nor progress unless the borders are redrawn.

            Punjab cooperated with her master and Pashtuns in Afghanistan did not, who is suffering today.

            Comment


            • #21
              The unwillingness of the US not doing anything about ISIS tells us that the partition of Iraq is approved by the imperial powers. Even Turkey has consented to it:
              http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/07/...l?sp=/100/105/

              Most of the oil in Iraq are in the south around Basra and north in kurd territory, the plan is to create small tiny emirates or states with huge oil reserves that depend on US security. The change off would be oil for security like the way Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar/UAE have been created. US policy makers are brutal but brilliant in a self serving way.
              Last edited by khushal; 07-02-2014, 02:04 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                That other article someone posted here (I forgot the thread), the one which remarked about how folk from the Middle East seem to have no general goal except rage/spite against enemies (the west) was truly spot on and seems to also apply to our region. To the guys who are denouncing the partition of "Iraq" -whose borders were drawn by the British in the first place - what exactly is your solution to the sectarian problems of Iraq then? Please furnish something other than age old notions of unity based on dialogue, religion etc that has proven again and again to be recipes of idealistic failure. The Kurds have seen enough misery in that region and have every right to self determination, I thought you as Pashtuns who have a similar situation in Pakistan would have sympathized.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Are you talking to me? Every ethnic group and region have a right to self determination. But if its western made, then self determination is an illusion if we consider the historical pattern.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I was talking about people in this thread in general not you in particular and no, the western historical pattern was to draw up virtually arbitrary borders without any regard to the will of the peoples of the region (who mostly never had a say in it). The Kurds have been rebelling against the Iraqi state since nearly its creation, always to be brutally suppressed, even with an incident of genocide (the Al-Anfal campaign). If you support "Iraq" against the Kurds then I don't see why you are against the state of Pakistan, to be honest.
                    I am usually a non-interventionist but in these special circumstances, ones which will involve mass referendums, I do not mind it. Khushal, if the ISIS were to conquer the entire region, and conduct another mass suppression of the Kurds in the process, would that seem like natural social evolution to you? If so then perhaps Pakistan's suppression of its tribal Pashtun population is also simply the natural order.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Herat View Post
                      I was talking about people in this thread in general not you in particular and no, the western historical pattern was to draw up virtually arbitrary borders without any regard to the will of the peoples of the region (who mostly never had a say in it). The Kurds have been rebelling against the Iraqi state since nearly its creation, always to be brutally suppressed, even with an incident of genocide (the Al-Anfal campaign). If you support "Iraq" against the Kurds then I don't see why you are against the state of Pakistan, to be honest.
                      I am usually a non-interventionist but in these special circumstances, ones which will involve mass referendums, I do not mind it. Khushal, if the ISIS were to conquer the entire region, and conduct another mass suppression of the Kurds in the process, would that seem like natural social evolution to you? If so then perhaps Pakistan's suppression of its tribal Pashtun population is also simply the natural order.
                      The rise of ISIS is more a reaction to malikis policies. Their onslaught is targeted at Shias, they have left the north alone and most analysts say they can not and will not take on the kurds.
                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...sis-heres-why/

                      Most Sunni tribes that have made an alliance with ISIS have done so because in their opinion, they are better than Malaki. With Maliki and his Shia centric policies gone, it is doubtful that ISIS would have the influence it has at the moment.
                      Even when US forces were present years back, ISIS predecessor AQ in Iraq, had huge influence in the West, but they disappeared as the tribes turned against them.

                      Pakistans suppression of its tribal Pashtun people has more to do with their own KP Pashtun brethren lack of sympathy for them. The misery they are facing blame falls on KP Pashtuns. The natural order would be for their brethren to protect them and they have the full capacity to do so. PTI was elected in KP on the platform that they wanted to withdraw from the US war on terror and make peace with the tribal people. That platform is the natural order because it was the wish of the people but the pak military has vetoed the wish of the people. The pak military has put Western corporations interests before their own peoples interests.
                      Last edited by khushal; 07-02-2014, 04:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by khushal View Post
                        The rise of ISIS is more a reaction to malikis policies. Their onslaught is targeted at Shias, they have left the north alone and most analysts say they can not and will not take on the kurds.
                        http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...sis-heres-why/

                        Most Sunni tribes that have made an alliance with ISIS have done so because in their opinion, they are better than Malaki. With Maliki and his Shia centric policies gone, it is doubtful that ISIS would have the influence it has at the moment.
                        Even when US forces were present years back, ISIS predecessor AQ in Iraq, had huge influence in the West, but they disappeared as the tribes turned against them.

                        Pakistans suppression of its tribal Pashtun people has more to do with their own KP Pashtun brethren lack of sympathy for them. The misery they are facing blame falls on KP Pashtuns. The natural order would be for their brethren to protect them and they have the full capacity to do so. PTI was elected in KP on the platform that they wanted to withdraw from the US war on terror and make peace with the tribal people. That platform is the natural order because it was the wish of the people but the pak military has vetoed the wish of the people. The pak military has put Western corporations interests before their own peoples interests.

                        Khushal wroora!!

                        What do you stand in the matter with "ISIS" that is funded and supported by US, UK, NATO, EU, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi + Israel. And Maliki, who is supported by Iran, Syria, Russia.

                        This is harsh generalization, but this is how it is today.

                        And please, don't come with religion and politics. specially false faith like wahabism.
                        To Paradise, with Pakhto, I will go.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by khushal View Post
                          The rise of ISIS is more a reaction to malikis policies. Their onslaught is targeted at Shias, they have left the north alone and most analysts say they can not and will not take on the kurds.
                          http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...sis-heres-why/

                          Most Sunni tribes that have made an alliance with ISIS have done so because in their opinion, they are better than Malaki. With Maliki and his Shia centric policies gone, it is doubtful that ISIS would have the influence it has at the moment.
                          Even when US forces were present years back, ISIS predecessor AQ in Iraq, had huge influence in the West, but they disappeared as the tribes turned against them.

                          Pakistans suppression of its tribal Pashtun people has more to do with their own KP Pashtun brethren lack of sympathy for them. The misery they are facing blame falls on KP Pashtuns. The natural order would be for their brethren to protect them and they have the full capacity to do so. PTI was elected in KP on the platform that they wanted to withdraw from the US war on terror and make peace with the tribal people. That platform is the natural order because it was the wish of the people but the pak military has vetoed the wish of the people. The pak military has put Western corporations interests before their own peoples interests.
                          I am aware of that, that is why I did not particularly comment on the Iraqi Shiites. Nevertheless, the Kurds will probably attempt to gain their independence, if they are suppressed again by the Arabs, what will you say then?
                          Look I know that much of this mess does indeed go back to the imperial powers drawing arbitrary borders but Khushal, you seem to think that everything will magically solve itself and everyone will live happily ever after if only the west were to stay out of it. Was the west responsible for that piece of filth Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaign against the Kurds?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Herat View Post
                            I am aware of that, that is why I did not particularly comment on the Iraqi Shiites. Nevertheless, the Kurds will probably attempt to gain their independence, if they are suppressed again by the Arabs, what will you say then?
                            Look I know that much of this mess does indeed go back to the imperial powers drawing arbitrary borders but Khushal, you seem to think that everything will magically solve itself and everyone will live happily ever after if only the west were to stay out of it. Was the west responsible for that piece of filth Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaign against the Kurds?
                            First of all the Kurds were suppressed because of British and French policy because it was them that did not cooperate with the Brits against the Ottomans. They were punished and divided between 5 countries. Sayh Said revolted against Ataturk because of his abolition of Shariah and because of that revolt, they were suppressed by the Turks.
                            Kurds and Turks get along and so do Kurds and Arabs, they just don't get along with the nationalists who try to suppress their culture and language and try to dominate them.
                            Erdagon who is not a nationalist, have given many freedoms to the Kurds they have never seen since the Ottomans days and for the first time it is them that is going to choose the next leader in Turkey.

                            Yes the West was responsible for the Saddams atrocities against the Kurds for the reason I mentioned above for punishing them for non cooperation and also this:
                            http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran

                            also this:
                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...tech091790.htm

                            Everything that is happening in the middle east is the wests fault for western corporations interests. The over throw of the Iranian regime and installing the Shah and arming him to the teeth. When the mullahs took over, arming saddam to the teeth to weaken the mullahs because they now had acquired those arms.
                            Installing bases in Saudi Arabia to weaken Saddam killing millions of Iraqis in the process and creating a reaction in the form of AQ.

                            Extremenizing Pashtuns in the refugee camps to fight the Soviets:
                            http://emperors-clothes.com/news/abc.htm

                            you tell me what is not the wests corps. fault.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Loy Afghanistan View Post
                              Khushal wroora!!

                              What do you stand in the matter with "ISIS" that is funded and supported by US, UK, NATO, EU, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi + Israel. And Maliki, who is supported by Iran, Syria, Russia.

                              This is harsh generalization, but this is how it is today.

                              And please, don't come with religion and politics. specially false faith like wahabism.
                              Its about regional interests. Whoever is trying to depose Asad will be supported by those that want Asad deposed and that includes Saudi+NATO.
                              If those same people move and try to depose Maliki in Iraq, in this case they will be supported by Saudis and Jordan but not NATO. Now if those same people move again and try to depose the King in Jordan or the Saudis, then they will be supported by Iran but neither NATO nor Saudi.

                              So it depends on where the interests lie. No one really cares about the ideology of ISIS but who they can cause havoc to. The Saudi have moved troops to the Iraq border just in case the turmoil spills over but as long as they threaten Maliki, they will continue to support them.

                              Its just like the Taliban, The TTP has sanctuary on Afghan land because they cause havoc to Pakis and the afghan Taliban have sanctuary on Paki land because they cause havoc to the Afghan gov.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                1.What a joke this thread is!!! In the first place, it is the Americans who promoted this insurgency.And it is again the Americans who covertly and overtly encourage and support all parties - Shia+Iran, Kurds, Sunni+Arabs and some minor ones.

                                2. New Cons and International Money Peddlers will be wiped off if the world were without conflicts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X