After Mosul (Fred Kaplan) from Slate
"One problem always was, and still is, that Maliki had no interest in conciliatory politics on a national level. And that’s why he’s now facing a monumental, even terrifying armed insurgency. His troops in Nineveh province simply folded when they came under attack, not because they weren’t equipped or trained to fight back but because, in many cases, they felt no allegiance to Maliki’s government ..."
Reader Keith comments: There is one thing you can be absolutely certain about when it comes to Iraq. The United States will continue to shovel tens of billions of dollars down this rat hole. If you figured in the cost of our oil wars from Yom Kippur 1973 to the present, a realistic price for a gallon of gas would probably be north of $100.
My response: I completely agree -- and so long as it is just money, I can be with that. For the neo-con dullards who learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq/Afghanistan nightmares, more "action" is needed. Action to accomplish what? To save this widely discredited government that is tottering after ten years of US training and hundreds of billions in cash. Prediction: massive air retaliation (which Obama suggests that we are not doing) will only defer al-Malaki's day of reckoning. Al-Malaki's only hope is massive numbers of US boots on the ground -- and Obama doesn't need to say anything there - that is NOT happening. As many commentators have noted, what is happening in Iraq (and in Syria) is a war between the Sunnis and the Shias as Islam grapples with which sect will dominate the region and be the force that confronts the dislocations caused by western modernization. While I appreciate that the US has a stake in maintaining stability in the region, I simply do not believe, for all our military force, it will have anything but a negative impact on what's already going on. This matchup will not be put off. I feel bad for the people in the region -- but the US does not have a dog in the hunt over which branch of Islam is going to triumph here.
One other note: be wary of those who declare that the "rebels" are an army-sized version of Al Qaida in Iraq. The ONLY reason Al Qaida in Iraq (AQIR) existed in the first place was because the US was in Iraq. With little or no US presence, these folks become just another version of the Taliban -- in other words, VERY conservative Islamists whose focus is on waging war in Iraq, not conducting terrorist acts against the US or anyone else. Deeply conservative Islamists CANNOT be locked out of governing in Iraq -- which is what Al-Malaki did in the face of US admonitions against it. Al-Malaki chose to ignore us, so what now? Are we going to salvage his regime? I don't think we should do it -- and I'm dubious that we can even if we wanted to.
3 comments:
There is one thing you can be absolutely certain about when it comes to Iraq. The United States will continue to shovel tens of billions of dollars down this rat hole. If you figured in the cost of our oil wars from Yom Kippur 1973 to the present, a realistic price for a gallon of gas would probably be north of $100.
I completely agree -- and so long as it is just money, I can be with that. For the dullards who learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq/Afghanistan nightmares, more "action" is needed. Action to accomplish what? To save this widely discredited government that is tottering after ten years of US training and hundreds of billions in cash. Prediction, massive air retaliation (which Obama suggests that we are not doing) will only defer al-Malaki's day of reckoning. Al-Malaki's only hope is massive numbers of US boots on the ground -- and Obama doesn't need to say anything there - that is NOT happening. As many commentators have noted, what is happening in Iraq (and in Syria) is a war between the Sunnis and the Shias as Islam grapples with which sect will dominate the region and be the force that confronts the dislocations caused by western modernization. While I appreciate that the US has a stake in maintaining stability in the region, I simply do not believe, for all our military force, it will have anything but a negative impact on what's already going on. This matchup will not be put off. I feel bad for the people in the region -- but the US does not have a dog in the hunt over which branch of Islam is going to triumph here.
One other note: be wary of those who declare that the "rebels" are an army-sized version of Al Qaida in Iraq. The ONLY reason Al Qaida in Iraq (AQIR) existed in the first place was because the US was in Iraq. With little or no US presence, these folks become just another version of the Taliban -- in other words, VERY conservative Islamists whose focus is on waging war in Iraq, not conducting terrorist acts against the US or anyone else. Deeply conservative Islamists CANNOT be locked out of governing in Iraq -- which is what Al-Malaki did in the face of US admonitions against it. Al-Malaki chose to ignore us, so what now? Are we going to salvage his regime? I don't think we should do it -- and I'm dubious that we can even if we wanted to.
Post a Comment