2013 March 24 Sunday
John Kerry Mad At Iraq For Supporting Bashar al-Assad

Um, why is it bad for the Iraqis to aid the non-Sunnis in Syria?

BAGHDAD Iraq is helping to shore up the besieged regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by allowing Iranian arms and fighters to cross into Syria from Iraq, Secretary of State John F. Kerry charged Sunday.

Charged? As in an accusation that the Iraqis are engaged in bad behavior? Iraq is ruled by an elected democracy. Doesn't that make it good according to America's secular religion? (he says, sarcastically)

Another report from the Washington Post is entitled Islamic law comes to rebel-held Syria. Why have the Bush and Obama administrations take such strong stances in favor of Islamic fundamentalists? Why does the US favor an opposition that is increasingly dominated by the al-Nusra Front, which is labeled by the Washington DC government as a terrorist group due to its ties to al-Qaeda?

Maybe Obama sees Bush's Iraq war as a mistake because the US invasion of Iraq has brought to power a Shiite-Islamist government which is allied with Iran. Now the US wants to come down on the side of the Sunnis since there are more Sunnis, or some such muddled thinking.

But Iraq is on the other side of the equation. After the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, a Shiite-Islamist government came to power in the country, with better current relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran than with the US. With Iran backing Mr. Assad, and the likelihood of Sunni Islamists coming to power if Assad falls, Iraq's interests and America's are sharply divergent.

If a democratically elected Sunni fundamentalist government comes to power in Syria the Shiites, Alawites, Christians, and Druze are screwed.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 March 24 07:16 PM 


Comments
Black Death said at March 25, 2013 5:58 AM:

The Chinese and Russians seem to regard US foreign policy as driven by a cabal of brilliant hegemonists, but from this side it looks more like a comedy of errors. Let's see - ten years ago Iran had two mortal enemies - Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Iraqi regime and the Taliban. Well, the US took care of both of them, so now the Iranians are feeling less threatened and are starting to stir things up in their ugly corner of the world. Whoda thunk it? Obviously Bush II (and Obama) expected the birth of a vibrant Iraqi democracy to persuade the Iranians to embrace Jeffersonian principles themselves. What went wrong? How could the neocons have messed up? If Bush had had any smarts, he would have strengthened Saddam and the Taliban and turned them loose on Iran - they wouldn't have needed much persuasion. That would really have caused the mullahs in Tehran to start pooping in their turbans. But nooooo. Now we may have a Shiite super state composed of Iran, Iraq and Syria (if Assad survives). What's the next stop? Lebanon? The Gulf sheikdoms? Even Saudi Arabia? Stay tuned.

AMac said at March 25, 2013 5:04 PM:

> Why does the US favor an opposition that is increasingly dominated by the al-Nusra Front, which is labeled by the Washington DC government as a terrorist group due to its ties to al-Qaeda?

As far as I can tell, al-Qaeda is organized like the McDonald's corporation -- where some restaurants are owned by HQ, while others are franchises whose owners subscribe to the same ideas as the parent company. In this regard, the al-Nusra Front has won (or earned) the al-Qaeda contract for Syria.

One wouldn't think that this concept is too abstract for the U.S. and Western politicians, academics, and journalists to grasp. But apparently it is.

Actual military and political analysis is available from Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal. One can then supplement this information with pleasing amounts of wishful thinking from a variety of elite media outlets. If one's tastes run to dark humor, I suggest listening to the State Department's clueless spokesgirl Victoria Nuland during her regular press briefings.

Sam said at March 25, 2013 7:50 PM:

Madness. I generally think it's Israel driving all this. I can't be sure. I don't believe they will get what they want out of it though. Seems they believe disarray all around them will allow them to control each small group. What if they're wrong? Big gamble. They have no margin for error.

Just Chillin said at March 28, 2013 12:04 PM:

The worse thing is that the rest of the world seem to be supporting all those we call dictators, so John Kerry should prepeare to be mad for a while.

The sad thing is that some of them REALLY are dictators, but other countries are supporting them not because they like them so much, but because they believe they are less dangerous than the U.S. of A. Sure, they dislike those dictators, but they dislike them less than they dislike America's foreign policy.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright