2014 June 25 Wednesday
Our Allies Rally To Support Iraqi Shiites
A coalition of the willing has come together to help the peace-loving anti-terrorists who rule southern Iraq. First, I am sure you will all be happy to know that Assad's government in Syria launched air strikes against ISIS positions in Northern Iraq. Since Russia is allied with Syria that means that Russia is allied with the United States. Hurray Russia!
Who else is fighting on our side? Our old enemies the Badr Army are fighting in Baquba against ISIS. So the Badr Army is also allied with the United States. Bless George W. Bush for having the foresight to set in motion a series of events that brought us on the same side as Shia militia who are far less likely to retreat than is the Iraqi Army.
The Badr Army is close to Iran, another of our new allies. Iran modernized and is flying drones in Iraq to help our allies.
Who is the unsung hero of the US-Russian-Alawite-Shia alliance against Sunni Jihadists? Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Hurray commander! Baghdad might have fallen to the ISIF/ISIS years ago without his tireless work.
Since Iraqi soldiers have no loyalty to the state Iran has to step in and manage the return of Shia militias that have greater asabiyya.
“Iran is likely to be playing somewhat of an overarching command role within the central Iraqi military apparatus, with an emphasis on maintaining cohesiveness in Baghdad and the Shia south and managing the reconstitution of Shia militias,” said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.
Sadly I do not foresee Barack Obama thanking the Persians for reconstituting the Shia militias. As Quds works to put back together ethnically more cohesive and motivated fighting units they face ingratitude and indifference from American officials. Sorry Quds. I'll try to appeciate you guys even more to make up for the lack of appreciation in official circles in DC. Hey readers, take a moment out of your busy day to feel some gratitude toward Iranian Quds fighters trying to keep southern Iraq from being overrun,
Sadly, many people in Iran believe that the United States is a big ally of Sunni extremists. They see the US supporting the radical Wahhabi Muslim state of Saudi Arabia, once a big source of funds for Osama Bin Laden, and understandably think that supporters of the big funders of Wahhabi Islam must want Wahhabi Islam to spread.
Sadly the Iranians also figure that since the United States opposes Assad's government in Syria and since America's ally Saudi Arabia has supported Sunni warriors in Syria against Assad that surely the United States must want ISIS to spread.
Lucky for us our allies are willing to support the Shias in Iraq against ISIS holy warriors. So our unwillingness to attack ISIS in Syria or Iraq hasn't led to a collapse of the Shia Iraqi control in Baghdad. We should all be grateful to our allies for shouldering this burden while our infinitely wise leader in Washington DC takes the time to figure out a solution to this problem.
By Randall Parker at 2014 June 25 09:00 PM
Better analysis of the situation than all the paid hacks at all the "think tanks" combined. The utter failure of the Iraqi Army and the dramatic reorientation of who our real allies are (even if they aren't formally recognized) is a searing indictment of American elites. And these mad monsters would have us invading Syria and Iran, while aiming our rifles at Russia, our three, new best friends!
The goal of the US may not be to promote victory for one side or the other but rather to keep the war going as long as possible. In Syria, the US has supported the rebels, dominated by Sunni fanatics such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, against the Shia-friendly (and very brutal) Assad government. In Iraq recently, the ISIS forces have crushed the worthless Iraqi army, but now the tougher Shia militias and probably the Iranian Shias are getting involved. I think this suits Washington perfectly - a replay of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, in which about a million people died and both states were left considerably weakened. The US doesn't want ISIS to win, but it doesn't want them to lose either. Just keep the conflict going and let the howling fanatcs kill each other, which really shouldn't be that hard, since they all despise one another. Washington promotes polite talk about "democracy" in Iraq and replacing Maliki with a new prime minister who will create a multi-party government, but don't be fooled. These folks like nothing better than killing each other, and that suits the US right down to the ground.
Everyone gets a medal! You get a medal! You get a medal! Everyone gets a medal!
BTW, who actually believes ISIS exists? That's still an open question in my mind.
To the extent it doesn't exist, who is it who wants the lumpen proletariat to believe it does exist? What might be the motive of these people?
US foreign policy thinkers are too lame to be that subtle.
We've been really remiss in allowing Sunni Jihadists to capture so much territory. Fortunately the Mullahs in Teheran and Vladimir Putin in Moscow have behaved more responsibly by adding Assad against the Sunni Jihadists.
Its almost as if the policy is actually designed to destroy secular states...
Not sure. Are they really that dumb or do they just want us to believe they are? If the underlying US policy is to keep the Arabs (and the Iranians) fighting with each other and to prevent the emergence of a pan-Arab (or pan-islamic) movement, then it's been highly successful for the last 35 years or so. I'm not sure if this is the result of subtlety or just dumb luck.
Fools. Delusional fools. They write lots of stuff. You can find out what they think. No, they aren't in some clever secret cabal carrying out a master strategy. It is far more random and reactive.
We aren't competently governed.
They do not conceptualize it that way. They see democracy of the majority as the cure and have a hard time grasping that democracy is the enemy of secularism in the Middle East. This idea violates a core tenet of their faith. Our government put the majority in power in Baghdad and are unhappy with what that means. Maliki is not the problem. Maliki is the symptom. Maliki is the logical result of the Shia majority choosing a government for all of Iraq.
I once had a conversation with an Egyptian car owner about the refusal of Cairo drivers to adhere to a lane and the general aggressive driving to be found there. He explained that driving was an act of dominance - you either dominate other drivers or they dominate you.
That simple comment has stayed with me for years because it sums up the culture in that part of the world: Dominate or be dominated.