Iraq falls apart
Recent gains by ISIL (or IS=Islamic State) have led to the de facto partitioning of Iraq. IS has made stunning headway in Sunni areas. The ease and rapidity of its gains mirror rejection of the central government. Collaborators essentially turned over Mosul and other cities to the insurgents. Maliki's forces were worse than pathetic. Fleeing without a fight, they abandoned vast quantities of arms to their enemies. Government troops are attempting to retake areas lost to IS, starting with Tikrit, but a recent setback suggests they won't succeed. Inasmuch as the shiites might at least hold Baghdad, and other areas, the splitting of Iraq along sectarian lines could be lasting.
Taking advantage of government weakness, Kurdish forces have taken Kirkuk, and seek to establish an independent state of their own. For all practical purposes, the once united Iraq of Saddam has given way to three separate regions, one controlled by an offshoot of al-Qaida.
As many Americans have at last realized, the US crusade in Iraq was a terrible mistake. As I tried to tell people before the 2003 invasion, democratizing Iraq was futile. To stay together, it needs someone like Saddam. The dismal morale of US equipped and trained forces in the face of indigenous movements attests to the degree to which American ideas were out of their depth.
It's hard to see how this present mess will be resolved. Many Shiites are now clamoring for Maliki to go, so a new leadership can induce the sunnis to rejoin Iraq. But it may be too late. With all its new recruits, hardware and cash, IS won't just go away. One possibility is a permanent breakup, with IS establishing its own state while the shiite areas come under Iranian control. But if Maliki stays, angering those who want him out (or if there is a power struggle among his allies following his ouster) the shiites may be weakened by internal discord. Under such circumstances, IS might ultimately take all of Iraq. Perhaps the leader of IS, Baghdadi, will be the new Saddam Iraq needs. IS might then overrun Syria, erasing the old Sykes-Picot boundary to forge a regional superpower. But that seems highly unlikely given all the efforts by the international community to contain or beat IS.
posted by starman at 7:55 AM
7 Comments:
I knew that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a blunder. Many Americans were convinced that it was a "war on terror" and a fight to "defend America's freedom". Those ridiculous ideas have now been refuted. I am not sure how the present dilemma in Iraq can be resolved. The Kurds have long sought independence. At this point, they have a chance to get it. However, a fight between them and ISIS is a distinct possibility.
I agree with most of what you say (both Tim and Neal) and by now even Hillary and Glen Beck have admitted that they were wrong to have supported Bush's war on Iraq. But I would add this, because I am trying to figure out some progressive hope for the future, that to achieve greatness and broad prosperity for the Islamic world, their nations need to unite, and it may yet be that IS could form the nucleus for that. Wishful thinking but might happen!
Great comments guys. I just heard that Maliki so far has resisted efforts to get him to step down, and that might lead to internal shiite discord, exploited by IS.
I just read that Putin has delivered 5 fighter-jets to Maliki for attacking the IS, I was surprised and disappointed
Yes, Russia sent five secondhand SU-25s. I think they're like the SU-24, an old jet designed primarily for ground attack. But I doubt five SU-25s will be decisive. With all its cash, IS could probably buy antiaircraft missiles, especially shoulder fired types.
It will be interesting to see if Iran plays a major role. Iran is a predominantly Shiite country. It is in favor of the Iraqi Shiites. If Iran makes a big intervention, the U.S. could improve relations with Iran by supporting it.
IS has just made additional advances, near Irbil. Ostensibly to protect US personnel, Obama has authorized airstrikes.
Post a Comment
<< Home