Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Irak
#21

Good intro video:

The battle between Islam's two major branches began over 1400 years ago when the Islamic prophet Mohammad died and the two sides clashed over who should succeed him. This centuries old 'war' is once again threatening Iraq's (and indeed the Middle East - and thus the world's) stability. The Washington Post's senior national security correspondent Karen DeYoung explains in 100 seconds just how we got here...

The Sunni-Shiite Divide Explained In 100 Seconds | Zero Hedge

Reply

#22

Interesting take, this:

In terms of oil, the important development is not ISIS’s gains, but the consequent Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk, where northern Iraq’s main oil fields sprawl. The Kurds had long aimed to become oil-thirsty Turkey’s suppliers. The problem was the government in Baghdad. Now ISIS, in its stupidity, has effectively helped its Kurdish enemies consolidate economically, and for good measure, have also stormed the Turkish consulate in Mosul. The Kurds’ takeover of the northern oil is likely to be emulated in the south by the Shiites, for whom the fields near Iran, from Rumaylah to Abu Ghraib, will be an economic bloodline as they confront the Sunni challenge they face. Ultimately, Iraq’s current turmoil can actually improve oil production, placing it in sectarian hands that will benefit most from its recovery, and secure it better than any foreign rule.

Iraq’s unraveling would be good for oil - Amotz Asa-El's View from Jerusalem - MarketWatch

Reply

#23

Sensible words from Tom Friedman:


There is much talk right now about America teaming up with Iran to push back the coalition of Sunni militias that has taken over Mosul and other Sunni towns in western Iraq and Syria. For now, I’d say stay out of this fight — not because it’s the best option, but because it’s the least bad.

After all, what is the context in which we’d be intervening? Iraq and Syria are twins: multiethnic and multisectarian societies that have been governed, like other Arab states, from the top-down. First, it was by soft-fisted Ottomans who ruled through local notables in a decentralized fashion, then by iron-fisted British and French colonial powers and later by iron-fisted nationalist kings and dictators.

Today, the Ottomans are gone, the British and French are gone and now many of the kings and dictators are gone. We removed Iraq’s dictator; NATO and tribal rebels removed Libya’s; the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen got rid of theirs; and some people in Syria have tried to topple theirs. Each country is now faced with the challenge of trying to govern itself horizontally by having the different sects, parties and tribes agree on social contracts for how to live together as equal citizens who rotate power.

Tunisia and Kurdistan have done the best at this transition. Egyptians tried and found the insecurity so unbearable that they brought back the army’s iron fist. Libya has collapsed into intertribal conflict. Yemen struggles with a wobbly tribal balance. In Syria, the Shiite/Alawite minority, plus the Christians and some Sunnis, seem to prefer the tyranny of Bashar al-Assad to the anarchy of the Islamist-dominated rebels; the Syrian Kurds have carved out their own enclave, so the country is now a checkerboard.

In Iraq, the Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki — who had the best chance, the most oil money and the most help from the U.S. in writing a social contract for how to govern Iraq horizontally — chose instead, from the moment the Americans left, to empower Iraqi Shiites and disempower Iraqi Sunnis. It’s no surprise that Iraqi Sunnis decided to grab their own sectarian chunk of the country.

So today, it seems, a unified Iraq and a unified Syria can no longer be governed vertically or horizontally. The leaders no longer have the power to extend their iron fists to every border, and the people no longer have the trust to extend their hands to one another. It would appear that the only way they can remain united is if an international force comes in, evicts the dictators, uproots the extremists and builds consensual politics from the ground up — a generational project for which there are no volunteers.

What to do? It was not wrong to believe post-9/11 that unless this region produced decent self-government it would continue to fail its own people and deny them the ability to realize their full potential, which is why the Arab Spring happened, and that its pathologies would also continue to spew out the occasional maniac, like Osama bin Laden, who could threaten us.

But the necessary turned out to be impossible: We didn’t know what we were doing. The post-Saddam generation of Iraqi leaders turned out to be like abused children who went on to be abusive parents. The Iranians constantly encouraged Shiite supremacy and frustrated our efforts to build pluralism. Mosques and charities in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Qatar continued to fund preachers and fighters who promoted the worst Sunni extremism. And thousands of Muslim men marched to Syria and Iraq to fight for jihadism, but none marched there to fight for pluralism.

I could say that before President Obama drops even an empty Coke can from a U.S. fighter jet on the Sunni militias in Iraq we need to insist that Maliki resign and a national unity cabinet be created that is made up of inclusive Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. I could say that that is the necessary condition for reunification of Iraq. And I could say that it is absolutely not in our interest or the world’s to see Iraq break apart and one segment be ruled by murderous Sunni militias.

But I have to say this: It feels both too late and too early to stop the disintegration — too late because whatever trust there was between communities is gone, and Maliki is not trying to rebuild it, and too early because it looks as if Iraqis are going to have to live apart, and see how crazy and impoverishing that is, before the different sects can coexist peacefully.

In the meantime, there is no denying that terrorism could be exported our way from Iraq’s new, radicalized “Sunnistan.” But we have a National Security Agency, C.I.A. and drones to deal with that now ever-present threat.

Pluralism came to Europe only after many centuries of one side or another in religious wars thinking it could have it all, and after much ethnic cleansing created more homogeneous nations. Europe also went through the Enlightenment and the Reformation. Arab Muslims need to go on the same journey. It will happen when they want to or when they have exhausted all other options. Meanwhile, let’s strengthen the islands of decency — Tunisia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Kurdistan — and strengthen our own democracy to insulate ourselves as best we can.

Reply

#24
It seems to me a hydrocarbon poor Sunistan would be quite easy to monitor and control and subject to the diplomatic pressures of their fellow Sunni states. Their access to technology would be limited and their leadership highly exposed should they misbehave. I'm for splitting Iraq into three. The British plan of a half century ago didn't work. They should be allowed to move forward with established borders and learn how to live with their new neighbors.
Reply

#25

'ArtM72' pid='45274' datel Wrote:It seems to me a hydrocarbon poor Sunistan would be quite easy to monitor and control and subject to the diplomatic pressures of their fellow Sunni states. Their access to technology would be limited and their leadership highly exposed should they misbehave. I'm for splitting Iraq into three. The British plan of a half century ago didn't work. They should be allowed to move forward with established borders and learn how to live with their new neighbors.

They have some limited oil income from Syria (and of course the bounty from Mosul's banks and whatever they get from rich Saudi's or Qatari's), but whether that is enough for a viable state.. I doubt it.

Reply

#26
To create a broad-based Iraqi government that can fight the brutal insurgency led by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the United States and its allies need to quickly gain the support of Iraq’s Sunni tribal leaders. I met with several of them in Amman two months ago, and it was clear that, although frightened of ISIS’s power, they were using it to attack Maliki. This Sunni opportunism can be reversed. The tribal leaders told me they want U.S. help, and they should get it.

Obama’s tough choices in Iraq - The Washington Post

Reply

#27
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Congressional leaders left the White House on Wednesday “deeply frustrated” that President Obama had not found a swift resolution to the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that began in the seventh century A.D.

After meeting for more than an hour with the President in the Oval Office, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed disappointment that Mr. Obama “came up empty” when asked for a plan to heal the rift between the two religious groups, which began in the year 632.

“All we ask of this President is that he do one thing: settle a religious conflict that has been going on for a millennium and a half,” McConnell said. “What did he offer today? Nothing.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner acknowledged that there was a possibility that Obama might find a way to resolve the centuries-old Sunni-Shiite conflict, but the Ohio Republican was not optimistic.

“This struggle between Sunnis and Shiites has been going on for almost fifteen hundred years,” he said. “That means President Obama has had ample time to fix it.”


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/pressure-on-obama-to-quickly-resolve-centuries-old-sunni-shiite-conflict.html?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=borowitz&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(85)
Reply

#28

That was funny, Art. Now we have this, the highest spiritual Shia leader effectively calling for Maliki to go:

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's comments at Friday prayers contained thinly veiled criticism that Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in office since 2006, was to blame for the nation's crisis over the blitz by Sunni insurgents led by an al-Qaeda splinter group that seeks to create a new state spanning parts of Iraq and Syria and ruled by its strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Top Shia cleric Ali al-Sistani calls for new government in Iraq - World - CBC News

Reply

#29
Ever wonder why our military adventures never seem to work out as planned?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international...ia/373221/
Reply

#30

'Thylacine-2' pid='45882' datel Wrote:Ever wonder why our military adventures never seem to work out as planned? http://www.theatlantic.com/international...ia/373221/

Terrific article thanks. I was just reading an article in a Dutch paper from a post-doc student working with people from India, Pakistan, China, Russia all highly educated and living in the West already for quite some time. But those Indians and Pakistani still expected to marry someone chosen by their parents, someone they might have seen only once (or not at all, as also happened). The Chinese didn't convert into dissidents but defended the Chinese president when his security service shielded him from Tibet protesters, and the Russians really didn't understand why she was definding Pussy Riot.

Even highly educated people have great trouble escaping the weight of history, institutions and culture of the place they grew up. Why are we even so surprised at this?

So how can we even think we can enter nations, often with a longer history than us, and 'sort them out,' even if, as I believe, is often with the best intentions.

The analysis of the neo-cons was correct, lack of democracy, accountability, transparency and injustice often produces low growth, despair and even terrorism. But to think that sending in an army can sort that out, well, I think only Japan could possibly be considered as a successful example.

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)