In an op-ed published yesterday (10/29) in The New York Times, the current Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, pleaded with the American people at large to be patient with its nascent enemy-turned-ally, the new Republic of Iraq as it continues along the path of development of ostensibly liberal political and economic institutions. His plea is impassioned and he understands the great majority of the American people feel a sense of responsibility, even if somewhat vague, for the fate of Iraq and its precarious future.
But the American people should be wary, especially considering the content of Mr. Maliki's requests. As an article published by The Times earlier this week noted, since US troops left Iraq almost 2 years ago, Maliki has worked tirelessly to consolidate power in his government and secure the loyalty of key military units. Furthermore, Maliki and his administration, who represent the Shi'a portion of Iraq's deeply divided, sectarian population, have marginalized Iraq's Sunni population and done little to deter atrocities committed against that sect.
It would appear that Maliki and his administration are preparing for a civil war in Iraq to determine how power will be shared between Sunni's, Shi'a's, and the basically autonomous Kurds in the country's north. Unfortunately, there is little the US can do besides invade Iraq for the third time to stop this conflict. What we definitely should not do is arm one side with highly advanced weapons, like F-16s. Too late. If Iraq truly descends into all-out civil war, Americans are not going to be happy to see their war planes used to kill the very same civilians its' soldiers died less than a decade ago to protect.
Whit,
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your point to not assist the new Iraqi Government with advanced military aid. Many Arab countries and Iraq in particular face the threat of sectarian violence due to the often uncompromising nature of Sunni/Shi'a relations. These problems are especially important after the Arab Spring which has served to further strain these already fragile relations. When it comes to the possibility of an Iraqi civil war, I do not believe there is much we can do to prevent it. Sunni/Shi'a and Kurd violence has been an issue for Iraq from before Saddam took power, through his reign, and during the US lead occupation. If the current Iraqi Government is not going to try and prevent the violence than no one is. The US will definitely not be getting involved in a third Iraq war and neither will our allies. All we can do is try our best to contain the violence to small scale fighting without the assistance of advanced weapons. However as we have seen in Syria, this strategy does not guaranty that a war will be any less destructive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this post provides us with astute and informed insight into the deteriorating situation in Iraq and I must agree with him as well as Matt that continuing to arm either side with advanced weaponry is absurd. Several influential senators have argued for caution when approaching Iraq, observing that since Maliki's ascent to power violence and instability in the country has increased. This year alone, 7,500 have been killed due to sectoral fighting in Iraq alone. This situation reminds me eerily of the U.S. support for Al Qaeda in the 80's during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. If the Iraqis want to kill each other and have their own little civil war, that is tragic but the United States should stay out of it and avoid ANY support of either side that could reflect poorly on us in the future.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post. I agree with Thomas and Matthew that intervening in Iraq or providing military assistance to the Iraqi government, would be unnecessary. As the time goes by, and as we observe more and more civil wars, one might wonder whether it matters intervening. Realists would argue that intervention is justified when your benefits are higher than costs. On the other hand non-intervention is also justified when your costs are higher than the benefits. But, what about the moral dilemma? The moral responsibility to save human lives? In Iraqi, Syrian or any other civil war case, I believe that states should be held responsible for their actions.
ReplyDelete