IRAQ is disintegrating before our very eyes. PM maliki has brought this crisis on the nation through his political corruption, prejudice and discrimination. If Iraq had a democratic government and if Iraq's oil revenues had been used to improve the lives of all Iraqi citizens through economic development, education, job training and other government programs isis would have never achieved the military gains they have because the people would have had no reason to support them. The Iraqi Army would have been motivated to fight isis from the start because they would have had a nation worth fighting for. maliki has destroyed any chance of keeping Iraq united. The United States has spent enough of our military's blood and wasted enough tax dollars and is still paying the debt for our illegal and immoral Iraq war physically, morally and financially (thanks war criminals george w bush, dick cheney and the rest of your neo-con, neo-nazi administration). We must not get involved in Iraq again. No airstrikes, no shipments of weapons and ammo, and no asylum for any of the current Iraqi government officials. We do not need to become involved in another Iraq war. Tell your Senators and Representative and Pres Obama to stay out of this one and to concentrate on caring for our Iraqi (and all vets), not corrupt Iraqi Government officials. From +PBS NewsHour
Should U.S. wait for political progress in Iraq before making a military intervention?
President
Obama said that he will not put U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, but
he is weighing other military options. He also pointed to problems
within the Iraqi government and security forces. Judy Woodruff gets
views on whether the U.S. should act in Iraq from Zalmay Khalilzad,
former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor and
retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor.
TRANSCRIPT
JUDY WOODRUFF: We take a closer look now at the military and the political options on the table.Zalmay Khalilzad was U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the George W. Bush administration and was an advocate for invading that country in the first place. He now has his own consulting firm. Retired Army Colonel Peter Mansoor was the executive officer to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, during the surge in 2007 and 2008. He also commanded an Army brigade in Iraq during early days of the war. He’s now an associate professor of military history at the Ohio State University. And retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor led Army forces when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 1991. He’s the author of a number of books about the military. And he has his own consulting company.
What do you make of President Obama’s comments today that, yes, he is considering military action, but that appears that it’s going to be — if it happens, it’s contingent on Prime Minister Maliki making some serious political reforms?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD, Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq: I think the president’s objectives are exactly right.
This problem will not be resolved in a lasting way unless, besides military support by the United States and military efforts on the ground by others, Iraqis largely, it’s coupled with a political deal involving Iraqi communities.
And the situation has changed drastically after Mosul. Now not only there is a Sunni-Shia issue that has to be dealt with. That’s region-wide, but particularly focused on Iraq. The Kurds are also in a different place than they were before Mosul, so there’s a need for a new political compact among the Iraqis.
And I think the trick is for the president, how do you sequence U.S. military action with the political deal? Do you wait until a political deal is made or do you do some things while you also work on the political deal?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you see — Colonel Mansoor, do you see the president’s approach as one that you support, that makes sense to you?
COL. PETER MANSOOR (RET.), U.S. Army: I think it’s right on the mark, what I heard in that clip. You have got to get the politics and the policy right. And once you have an inclusive Iraqi government that doesn’t marginalize and alienate large segments of the population, then we can support them with military force, which we’re very good at doing.
But until it’s a government worth supporting, I don’t think we should support it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you mean?
COL. PETER MANSOOR: Well, if were to conduct airstrikes, for instance, and other actions in the current situation, we would simply be backing the Maliki government and taking sides in what’s shaping up to be a very bloody and brutal civil war.
If — the only way that we should get involved is if Iraq has a government that includes all sects and ethnicities and it’s a government that all Iraqis can sign up to support.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Colonel Macgregor, how do you see this? I mean, we’re hearing essentially support for the president’s approach; there has to be a serious shift before the U.S. would consider anything militarily.
COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR (RET.), U.S. Army: Well, I think that’s probably a valid idea, but I wouldn’t hold my breath while I waited for anything like that to emerge in Iraq.
Let’s be frank. We just watched as several battalions of this army that we spent billions of dollars building essentially broke and ran away from thugs in pickup trucks, Sunni Islamist fighters, many of whom have come to Syria, but that doesn’t bode well for the use of American military power to rush in and try to rescue this.
I don’t think it would change much on the ground. The second part, which I think Peter has just implied, we’re dealing with a Shiite, Arab, Islamist dictatorship in Baghdad that is anathema to the entire Sunni world in the Middle East, Arabs and Turks.
The Islamist fighters are working with the Sunni tribes to try and destroy the state. They backed by the Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and the Turks, who want to see this Shiite state go away. How do you resolve that kind of conflict?
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you’re saying — I hear you saying on several grounds that the U.S. has to be very careful and maybe shouldn’t intervene at all?
COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: I don’t think we should have anything to do with this fight. Both sides are dominated by people who are hostile to us, hostile to Christians, hostile to Jews, hostile to the United States, Israel and Europe.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What about that point, Ambassador Khalilzad, and his other point that when you have an army that is just basically melting away before these — these militants, what’s there for the U.S. to support?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Two points.
One, of course, we have a narrow national interest of our own with regard to terrorism. So to the extent to which we see this ISIL gain control of that area and nurture terrorists who will not only fight Maliki, but threaten the rest of the region, our interests, as the president said, we need to judge when and how to act. That’s one point.
Second, I would slightly differ from my colleague, which is, if the fall of Baghdad is imminent, I think our conditionality may come under pressure and we may have to act, because Baghdad falling into hands of the ISIL will have…
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think that’s a real possibility?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD: If it is — and I don’t know the current intelligence, but you can’t dismiss it altogether.
If it isn’t, then I think we have time for this conditionality on the political track to work. I think Maliki is trying to avoid any conditionality. He wants assistance without conditions.
The other community leaders are saying, Maliki must go, a new government should be formed, and then the U.S. should get involved.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to — I want to — I do want to stick with the military point, but I also don’t want to lose the political question, and come back to you, Colonel Mansoor, on that.
Do you think Prime Minister Maliki is prepared to make the kinds of changes to reach out to Sunni interests and leadership in the country that the president was — President Obama was outlining?
COL. PETER MANSOOR: No.
Two points here. One, I don’t think Prime Minister Maliki will change the way he’s conducted business over his two terms in office. He’s highly authoritarian, and he’s proven to be highly sectarian and a divisive figure.
And I think we need, diplomatically, to work with all Iraqi parties and let them come to some sort of agreement on who should succeed him, because I really don’t think Iraq can remain a unitary state under his — his leadership.
The other point I would make is, the fall of Baghdad is not imminent. There’s only several thousands of these ISIL fighters. Baghdad swallows up entire brigades of the U.S. Army. It would swallow up any sort of ISIL offensive. And it would be a place where Shiite militias will fight for it, the army would fight for it. And, increasingly, we’re hearing that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are entering the conflict as well.
So Baghdad would swallow up any ISIL offensive. There’s no danger of Baghdad falling quickly.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you’re saying that there’s — there’s some time here that the U.S. has before it has to make a decision?
COL. PETER MANSOOR: That’s precisely it. We should make the right decision, not the expedient, quick decision.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But given all this — I want to come back to you, Colonel Macgregor, on what and how — what — if the U.S. should go in, what and how it should do, given this very complex regional political situation that you just described a few minutes ago.
You’re saying under no circumstances the United States should get engaged, just stand back and watch what happens?
COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: You know, the Israelis have an interesting viewpoint.
Their view is that if your opponents are killing each other, absolutely do not interfere. And in my judgment, that’s what’s happening today on the ground in Iraq. And Iraq doesn’t really exist. You have a Shiite state, which is largely confined to the south, which is one of the reasons the Shiite Arab soldiers in the north ran away. It’s not their turf.
And then you have a Sunni Arab state that doesn’t exist yet, but it is coming into existence. And then you have a Kurdish state in the north. It’s increasingly aligned with Turkey, but is still independent.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador Khalilzad, why isn’t that an argument, for the U.S. just to be hands-off?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Well, if it doesn’t affect anything that was of great importance to us, that’s a great argument.
But, given the nature of particularly the ISIL, which is a terrorist organization tied with al-Qaida, with not only Iraqi ambitions, Syrian ambitions, regional ambitions, and with some foreigners from around Europe, even some Americans involved in them, we have a concern there that is legitimate, and we need to be focused on that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: An interest?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD: An interest there.
So, therefore, we could do pure counterterrorism operations, rather than siding between one side or the other. But I have to — want to make one point on diplomacy very quickly, that we may need to talk, to engage the Iranians. If we and the Iranians, where the Iraqis — Maliki is trying to play them against each other, then we could find a solution to get a new leadership for Iraq. And that may be also something that we have to consider.
JUDY WOODRUFF: It sounds like there are a lot of moving parts here.
Very quickly to you, Colonel Mansoor. What do you look for next here?
COL. PETER MANSOOR: Well, I think there will be a lot of diplomatic maneuvering. I think there will be a lot of maneuvering among the Iraqi political parties to see if they can get to the number of votes needed to unseat Maliki and establish a new government.
Meanwhile, I think ISIL will consolidate its gains and that it will press towards Baghdad, and the Kurds will continue to consolidate their control of the broader Kurdish region.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, no question we are all keeping a close eye on what’s going on. And we thank you, all three, for joining us.
Colonel Peter Mansoor, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, thank you.
ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Thank you.
COL. PETER MANSOOR: Thank you.
Iraq’s top Shiite cleric pleads for armed resistance against Sunni insurgents
In
Kirkuk, Iraq's army abandoned several vast military bases overnight,
leaving behind their uniforms and vehicles and equipment they purposely
destroyed before fleeing. Kurdish forces have seized the area instead,
arming themselves to fight in hopes of establishing their own state.
Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News reports on the advance of
the ISIL toward Baghdad.
TRANSCRIPT
That’s where Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News begins our coverage.
JONATHAN RUGMAN, ITN: Under heavy guard, we headed into the city of Kirkuk. These oil and gas fields are just a few miles from the ISIS front line.
This is the first of several vast military bases in Kirkuk which Iraq’s army abandoned overnight. Iraq’s 12th Division clearly left in a hurry, even abandoning their uniforms, so they could disappear into the crowd.
America spent some $25 billion equipping Iraq’s armed forces. But look at how much has been destroyed here within the space of a few hours. This armored vehicle was given to the Iraqi armed forces by the Americans. But the soldiers who were in charge of it appear to have destroyed it before fleeing in the face of the radical Islamist advance, just a snapshot of the kind of chaos which is happening all over Central Iraq now, a country in danger of collapsing as a state.
Kurdish fighters have taken control here, they say to keep the jihadists out. And we could hear gunfire nearby. Weapons are being traded on the street, as Kurds prepare to defend themselves from their Arab neighbors, the clear intent here to turn this part of Iraq into a Kurdish state.
MAN: We can’t live with Arab. They are — should believe in that is Kurdistan, and they are living in our land.
JONATHAN RUGMAN: These fighters from ISIS want a state as well, with Baghdad as their capital. And, today, footage emerged of this army of jihadists regulars moving closer to the city, with holy war in mind.
They have captured heavy weapons. These were filmed leaving the city of Mosul in the north. Today, the first visual evidence emerged of Shia insurgents fighting back. These are volunteers from the so called League of the Righteous. And with Iraq’s most senior cleric promising martyrdom to all those killed, the scene has been set for intense sectarian violence.
But in Karbala, one of Shia Islam’s holiest cities, there was cheering and shouting, as Iraq’s seemingly embattled majority announced it was preparing to defend itself, the grand ayatollah here sending out a messenger to deliver this urgent call to arms.
SHEIK ABDUL-MAHDI AL-KARBALAI, Representative for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (through interpreter): We call on all citizens who can carry weapons and fight the terrorists in defense of the country, its people and its holy sites to volunteer and join the security forces to fulfill this sacred goal.
JONATHAN RUGMAN: And these are those Iraqi security forces defending Shia shrines in the city of Samarra, as the men from ISIS continue their advance.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what’s happening in Iraq poses challenges and potential threats to the United States.
Earlier today, President Obama addressed the situation, speaking from the South Lawn of the White House.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: In the face of a terrorist offensive, Iraqi security forces have proven unable to defend a number of cities, which has allowed the terrorists to overrun a part of Iraq’s territory. And this poses a danger to Iraq and its people. And given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well.
We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq, but I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces.
We’re also going to pursue intensive diplomacy throughout this period both inside of Iraq and across the region, because there’s never going to be stability in Iraq or the broader region unless there are political outcomes that allow people to resolve their differences peacefully without resorting to war or relying on the United States military.
Although events on the ground in Iraq have been happening very quickly, our ability to plan, whether it’s military action or work with the Iraqi government on some of these political issues, is going to take several days.
We want to make sure that we’ve gathered all the intelligence that’s necessary so that if, in fact, I do direct and order any actions there, that they’re targeted, they’re precise and they’re going to have an effect.
The United States has poured a lot of money into these Iraqi security forces, and we devoted a lot of training to Iraqi security forces. The fact that they are not willing to stand and fight, and defend their posts against admittedly hardened terrorists, but not terrorists who are overwhelming in numbers, indicates that there’s a problem with morale, there’s a problem in terms of commitment.
The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together. We’re not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which while, we’re there, we’re keeping a lid on things, and after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we’re not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment