A New Chapter for Iraq?

[Kaalapani]

Saudi rejects foreign interference in Iraq, blames 'sectarian' Maliki | Reuters

(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia rejected on Monday the idea of any foreign interference in Iraq and blamed Baghdad's "sectarian and exclusionary" policies for a lightning offensive by Sunni insurgents.

Rebels from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have seized several Iraqi cities, threatening to split the country down sectarian lines, a deeply worrying prospect for the region and beyond.

The crisis "would not have happened if it wasn't for the sectarian and exclusionary policies that were practiced in Iraq in past years and which threatened its security, stability and sovereignty", official news agency SPA cited Information Minister Abdulaziz Khoja as saying.

Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia views Shi'ite Iran as a potentially dangerous rival and like most Gulf Arab states is wary of its support for the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government that came to power after Sunni president Saddam Hussein was forced from power by the 2003 U.S. invasion.

In the government statement, Riyadh made no mention of possible talks on Iraq between Washington and Iran, something a senior U.S. official said might happen on the sidelines of nuclear talks in Vienna this week. But Riyadh said it was necessary to "preserve Iraq's sovereignty" and rejected any outside interference in Baghdad's internal affairs. It also urged the "quick formation of a national consensus government".

Earlier on Monday, Qatar's foreign minister blamed the "narrow" Shi'ite sectarianism of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government in Baghdad for the crisis.

The remarks by Saudi Arabia and Qatar are likely to worsen relations with Baghdad, which has long accused both of them of backing the insurgents, something they deny.

The militants' gains followed "negative factors building up over a period of years", Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera quoted Foreign Minister Khaled al-Attiyah as telling a conference in Bolivia on Sunday.

"(Baghdad has been) pursuing policies based on narrow factional interests, adopting marginalization and exclusion, ignoring peaceful sit-ins, dispersing them by force, using violence against them and describing opponents as terrorists," said Attiyah.

Sunni Muslims, who dominated Shi'ite-majority Iraq until the ousting of Saddam Hussein, have long complained of marginalisation and persecution under Maliki's Shi'ite-dominated government.

Iraq's Sunni Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi fled Baghdad in 2011 after the authorities issued a warrant for his arrest on terrorism charges.

 

[nrupatunga]

How ISIS War Chest May Be $2B and Growing

The jihadist terror group Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham has become a powerful military force, wreaking havoc throughout Iraq. But ISIS is more powerful than just its estimated 10,000 fighters and ever-expanding weapons cache: It is also believed to control $2 billion in total assets.

The Guardian reports that the group, whose actions in Iraq could derail the world economy, began its sizable cash reserves with the acquisition of oilfields in eastern Syria. From there, ISIS grew its treasury by smuggling antiquities and resources out of the embattled state. The Guardian said the details were discovered from a trove of flash drives acquired by Iraqi officials less than two days before ISIS conquered Mosul—Iraq's second largest city.

Despite the vast riches detailed on the drives, the group's real windfall came after it took Mosul. After seizing its banks, weapons, and resources, ISIS's total assets reached a staggering sum.

"By the end of the week, we soon realized that we had to do some accounting for them," a senior intelligence official told The Guardian. "Before Mosul, their total cash and assets were $875 million. Afterwards, with the money they robbed from banks and the value of the military supplies they looted, they could add another $1.5 billion to that."

The official went on to tell The Guardian that ISIS had acquired $36 million from one Syrian region alone by selling relics up to 8,000 years old.

 

[Ray]

The Mandate System in the Post-WWI Era Middle East

19th century European imperialism continued a long tradition common to other imperial powers: a stated desire to bring "civilization" to its colonies and conquered territories. However benign such statements might sound, they are usually proven false. Empires are formed for numerous reasons, such as economic expansion or national security, but empires are rarely (if ever) beneficial to those who are conquered. 19th century Europe was a patchwork of highly competitive states that began to form empires so that they could stand against their rivals economically, geographically, and militarily. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rising tide of nationalism and self-determination in imperial colonies began to erode the ideology of imperialism, and European powers began to dismantle their own empires.
When it became apparent that the Ottoman Empire, which was often referred to as the "sick man of Europe," could not endure much longer, European powers (primarily Britain, France, Russia) saw an opportunity to acquire new territories without the onus of conquering and subjugating other peoples. Through a series of secret negotiations, such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Britain and France divided large amounts of Ottoman territory between themselves, as well as granting Russia certain key areas. This controversial agreement was formally ratified in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, which also stripped away all territory, except for Anatolia, from Turkish control (Khater, 136). By asserting their authority in the newly-formed League of Nations, European states arranged to have themselves appointed as "mandatory powers" that would, in theory, guide and assist the former Ottoman lands in the process of development and self-government. In reality, these mandatory powers differed from the absolute powers enjoyed by previous empires in name only (Gelvin, 181).

The mandate system was indeed "thinly disguised colonialism" (Gelvin, 184). European powers were very eager to increase their power through the establishment of global empires that allowed them to take what they needed from foreign regions. The Constantinople Agreement between France, Britain, and Russia is a very clear example of this policy; France and Britain allowed Russia to claim Istanbul and the Turkish Straits, and in return France would be given a vaguely defined region termed "Syria" while Britain was granted control of most of Persia (Gelvin, 178). What the Turks, Syrians, and Persians thought about this agreement was apparently never considered. The three European powers simply decided to divide the most desirable parts of the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves. This is typical of the high-handed treatment many developing areas found at the hands of European empires of the 19th century.

The mandate system has had long-lasting effects on the Middle East. Most of the borders of these modern Middle Eastern states were drawn almost arbitrarily by European powers in ways that would benefit themselves, rather than those who would be forced to live in the new states (Gelvin, 183). Although some effort was made to ensure that each of the new nations would be economically as well as politically viable, there were so many gross oversights that economic development and politically stability in the Middle East have been severely hampered. As a result, many of these boundaries are the subjects of long-standing conflicts. Several modern states continue to claim ancestral territories such as Iraq with Kuwait and Israel and Palestine with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The nation of Iraq was artificially created out of three former Ottoman provinces with wildly disparate ethnic and religious identities (Gelvin, 183). Since its establishment as a new monarchy in 1921, Iraq has been "notorious for its political stability" (Gelvin, 184). The Shiite majority of the country was, until very recently, ruled over by a Sunni minority. The Kurds, although mostly comprised of Sunnis, were an ethnic minority who would have preferred to govern themselves rather than be ruled by Arabs (Gelvin, 184). The British ignored these problems because of the many benefits they saw in having hegemony over the region: the oil-rich northern region would provide Britain with cheap oil; the fertile plains in the central region could be exploited as a breadbasket to feed England's most important colony, India; and by including access to the Persian Gulf, Britain could easily ship Iraq's natural resources. Incidentally, Britain established Iraq with a vacancy at its head, one which they quickly filled with Faysal, an ally that the British had recently betrayed and now badly needed to appease (Gelvin, 182).

The area that now comprises Jordan, Israel, and the disputed Palestinian territory has been sub-divided several times since it fell to British control. Originally called "Palestine" by the League of Nations, it was later split by the British along the Jordan River into smaller territories called "Palestine" and "Jordan" so that the throne of the newly-created Jordan could be given to 'Abdallah, another disgruntled ally, as a political gesture of appeasement. Unfortunately, dividing the region along the natural boundary of the river may have made geographic sense but was an economic blunder, as it gave Jordan no natural economic resources. As such, it has never been able to stand on its own, depending on foreign subsidies to remain solvent (Gelvin, 183). Palestine, on the other hand, was given to the Zionists to become the new nation of Israel in 1948, a decision that is still the center of intense conflict 60 years later.

Syria is perhaps the best example of the European mandatory powers riding roughshod over local opinion. Syria elected its own parliament following WWI to decide where its boundaries lay and which nation, if any, would be given mandatory powers over it. In 1919, the General Syrian Congress formally protested the decision of the League of Nations that Syria was "among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power" (Khater, 201). However, the League of Nations placed Syria under the control of France, a decision that was unacceptable to Syria's leaders, and stripped away large amounts of territory claimed by Syria. France diminished Syria even further by splitting off what is now Lebanon, a region largely populated by Christians, so that they would have a Christian nation in the region to rely on (Gelvin, 181).

Works Cited:

Khater, Akram Fouad. Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

Gelvin, James L. The Modern Middle East: A History. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2004.

Published by Patrick Hayes

The Mandate System in the Post-WWI Era Middle East - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

The root of all the chaos that we are observing in the ME?

 

[Ray]

May see this too

Power and Promises: Redrawing the Boundaries of the Middle East
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/lessons/bestofyolo/documents/Power_Promise_2011.pdf

 

[Ray]

If one goes through Post # 64 & 65, one will notice how the imperial powers left the legacy for conflicts so that they could influence the areas even when they left.

 

[Ray]

5 QUESTIONS WITH AMBASSADOR JAMES F. JEFFREY ON ISIS AND IRAQ

This is the latest edition of our Five Questions series. Each week, we feature an expert, practitioner, or leader answering five questions on a topic of current relevance in the world of defense, security, and foreign policy. Well, four of the questions are topical. The fifth is about booze. We are War on the Rocks, after all.

This week we spoke with Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, the Philip Solondz Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ambassador Jeffrey has served as our envoy to Ankara (2008-2010) and Baghdad (2010-2012), where he previously served as chargé d'affaires and deputy chief of mission. Ambassador Jeffrey also served as assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor in the George W. Bush administration, working closely on Iran-related issues. He is also a former infantry officer in the U.S. Army.



1. Ambassador Jeffrey, thanks so much for doing this. You served as America's Ambassador in Baghdad at a crucial time that witnessed the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq, a process that ended in December 2011. At that time, Iraq was comparatively calm. How did we get from there to here?

Two major and one secondary reason. First, the construct we (and many Iraqis) struggled and fought for was based on a western concept of individual rights/rule of law/democracy based constitutional system supplanting ethnic/religious identity and winner take all rule. While Prime Minister Maliki with his power lust, paranoia, hatred of diversity, corruption and micro-managing was particularly troubling, most of the other Kurdish, Shia and Sunni leaders, supported by their "flocks," did not see things all that differently. The result was limited attachment to the Iraqi state, by Sunnis, Kurds and soldiers. Second was the situation in Syria. The United States for the first time since the 1980s allowed a regional Near East crisis to degenerate without any significant role inadvertently helping give birth to a truly lethal Al Qaeda offshoot. It was that movement that gained a foothold in Iraq in the past year. Finally, failure of the Iraqi parties to allow a limited U.S. military presence to operate post 2011 undermined our ability to provide military training as well as the deep intelligence and air support so badly needed now.

2. How can American power be applied to mitigate the situation and to what end? Should recent events drive the President to fundamentally reassess his policies and approaches in the Middle East?

The United States faces a triage. If ISIS is able to cut off and besiege Baghdad and other larger Shia cities in the days ahead, the U.S. must use air power and all sorts of other emergency assistance to stave off a collapse of the state or a major Iranian intervention.

At the next level there must be a strategy to prevent a permanent ISIS presence in parts of Iraq and Syria. Absent a U.S. ground invasion which President Obama has correctly ruled out, this will require sophisticated U.S. diplomatic and political steps to stand up local formations that can take on terrorists supported by U.S. assistance, air power and training, along with support from regional allies. To this end, the Baghdad government would have to become much more inclusive.

At the third level, from Pakistan to Mali, it's now obvious that within the Sunni Middle East when authority erodes, terrorists with an Al Qaeda philosophy will spring up and gain traction. Attempting to stem this by imposing Western institutions and ideals has failed miserably. This is a profoundly troubling phenomenon.

3. Iran is among the countries you know well. It's been interesting to hear whispers that Iran might consider working with the United States to combat the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Is this speculation serious? And how would this tie in with the Syrian civil war and ongoing nuclear negotiations?

While our interests in Iraq momentarily coincide (maintaining unity, fighting Al Qaeda) our larger interests do not, be it in Syria, or cooperation with our Israeli, Turkish and Sunni Arab partners, or in trying to win over Sunnis in ISIS dominated areas Too close a US approach to Iran would be fatal.

4. Turkey's role in all this is very complex at first glance. It really is an interesting balancing act. How might the deteriorating situation in Iraq fit together with Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan's efforts to bolster the Syrian opposition, develop and maintain strong energy-based ties with Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government, and also keep friendly relations with Baghdad and Tehran?

Turkey has seen from Syria to Iraq the limits of its "go alone" foreign policy focused on Sunni religious allies and the Kurds. Its relations with almost every state in the region have deteriorated. Given Turkey's economic and military strength, relative stability and potential regional significance, this requires serious thought and coordination in Ankara and Washington.

5. In all your diplomatic adventures over the course of a distinguished career, what was your most amusing encounter over drinks? Public piety aside, my understanding is alcohol is pervasive in Middle Eastern officialdom.

Being told repeatedly that America is the reason for every Middle Eastern problem, that it should immediately get out of the region, but that, just maybe, it could fix just this, or that, little problem first (the list is endless).



Ryan Evans is the assistant director of the Center for the National Interest and the editor-in-chief of War on the Rocks.

5 Questions with Ambassador James F. Jeffrey on ISIS and Iraq

 

[Ray]

The manner in which the Sunnis are spreading their tentacles by naked aggression and subtle soft power by spawning madrassas that churn out radicalism and terrorists, one wonders what is the role of Saudi Arabia.

It is no secret that Saudi money has assisted in the increase of madrassas and mosques that subscribe to Wahhabi Islam in South Asia, Indonesia and Philippines.

Saudis are the apple of the eye to many and so are they working below the radar scan and attempting domination of the Islamic world and thereafter calling the shots in the international arena?

I maybe political incorrect, but I like to rise above the partisan clutter for which I maybe forgiven or corrected, if you will.

What is happening around the world is deeply disturbing and does upset the otherwise status quo of live and let live.

 

[Free Karma]

It's like the Bamiyan Buddhas again

ISIS Destroys 3000 Year-old Assyrian Artifacts in Syria

 

[Ray]

If want to seriously understand what is going on, I suggest go to

Out of the desert into Mosul: what next? - Page 12 - Small Wars Council

It is a treasure house of knowledge.

I have learnt of many things that I had no clue about.

 

[pmaitra]

Baghdad slams Saudi Arabia for 'encouraging genocide' in Iraq

 

[Kaalapani]

 

[Kaalapani]

U.S. Rules Out Iraq Airstrikes for Now - WSJ


Mulla Obama at it again.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

ISIS Militants Kidnap 40 Indian Construction Workers in Iraq’s Mosul City | idrw.org

 

[jmj_overlord]

hope that the govt take necessary steps to bring back the indians home safely and release the indian hostages....

 

[Ray]

Iraqi Abrams losses revealed

The armour on five of Iraq's M1A1 Abrams tanks was penetrated by anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and six helicopters were shot down between 1 January and the end of May, The New York Times quoted an unnamed US official as saying on 13 June.

The official said 28 Iraqi Army Abrams had been damaged in fighting with militants, five of them suffering full armour penetration when hit by ATGMs. The United States supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq between 2010 and 2012. While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc.

The penetration of a tank's armour by a shaped-charge warhead increases the likelihood of crew casualties, but does not necessarily result in the destruction of the vehicle, especially if it has a dedicated ammunition compartment, as in the case of the Abrams.

However, the US official said the Iraqi Army has problems maintaining its Abrams, suggesting it will struggle to get damaged tanks back into service.

At least one video has emerged showing an Abrams 'brew up' after being hit by an ATGM during fighting this year in the western province of Al-Anbar. Militants operating in Al-Anbar have also released images of numerous attacks on other Abrams tanks, including ones involving a 9K11 Kornet ATGM, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and a M70 Osa rocket launcher. The latter is a Yugoslavian weapon that has been widely used by insurgents in neighbouring Syria, but is rarely seen in Iraq.

Other types of armoured vehicle in service with the Iraqi Army appear to have suffered higher attrition rates than the Abrams. Militants have released many images showing destroyed or captured Humvees, M113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs), and mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles.

The US official also said that six Iraqi helicopters had been shot down and 60 damaged in combat between 1 January and the end of May. This represents a significant proportion of the Iraqi Army Aviation Command's assets. Another helicopter was shot down by a light anti-aircraft gun (LAAG) over Al-Saqlawiyah on 16 June; its two crew members were killed.

It is unclear what helicopters the Iraqis have lost, but militants have released footage shot using an infrared camera of heavy machine guns or LAAGs bringing down at least two Mi-24/35 combat helicopters carrying out low-altitude rocket attacks.

Iraqi Abrams losses revealed - IHS Jane's 360

 

[rock127]

Iraq Ethnic divide

Maps: Crisis in Iraq

Iraq is a country deeply split along sectarian lines. There are three major sects: Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims and Kurds. Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, is a Shiite Muslim. Sunni Muslims -- the minority in Iraq -- often find themselves left out. Some experts say that ISIS has found a base among Iraq's Sunni community.

 

[cobra commando]

Location of abducted Indians in Mosul identified: Centre - The Hindu

 

[pmaitra]

Kerry: US 'not responsible' for crisis in Iraq, Libya

How many of you agree with this claim?

[HR][/HR]

A vehicle belonging to Kurdish security forces fires a multiple rocket launcher during clashes with Sunni militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on the outskirts of Diyala June 14, 2014. (Reuters / Yahya Ahmad)

 

[nrupatunga]

Assault on Anbar: Fourth Town in Iraqi Province Falls to ISIS MIlitants

Sunni militants have seized another town in Iraq's western Anbar province, the fourth to fall in two days, officials said Sunday, in what is shaping up to be a major offensive in one of Iraq's most restive regions.

The latest advance has dealt another blow to Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is fighting for his political life even as forces beyond his control are pushing the country toward a sectarian showdown.

The militants captured Rutba, about 90 miles (150 kilometers) east of the Jordanian border, late Saturday, the officials said.

Residents were on Sunday negotiating with the militants to leave after an army unit on the town's outskirts threatened to start shelling.

The towns of Qaim, Rawah, Anah and Rutba are the first seized in the mainly Sunni Anbar province since fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and their allies overran the city of Fallujah and parts of the provincial capital of Ramadi earlier this year.

The capture of Rawah on the Euphrates River and the nearby town of Anah appeared to be part of a march toward a key dam in the city of Haditha, the destruction of which would damage the country's electrical grid and cause major flooding.

Taking Rutba gives the insurgents control over the final stretch of a major highway to neighboring Jordan, a key artery for passengers and goods that has been infrequently used for months because of deteriorating security.

Iraqi military officials said more than 2,000 troops were quickly dispatched to the site of the dam to protect it. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Chief military spokesman, Lt. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, acknowledged the fall of the Anbar towns, saying government forces had made a tactical retreat and planned to retake them. He provided no further details.

It certainly looks like the iraqi govt just does not want to fight, happy to give off thee sunni arab areas. What next for isis, they more or less control most of sunni arab areas, will they go after kurds or shia arab areas??

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Asian Defence News: Iraqi Military Out of Hellfires in Battle Against ISIS