A New Chapter for Iraq?

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
America has "paid a huge price to the future of Iraq in the hands of its people" stated President Obama in his speech announcing the US military's withdrawl from Iraq. The cost of the Iraq invasion is currently estimated to be in the region of $74.7bn to the US economy and, its long term long term cost is appropriated at $3 trillion.

Speaking shortly after Obama's announcement, Iraqi Prime minister Nouri Maliki praised the end of the US combat operations, stating publicly that his country was now 'sovereign and independent'. Some beg to differ. Politically, it seems a convenient time for Obama to cut combat operations considering the upcoming critical midterm elections in America just over a month away and Obama's election promise to withdraw from Iraq. The question that people all over the world are asking is, is it too early?

It is apparent that the majority of Iraqi civilians and government figures are pleased by the news but some (the more critical western rabble) have deemed it too soon and worry how the currently American-propped-up state will manage on their own. It seems almost ironic that America are pulling out now, taking into account the sharp rise in Iraqi civilian deaths. Although it could be argued that America have a lot to do with the death level, bearing in mind the recent WikiLeak footage of American soldiers killing anything or anyone that seemed 'suspicious' at will.

The world now turns to American to answer what their involvement in Iraq has achieved. Perhaps more importantly, looking in retrospect, was it worth it? To many it is still a toss up between an invasion and an occupation. There are still many unanswered questions surrounding the invasion, which has more recently been called by an avid Bush supporters America's 'imperial moment'. Have America learnt nothing from Vietnam? To sum it up, no, they haven't.

Let's hope, imperialism is dead. Developed states fighting in guerrilla warfare isn't feasible. It's about time war wasn't the forethought of America's mind. Put your itchy trigger fingers away G.I Joe, world poverty and the increasingly alarming financial situation needs a little attention too. Oh yeah? What happened to those weapons of mass destruction that were apparently in Iraq? It's unsure what lies ahead in Iraq's future but one thing is certain, America's war is far from over. The future of Iraq is now in its people's hands – good luck.

All's Well?
The US is pulling out.

'Imperialism' is dead.

What does it portend for the stability of the Middle East?

What will be the reaction of the fundamental forces that are operating in Iraq?

Will the so called democracy survive?

How will this affect the Afghanistan effort?

Will the US never again intercede?
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
'The civil war in Iraq has already begun': Politician claims conflict has started and warns it will be 'worse than Syria'
Baghdad residents are stocking up on rice, vegetables and other foodstuffs in case they are prevented from getting to the shops by fighting or curfews.

UN claiming more than 700 people were killed last month, the highest monthly total for five years.
The situation has suddenly deteriorated since the killing of at least 36 Sunni Arab protesters at a sit-in in Hawijah on 23 April.

Al-Qa'ida showed its reach on Monday when five car bombs blew up in overwhelmingly Shia southern Iraq, leaving 21 dead. The Sunni fundamentalist group, which had a resurgence in 2012, is responsible for killing a majority of the almost 1,500 Iraqis who have died in political violence so far this year.

The crises in Iraq and Syria are now cross-infecting each other. The two-year-old uprising of the Sunni in Syria encouraged their compatriots in Iraq, who share a common frontier, to start their own protests
Hopefully with all the mess in west asia, if gcc (i.e. radical islam) is defeated, it will have positive effect not just on west asia but whole of asia.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Folks what do you feel, was it better under saddam or now?? Saddam oppressed huge % of iraqis, shias and kurds bore the brunt of his "power". Maybe the only thing different was that bombings were not a daily/weekly affair.


Is it time to redraw current west asian map which was drawn by europeans during WW-I????
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Like said earlier the next step has to be reigniting and fueling Kurdistan aspiration that would lead to "redrawing west Asia map"u mentioned involving all regional heavyweights, Iran Iraq Turkey and Syria while Iraqi Kurds have tasted the manna of freedom.

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
'The civil war in Iraq has already begun': Politician claims conflict has started and warns it will be 'worse than Syria' - Middle East - World - The Independent

Iraqi leaders fear that the country is sliding rapidly into a new civil war which "will be worse than Syria". Baghdad residents are stocking up on rice, vegetables and other foodstuffs in case they are prevented from getting to the shops by fighting or curfews. "It is wrong to say we are getting close to a civil war," said a senior Iraqi politician. "The civil war has already started."

This is borne out by the sharp rise in the number of people killed in political violence in Iraq in April, with the UN claiming more than 700 people were killed last month, the highest monthly total for five years.

The situation has suddenly deteriorated since the killing of at least 36 Sunni Arab protesters at a sit-in in Hawijah on 23 April. An observer in Baghdad, who did not want to be named, said "ever since, Hawijah people are frightened of a return to the massacres of 2006". She added that Sunni and Shia were avoiding going into each others' areas. Signs of deteriorating security are everywhere. Al-Qa'ida showed its reach on Monday when five car bombs blew up in overwhelmingly Shia southern Iraq, leaving 21 dead. The Sunni fundamentalist group, which had a resurgence in 2012, is responsible for killing a majority of the almost 1,500 Iraqis who have died in political violence so far this year.

Is it really that scary? Worse than Syria?

Another Shiite-vs-Sunni soap opera?
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Folks what do you feel, was it better under saddam or now?? Saddam oppressed huge % of iraqis, shias and kurds bore the brunt of his "power". Maybe the only thing different was that bombings were not a daily/weekly affair.


Is it time to redraw current west asian map which was drawn by europeans during WW-I?
Map was drawn by Ottoman Empire first, remember. Turkey was part of Central Powers. The Allies, largely European countries, won the war. Carving up of Turkey ensued.
@civfanatic
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
@W.G.Ewald West asia was part of ottamon empire, but during and affermath of WW-I , arabs were encouraged to rebel against ottamons. Also wrt countries like kuwait, UAE they had treaty with british before WW-I happened. And now countires like iraq, syria were drawn after WW-I . Kurdish regions of iraq was supposed(?) to go with french along with levant. But since oil was found there, british lobbied for it to be added into iraq. In a way, iraq was sewed togehter with very less understanding of local sensibilities. Even syria, though it was divided into separate regions (alawites had their own region/protectorate) later these were all unified/added into syria.

Map of syria lebanon in 1920



So in a way europeans decided the boundaries and not turkey.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
A crisis for Iraq — and the Middle East
Even more disturbing is what is happening to Syria's east: the bloodiest confrontation between Iraq's minority Sunni community and the Shiite regime since the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops nearly two years ago. According to a count by the Associated Press, at least 218 people have been killed in gun battles and bombings since the Iraqi army stormed a Sunni protest encampment near Kirkuk on April 23. The United Nations says 712 people died in political violence during April, the most since 2008.
Already, the al-Qaeda organizations in Syria and Iraq have proclaimed a joint "emirate;" the strongholds of the two groups are adjacent to each other along the border.

The Sunni and Kurdish communities believe that Mr. Maliki and Shiite politicians have failed to deliver on promises to decentralize power and distribute resources fairly. The Shiite leader fears that a victory by the mostly Sunni opposition in Syria, with support from the Sunni regimes of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, would lead to an attempt to restore Sunni dominance in Iraq.
The situation demands, "a sustained, high-level diplomatic effort by the United States" in Iraq. But it also makes intervention aimed at ending the war in Syria that much more urgent.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Are the dark days returning to Iraq?
the Syrian civil war has widened Iraq's sectarian divisions and created a source of major instability. In March, around 50 Syrian soldiers who had fled into Iraq were ambushed and killed. The single most powerful Syrian rebel group, Jabhat al-Nusra, is an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its personal and logistical networks run across the Syria-Iraq border. If al-Assad were to fall, this would have a catalytic effect on parts of Iraq, amplifying Sunni militancy and resulting in a flood of weapons of fighters across the border.
Next year's parliamentary elections will be a pivotal moment. At the last elections in 2010, the Sunni-dominated but secular Iraqiya bloc won more seats but couldn't form a government, and eventually let Maliki take the top spot.

This time round, it will be harder for Maliki to outmaneuver his political rivals: they have learnt that power sharing is a sham, and the Kurds are in a stronger position. In provincial elections held last month, Maliki's coalition saw its vote share decline, with many of his harder-line Shia Islamist rivals faring better.

Another victory for Maliki under contested conditions would produce severe political instability, especially if present levels of violence continue. The imperative is for political accommodation, reconciliation, and compromise. Yet Maliki is unlikely to opt for this route as long as he feels he can keep his grip on power with the help of his swollen army, paramilitary, and intelligence apparatus. There is no obvious way out for Iraq.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Why it's good news for the U.S. that China is snapping up Iraq's oil
"China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq's largest oil fields,"
But, looking in isolation just at the growing Chinese stake in Iraqi oil and putting aside for a moment the symbolic power of that trend, it's worth remembering that the global energy supply is not exactly a zero-sum game. And things that help China don't necessarily hurt the U.S.

There are some real silver linings for the U.S. to this story. Here are a few:
(1) Reduces Chinese competition for oil in other countries.
One reason Chinese firms are outperforming Western firms in Iraq is that Baghdad has tight restrictions on drilling rights that reduce the firm's profit. That makes it less attractive for American or British firms, who would rather drill in places where they can enjoy higher margins. But Chinese firms are just after energy, not profit, so they don't mind it as much.

(2) China is paying for Iraq's infrastructure development, which benefits us.
It was always going to be a huge, costly, long-term project to get it up to fuller production. The New York Times story says it takes $30 billion in annual investment; neither the U.S. nor Exxon Mobil was likely to foot that bill. But China is just oil-hungry enough to do it. Those investments will pay off for generations, increasing the global energy supply and alleviating upward pressure on prices. That's good for everyone who buys oil on the global market, including the U.S.


(3) Reduces China's reliance on Iran.

As China diversifies its energy imports, buying more and more form Iraq, it will need Iranian oil less and less.


(4) Forces China to care more about peace and stability in the Middle East.

hina's increasing investment in foreign markets is actually great news for the U.S., which is finding it harder and harder to be the world's policeman. Although this sometimes gets portrayed as scary resource competition, it's also forcing China to act less like a free-rider on a U.S.-enforced international system and more like a responsible stakeholder in global peace and stability.

(5) Protects global energy market from China-driven price spikes.
China is the world's biggest oil importer and its demanding is only going up. That puts upward pressure on prices, making American imports more expensive as well. China is very reliant on a small number of oil exporters. Diversified Chinese imports reduces the odds of that happening and the severity if it did.


To be clear, none of this is to say that the Iraq War is proving to be anywhere near balance positive for the U.S. economy. But it's worth keeping in mind that the global energy market is just that – a global market – and that the U.S. and China have mutual interests in keeping it running.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Yes, Iraq Is Unraveling

As American troops were pulling out of Iraq in 2010, the U.S. effort to stabilize the country resembled the task of an exhausted man who had just pushed a huge boulder up a steep hill. Momentum had been painstakingly built up and the crest approached. Was it safe to stop pushing and hope that the momentum would take the boulder over the top? Or would the boulder grind to a halt and then slowly, frighteningly roll back toward us?

Now we know -- and to be honest, the answer is hardly a surprise. Iraq is a basket case these days, and none of its problems came out of the blue. In the latest bout of sectarian and ethnic bloodletting, coordinated bomb attacks ripped through Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad and also northern Iraq, killing more than 30 people. The spasm of violence followed clashes between the Iraqi army and Sunni protesters and insurgents last month, where the federal government temporarily lost control of some town centers and urban neighborhoods in Kirkuk, Nineveh, and Diyala provinces.

Negative indicators abound: Armed civilian militias are reactivating, tit-for-tat bombings are targeting Sunni and Shiite mosques, and some Iraqi military forces are breaking down into ethnic-sectarian components or suffering from chronic absenteeism. Numerous segments of Iraq's body politic -- Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia -- are exasperated over the government's inability to address political or economic inequities, and are talking seriously about partition.

On April 23, the federal military miscalculated when its raid on a protest site in the northern town of Hawija turned into a bloody firefight, and scores of civilians were killed. This event has the potential to become an iconic rallying call for insurgent groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the neo-Baathist Naqshbandi movement, which can fit it into its calls for ongoing resistance against a "Safavid occupation" of Iraq -- a reference to the Persian dynasty that evokes Sunni Arab fears of the Shia-led government in Baghdad.

The resurgence of violence since 2010 is shown very clearly in the metrics used to gauge the strength of the insurgency. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Iraq Violence Database has tracked violence since 2004, drawing on both open-source and privileged information provided by security forces in Iraq. In the first quarter of 2011, monthly attacks bottomed out at an average of 358 reported incidents -- the lowest quarterly average since 2004. By the first quarter of 2012, the average monthly attacks had risen to 539. By the first quarter of 2013, it was 804. These figures not only provide evidence an increasingly active insurgency, but one that has more than replaced anti-U.S. targeting with Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.

So what happens next? Some veteran observers, like former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, view the current period as a return to the conditions of 2006 and 2007, when Iraq plunged into civil war-like violence. But there is an alternative comparison that may hold at least as much weight -- namely, the period beginning in 2003, when the international coalition's mistakes created the opening for Iraq's insurgent groups to grow in the first place. The Iraqi government is now making many of the same mistakes the United States made back then: It is alienating the Sunnis and occupying their communities with a heavy-handed, military-led approach that doesn't differentiate between diehard militants and the mass of peaceable civilians.

The Iraqi government has tried to deflect blame for its own failing on the Syrian uprising, arguing that it was suffering from the spillover of violence next door. But that excuse doesn't hold weight -- security improvements had already ground to a halt before the Syrian crisis began in spring 2011. Nor can the upswing in violence be ascribed solely to ancient Sunni-Shia hatreds: The embers of sectarianism were stoked back into life by the Baghdad government's unwillingness to meet demands for an end to the collective punishment of Sunnis for the crimes of the Baathist regime.

But the real driver of violence in Iraq is arguably Baghdad's over-centralization of power, which came too soon and was infused with sectarian paranoia. The United States was initially wary of this danger: The formula of all-inclusive power sharing -- muhasa in Arabic -- was a cornerstone of U.S.-led policy in Iraq until 2008, and the United States also made sure that the principle of administrative decentralization was baked into the Iraqi Constitution. This policy reflected a powerful truth -- that post-Saddam Iraq was not ready for a political system with absolute winners and absolute losers.

But starting in 2008, Maliki re-centralized power, leaning on an increasingly narrow circle of Shia opponents of the previous dictatorship. And like all successful revolutionaries, this clique is paranoid about counterrevolution and has set about rebuilding a version of the authoritarian system it sought for decades to overthrow. Maliki's inner circle dominates the selection of military commanders down to brigade level, controls the federal court, and has seized control of the central bank. The executive branch is rapidly eclipsing all checks and balances that were put in place to guarantee a new autocracy did not emerge.

The root of Iraq's violence is thus not ancient hatreds between Sunni and Shia or Kurd and Arab, but between decentralizers and recentralizers -- and between those who wish to put Iraq's violent past behind them, and those determined to continually refight it. The demands that have been consistently stated by the Kurdish and Sunni Arab anti-Maliki opposition could not be clearer. First, the opposition demands devolution of fiscal authority to the Kurdistan Regional Government and the provinces, encapsulated in a revenue-sharing law that will provide a formula for the proportion of the budget allocated to the KRG and provinces. Second, it demands the implementation of the system of checks and balances on the executive branch -- particularly by empowering parliament and ensuring an independent judiciary. Third, it calls for a comprehensive truth and reconciliation process that provides justice for those damaged by Saddam's regime, but stops short of collectively punishing Sunnis.

The United States laid the foundations for these democratic traditions, and can still be a powerful voice in getting Iraq back on track. There are some encouraging signs on this front. Secretary of State John Kerry has begun engaging directly and firmly with Maliki, and puts Iraq in the top tier of challenges to be addressed. Washington has been active in bringing Iraqi and Turkish officials together to discuss their long-term energy interests, encapsulated in the prospect of a strategic pipeline corridor that could see more Iraqi oil flowing through Turkey and less through the chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz close to Iran. Facing Sunni militancy and growing internal challenges from within his own Shiite community -- as shown by unimpressive provincial election results -- Maliki may be unusually open to taking conciliatory steps to mend his relations with the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, and the Turks.

Violence in Iraq is likely to continue to worsen as long as the recentralization of power is taken to extremes. The Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities now need a compelling reason to stay inside the unraveling framework that is today's Iraq. The 2014 national elections offer a potential restart button for this nation-building process, but replacing Maliki cannot be the precondition for a new strategy for saving Iraq. The premier could very well win: He holds many advantages heading into the polls, including control of most key ministries, the security and intelligence apparatus, and the federal courts. The key is to ensure that whoever rules Iraq after the 2014 elections feels maximum pressure from the international community and Iraq's factions to return to a looser, freer national construct.

If Washington chooses to back Iraq's decentralizers, it will not be alone. For their own diverse reasons, almost every actor working in Iraq today -- the opposition, the Turks, even the Iranians -- would welcome a less divisive government in Baghdad. In other words, the effort stands a chance of success.

The experiment of building a new strongman in Baghdad has not yielded a more stable Iraq. Loosening the ties that bind Iraq together is a risk, but holding too tightly is the greater danger.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq claims jailbreak - The Washington Post

Iraq's al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility Tuesday for a jailbreak from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison that unleashed hundreds of militants into an already unstable region and boosted the group's resurgent fortunes in Iraq and Syria.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant said in a statement that hundreds of prisoners were freed late Sunday in two coordinated assaults in which fighters used suicide bombs and mortars to storm the two top security prisons on Baghdad's outskirts at Abu Ghraib and Taji. Both were once run by the U.S. military and housed the country's most senior al-Qaeda detainees.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Iraq endures highest monthly death toll in 5 years
The U.N. Mission in Iraq said 1,057 Iraqis were killed and 2,326 wounded in July, the highest toll since June 2008 when 975 people were killed.

In all, 4,137 civilians have been killed, most in Baghdad, and 9,865 wounded so far this year, according to the statement. That was up from 1,684 killed in the January-July period last year.
Al-Qaida in Iraq has claimed responsibility for many of the suicide attacks and car bombings in recent days as it seeks to stoke sectarian hatred and undermine Iraq's Shiite-led government. Much of the violence is targeting Shiites who have held the reins of power since Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime was ousted.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Iraq militia fires mortar bombs at Saudis as warning
Six mortar bombs landed near a border post in northern Saudi Arabia in an attack claimed by an Iranian-backed Iraqi Shi'ite militia, which said on Thursday it was warning the kingdom to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

The mortar rounds hit desert on the far northwestern fringes of the kingdom's oil-producing region on Wednesday, several hundred kilometres (miles) from the major fields operated by the world's largest oil exporter and biggest Arab economy.

"The goal was to send a warning message to Saudis to tell them that their border stations and patrol are within our range of fire," Wathiq al-Batat, commander of Iraq's al-Mukhtar Army militia, told Reuters in Baghdad by telephone.

He said the militia wanted Riyadh to stop "interfering" in Iraq and that it had also been angered by Saudis and Kuwaitis who he said had insulted the Prophet Mohammad's daughter.

There was no independent confirmation that the militia was behind the mortar fire, reported two days after twin suicide bombings killed 25 people near Iran's embassy in Beirut. Some Shi'ite commentators blamed that assault on Iran's regional rival Saudi Arabia, which has condemned the Beirut attack.

Iran has not commented on the mortar attack on Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Mansour Turki said Iraq and Kuwait, as well as the kingdom itself, were investigating the mortar fire. Baghdad said it was not involved.

"There were no rockets or anything fired towards the Saudi border by security forces," said Jabar al-Sa'adi, head of Basra provincial council's security committee, in southern Iraq.

Turki said Saudi forces had not been put on higher alert after the bombardment.

Saudi news website sabq.org published pictures of small craters in the desert which it said the mortar fire had caused. A high barbed-wire fence and a road were visible in some photos.

"Six mortar rounds fell in an uninhabited area near the new al-Auja border guard centre of Hafr al-Batin in Eastern Province. Thank God, no damage resulted," said border guard spokesman General Mohammed al-Ghamdi.

Al-Mukhtar Army is a relatively new Shi'ite militia, which has said it is supported and funded by Iran. Batat is a former leader of the more well-known Kata'ib Hezbollah militia.

"This is just the beginning and there will be more attacks if they (the Saudis) do not stop," he said.

Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi security analyst with the Geneva and Jeddah-based Gulf Research Centre, said al-Mukhtar was among several Iraqi groups linked to Iranian intelligence.

"The timing is linked to the attack on the embassy (in Beirut), he said, adding that the group might also have been trying to sabotage a call this month by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for better ties with Saudi Arabia.

Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Kuwait, has had tense relations with the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government, which it views as a pawn of Iran. It has not had an ambassador based in Baghdad since before the 1990-91 Gulf crisis.

Sectarian fighting in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 has involved Sunni militants close to al Qaeda as well as Shi'ite militias which have no love for Saudi Arabia.

Some Iraqi Shi'ites support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his 2-1/2-year-old struggle to crush what has become an armed revolt by mainly Sunni rebels, some of them backed by Riyadh.

The conflict has aggravated Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism across the region, not least in Syria's smaller neighbour Lebanon, where Iran and Saudi Arabia have long vied for influence.

A Lebanon-based Sunni group linked to al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the Iran embassy attack in Beirut.

The Saudi border area with Iraq and Kuwait lies deep in a largely unpopulated desert. The kingdom has installed fences along its long frontier with Iraq, about 60 km (38 miles) of which runs along the edge of Eastern Province, which is home to many of Saudi Arabia's own substantial Shi'ite minority.

The kingdom has oil facilities in the Neutral Zone it shares with Kuwait, more than 100 km (62 miles) from Hafr al-Batin, but its main oil and gas fields are much further to the southeast.
Its high time iraq to payback the saudis. Saudis should know that they reap what they sow.


------------------------------------------------------
MODS: Plese rename the thread as "Iraq - News & Discussion""
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Iraq government 'loses Fallujah':
The Iraqi government has lost control of the strategic city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, eyewitnesses say.

Al Qaeda-linked militants now control the south of the city, a security source told the BBC. An Iraqi reporter there says tribesmen allied with al-Qaeda hold the rest of Fallujah.

Fighting there erupted after troops broke up a protest camp by Sunni Arabs in the city of Ramadi on Monday.

They have been accusing the Shia-led government of marginalising the Sunnis.

The recent fighting in Fallujah and Ramadi has pitted government troops on the one hand and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), which is affiliated with Al Qaeda, and Sunni tribesmen on the other.

Local Sunni Arabs have been angered by they perceive as discrimination by the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

They also say their minority community is being targeted by anti-terrorism measures implemented to stem the surge in sectarian violence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Hadn't seen this thread already discussing the topic

Al Qaeda captures Iraqi city of Fallujah

@Singh Please rename this thread as "Iraq - News & Discussion"" and merge the above mentioned thread please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top