ISIS knocking on Baghdad's door

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
ISIS knocking on Baghdad's door
The Nation

If the US waits too long before taking meaningful action, it could be faced with an Iraq controlled by religious fanatics

BANGKOK: -- This week, extremist militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) boasted of executing more than 1,700 Iraqi soldiers - most, if not all, of whom were Shi'ites.

The message was loud and clear: Sunni fanatics are determined to ignite a sectarian war in Iraq.

But it would not end at the border, of course. Such a conflict would likely spill across the Middle East, rendering political boundaries insignificant as people divided along ethno-nationalist lines.

But we are not talking about a simple challenge to the modern nation-state. What the ISIS is aiming for is the destruction of those who embrace a different sect of Islam, namely the Shi'ites, and to seize power by any means necessary.

While power struggles are nothing new in the arena of global politics, the ruthlessness of the ISIS is nothing less than disturbing. Disowned even by al-Qaeda, this militant group has shown it has little regard for human life, much less human rights.

No one can say they didn't see this coming: all the stakeholders in Iraq are to blame for the country's current predicament.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's refusal to share power with Sunnis did nothing for national reconciliation in the wake of the Iraq War. His heavy-handed suppression of Sunni opponents also helped fuel the ongoing rebellion.

Holding out an olive branch to the Sunni leaders would have been a good strategic move. But the fact that the ISIS is knocking on Baghdad's door suggests that it might be too late to learn from past mistakes. Al-Maliki has never shown the political courage to mend fences with the Sunni population, choosing instead to rely on military might. That option has left Iraq on the verge of a religious war.

Maliki could prevent this from happening, but only if he accepts Sunnis' legitimate right to representation and stops treating them like second-class citizens.

Then there's the Obama administration, which also has a crucial role to play. Some observers are saying that Washington should have negotiated much more vigorously to maintain a US military presence in Iraq - if not in terms of troop numbers then at least to help with intelligence and analysis.

Washington has said it is willing to help but that Maliki must agree to step down and make way for a new leader.

Some are entertaining the romantic notion that the US and Iran will join together to defeat the insurgents. But while Washington and Tehran share a common enemy in the ISIS, the US is not about to let a big chunk of the Middle East fall into Iran's sphere of influence.

The recently conclusion of elections in Iraq could be an opportunity for the incoming administration to put together a government that genuinely reflects the needs and sentiments of the country's ethnically diverse populace.

The challenge will be to hold off the ISIS onslaught long enough to enable this new government to formulate a plan of action to regain the trust of its citizens and create a sense of shared destiny among them.

The rise of the ISIS is also strong evidence that Washington's policy of disengagement from the region is not working. The unravelling of Iraq, as well as other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, threatens US interests as well.

The ISIS and other extremist groups are gaining ground and even luring people from Europe and the US who, in Obama's words, "could end up being a significant threat to our homeland". This is crunch time for everybody. If Washington waits too long before taking meaningful action, it could very well find Baghdad under ISIS control or Iraq under the spell of Iranian influence.

-- The Nation 2014-06-20

[terryp]

it could be faced with an Iraq controlled by religious fanatics

it has been for decades?

[simple1]

it could be faced with an Iraq controlled by religious fanatics

it has been for decades?

No

[chooka]

150 Australian citizens, former asylum seekers are over in Iraq fighting with ISIS. They are now deemed as a threat to National Security and will be arrested if they return to Australia. Lets hope they get their citizenship revoked so they can't return.

[Ulysses G.]

The same thing should apply to Americans fighting for ISIS.

[simple1]

150 Australian citizens, former asylum seekers are over in Iraq fighting with ISIS. They are now deemed as a threat to National Security and will be arrested if they return to Australia. Lets hope they get their citizenship revoked so they can't return.

Sorry don't believe you. Please provide the source where it states the alleged 150 Oz citizens with ISIS were orginally asylum seekers.

Currently being considered that anyone joining extremists forces will have citizenship revoked only if they hold dual citizenship. Believe current law that an Oz citizen convicted of war fighting overseas would face up to 25 year prison sentence

Edited June 20, 2014 by simple1

[thumper101]

The US have clearly shafted themselves on Iraq.... Now that it have gone from political to religious, they will be lucky to get out of there in 50 to 100 years.

Their foreign policy has come to haunt them on a large scale this time... If the US were ever to pull out and leave them to their own devices like they did in Afghanistan many moons ago, they will regret it.

They have basically made a rod for their own back.

Put more effort into renewable fuel so you are not so reliant on oil.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted

[JeezeLooeze]

Oh great let's just send in the same people who started this whole mess in this first place. This is blowback from the US supporting these rebels in Syria. Mind you, it's probably just what the US military industrial complex wants.

[JesseFrank]

Is Iraq the 51st state of the USA, that it of so much concern to them what happens there ?

[DieterWiehe]

Is Iraq the 51st state of the USA, that it of so much concern to them what happens there ?

the should have left sadam in control

[NeverSure]

The US have clearly shafted themselves on Iraq.... Now that it have gone from political to religious, they will be lucky to get out of there in 50 to 100 years.

Their foreign policy has come to haunt them on a large scale this time... If the US were ever to pull out and leave them to their own devices like they did in Afghanistan many moons ago, they will regret it.

They have basically made a rod for their own back.

Put more effort into renewable fuel so you are not so reliant on oil.

The US isn't reliant on ME oil. Europe, China and India are. The US gets less than 5% of its imported oil from the ME, and could replace it tomorrow with its own oil.

Tell the Western Europeans to put more effort into renewable fuel so they aren't reliant on Russia and the ME for 3/4 of their imported oil.

The US have Tony Blair clearly shafted themselves himself on Iraq

Why is it so convenient to "forget" that more than 20 countries participated in that war?

[Asiantravel]

it could be faced with an Iraq controlled by religious fanatics

it has been for decades?

Yes it had religious fanatics but it was not under their control?

It was under the control of one man who understood exactly what was required to keep law and order

[slipperylobster]

Hold up your horses.

Seems everyone forgot the attack on the mainland.

1. Kuwait

2. United States

Nobody was thinking about going into Iraq before that

Nonsensical rubbish... Oil lol

[NeverSure]

Hold up your horses.

Seems everyone forgot the attack on the mainland.

1. Kuwait

2. United States

Nobody was thinking about going into Iraq before that

Nonsensical rubbish... Oil lol

This topic is about the US considering giving support to the Iraqi government.

It's not about Bush, Blair, Kuwait, things from the 80's, how many leaders of coalition armies and governments thought there were WMD's (all of them) or anything else that can be dragged up.

For the record I never liked Bush and I never agreed with the war in Iraq.

What, if anything, should Obama do right now with Iraq? I say nothing. Let those people kill each other in their "holy" war.

[sanuk711]

"I don't know. Ask Tony Blair."---NeverSure

Yes I think he was at least 50% of the problem, & now it seems he is in self denial about the whole incident.

[coma]

it could be faced with an Iraq controlled by religious fanatics

it has been for decades?

Saddam Hussein was anything but a religious fanatic.

[coma]

Thugs need to be governed like thugs by thugs. And in the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was just the right thug for the job.

[NeverSure]

When the war in Iraq was winding down, the new government began to insist that the allies leave. Leave earlier than they had planned. They wouldn't even agree to a contingent of advisors, or training, or anything. Leave.

So the allies all left as requested. Now they are desperate to get the US back to attack ISIS.

No, solly, we have no interest there any more. We don't even need their oil, or any oil from the Middle East. In total those savage countries supply the US with less than 5% of its imported oil.

If oil is really the concern, let countries who depend big time on that oil take a turn at keeping the shipping lanes open and the terrorists in check. In rotation that could be China, the EU, and India.

[JesseFrank]

When the war in Iraq was winding down, the new government began to insist that the allies leave. Leave earlier than they had planned. They wouldn't even agree to a contingent of advisors, or training, or anything. Leave.

So the allies all left as requested. Now they are desperate to get the US back to attack ISIS.

No, solly, we have no interest there any more. We don't even need their oil, or any oil from the Middle East. In total those savage countries supply the US with less than 5% of its imported oil.

If oil is really the concern, let countries who depend big time on that oil take a turn at keeping the shipping lanes open and the terrorists in check. In rotation that could be China, the EU, and India.

Why you keep repeating that drivel that the US imports only 5% of their oil ?

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

"Petroleum" includes crude oil and refined petroleum products like gasoline, and biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. In 2012, about 80% of gross petroleum imports were crude oil, and about 57% of all crude oil that was processed in U.S. refineries was imported.

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2012 were Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. Their respective rankings vary based on gross petroleum imports or net petroleum imports (gross imports minus exports). Net imports from OPEC countries accounted for 55% of U.S. net imports.

[Chicog]

When the war in Iraq was winding down, the new government began to insist that the allies leave. Leave earlier than they had planned. They wouldn't even agree to a contingent of advisors, or training, or anything. Leave.

So the allies all left as requested. Now they are desperate to get the US back to attack ISIS.

No, solly, we have no interest there any more. We don't even need their oil, or any oil from the Middle East. In total those savage countries supply the US with less than 5% of its imported oil.

If oil is really the concern, let countries who depend big time on that oil take a turn at keeping the shipping lanes open and the terrorists in check. In rotation that could be China, the EU, and India.

Why you keep repeating that drivel that the US imports only 5% of their oil ?

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

"Petroleum" includes crude oil and refined petroleum products like gasoline, and biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. In 2012, about 80% of gross petroleum imports were crude oil, and about 57% of all crude oil that was processed in U.S. refineries was imported.

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2012 were Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. Their respective rankings vary based on gross petroleum imports or net petroleum imports (gross imports minus exports). Net imports from OPEC countries accounted for 55% of U.S. net imports.

Well his nick is "NeverSure" after all.

[simple1]

NeverSure you & others may like to read the article “Here's What the Battle Over Iraqi Oil Means for America”.

In part to answer your question on why US should/would contribute to trade route security:

“Middle Eastern oil still plays an important role in US policy, says Cordesman. "It is precisely because US security is global. It is not a matter of direct US dependence [on foreign oil]," he said. "Because what really counts is global prices, and what counts is the steady and predictable flow of oil to a global economy​"

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/06/iraq-obama-baiji-oil-fracking

[NeverSure]

When the war in Iraq was winding down, the new government began to insist that the allies leave. Leave earlier than they had planned. They wouldn't even agree to a contingent of advisors, or training, or anything. Leave.

So the allies all left as requested. Now they are desperate to get the US back to attack ISIS.

No, solly, we have no interest there any more. We don't even need their oil, or any oil from the Middle East. In total those savage countries supply the US with less than 5% of its imported oil.

If oil is really the concern, let countries who depend big time on that oil take a turn at keeping the shipping lanes open and the terrorists in check. In rotation that could be China, the EU, and India.

Why you keep repeating that drivel that the US imports only 5% of their oil ?

LINK

So I should have said that the US gets less than 5% of its oil from Iraq. The topic is Iraq, and letting it blow up IMHO.

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

OIL production in the United States rose by a record 992,000 barrels a day in 2013, the International Energy Agency estimated this week.

“We keep raising our forecasts, and we keep underestimating production,” said Lejla Alic, a Paris-based analyst with the agency.

LINK

[Krataiboy]

Never mind all that - what about the oil?

[Chicog]

When the war in Iraq was winding down, the new government began to insist that the allies leave. Leave earlier than they had planned. They wouldn't even agree to a contingent of advisors, or training, or anything. Leave.

So the allies all left as requested. Now they are desperate to get the US back to attack ISIS.

No, solly, we have no interest there any more. We don't even need their oil, or any oil from the Middle East. In total those savage countries supply the US with less than 5% of its imported oil.

If oil is really the concern, let countries who depend big time on that oil take a turn at keeping the shipping lanes open and the terrorists in check. In rotation that could be China, the EU, and India.

Why you keep repeating that drivel that the US imports only 5% of their oil ?

LINK

So I should have said that the US gets less than 5% of its oil from Iraq. The topic is Iraq, and letting it blow up IMHO.

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

OIL production in the United States rose by a record 992,000 barrels a day in 2013, the International Energy Agency estimated this week.

“We keep raising our forecasts, and we keep underestimating production,” said Lejla Alic, a Paris-based analyst with the agency.

LINK

Tell you what, you just pick a number that you like and we'll all roll our eyes.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted along with replies. Some posts which were obviously meant for no other purpose than to goad other posters into an off-topic reply have been deleted. Continued posting in this manner will result in warnings and possible suspensions.

[chooka]

150 Australian citizens, former asylum seekers are over in Iraq fighting with ISIS. They are now deemed as a threat to National Security and will be arrested if they return to Australia. Lets hope they get their citizenship revoked so they can't return.

Sorry don't believe you. Please provide the source where it states the alleged 150 Oz citizens with ISIS were orginally asylum seekers.

Currently being considered that anyone joining extremists forces will have citizenship revoked only if they hold dual citizenship. Believe current law that an Oz citizen convicted of war fighting overseas would face up to 25 year prison sentence

I know you are extremely pro muslim asylum/immigrants into Australia but you can't possibly support these people once they get Australian permanent residency or citizenship going back to the countries they fled out of fear and fighting. If these low life cowards were so scared why go back and not simply stay originally. Sink every boat that tries to come to Australia with these low life terrorists

[simple1]

150 Australian citizens, former asylum seekers are over in Iraq fighting with ISIS. They are now deemed as a threat to National Security and will be arrested if they return to Australia. Lets hope they get their citizenship revoked so they can't return.

Sorry don't believe you. Please provide the source where it states the alleged 150 Oz citizens with ISIS were orginally asylum seekers.

Currently being considered that anyone joining extremists forces will have citizenship revoked only if they hold dual citizenship. Believe current law that an Oz citizen convicted of war fighting overseas would face up to 25 year prison sentence

I know you are extremely pro muslim asylum/immigrants into Australia but you can't possibly support these people once they get Australian permanent residency or citizenship going back to the countries they fled out of fear and fighting. If these low life cowards were so scared why go back and not simply stay originally. Sink every boat that tries to come to Australia with these low life terrorists

Wrong, I support complying to international agreements, not policy pandering to domestic audience bigotry. It is what it is, but the Australian government has been called out for cruel and inhumane outcomes with the current asylum seeker policy.

Any Australian citizen / PR holder engaged with or supporting Islamic extremism should be denied re-entry to Australia plus citizenship revoked / PR visa cancelled. Any onshore Islamic extremists should be subject to prosecution, as should non Muslims who call for violence against Muslims in general.

You are accusing the Oz government (that you previously claimed you have a deep hatred) of systematic failure of security assessment processes You have not provided one iota of evidence to support your claim that the 100 or so Aussies claimed to be fighting in Syria / Iraq were all asylum seeker & have since joined ISIS, so unless provided, I call you out as an *Deleted*.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

I was watching al Jazeera this morning and the foreign ISIS members that they interviewed were said to be from the UK or Australia. Every single one of them had accents that suggested that they were born somewhere else and were not native English speakers.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

I was watching al Jazeera this morning and the foreign ISIS members that they interviewed were said to be from the UK or Australia. Every single one of them had accents that suggested that they were born somewhere else and were not native English speakers.

OK, but one of the ISIS fighters on video broadcast in the news here in Oz has a pronounced Oz accent. Also watched some Brits being interviewed, with strong UK regional accents, so must be a mix. I could be wrong, but am I not right that the Western security forces are saying the "homegrown" Islamic extremists are the greatest security threat to the West & they are going over to Syria / Iraq.