Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Ray]

Cited in part:

The cited source is to say the least odd. I recently came across an article regarding Africa and it was simply wrong, if not stupid. So I would disregard it.

I would believe what you say.

But the events confuse me.

You all are close to the event since you are in the US, some in contact with your think tanks and the Administration and many who have been in Iraq and aware of the ground situation.

I do not have that advantage.

What befuddles me is that

1. this article on the Caliphate.

2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?

3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.

And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/...r-john-mccain/

That said, it is worrisome when there is reports that McCain has met AQ in Syria and while we are influenced by western media, we also have to have a more non partisan views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVZ6B5HvGCo

The world is really going crazy!

Honestly what is going on?

[Ray]

You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.

But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.

You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.

They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.

Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.

It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.

I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.

Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!

Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.

The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!

Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.

[OUTLAW 09]

A really good article worth the read on how we came to saddle ourselves with Malaki by the US official that pushed Malaki and how he tried to get the US to distance itself from him in 2010.

why he is writing this now inside of once a year since 2011 I cannot understand ---after thoughts are our worst enemy these days--we the US simply do not do hindsight well.

Really worth it to read it and then go back and do some open source research on WH media comments over the same period 2006 to 2010 on their support to Malaki.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9f1_story.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.

But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.

You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.

They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.

Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.

It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.

I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.

Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!

Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.

The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!

Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.

Ray,

My beliefs are not based on political correctness, they are based on personal experience and studying human nature.

Human nature is universal, at least among humans. Belief systems are conditional, a combination of resource availability and history.

Besides, history of the ME demonstrates the divisions exist and they can be manipulated, as long as you do not try to ultimately control the territory. Boots on the ground is a bad idea, but allying yourself with one subgroup or another can be advantageous for both parties. The problem is usually not them, it is our arrogance and feeling of superiority - that we are somehow genetically better than the Arabs or Persians. Again, not political correctness, just a realization of the faults in our own human nature and how they influence us to see threats when we should be looking for opportunities.

And as long as we are on the subject, lets examine this statement:

"But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them."

Interesting, because if we are going to use pride and the propensity to think of the world as their playground then the biggest threat to world peace is ... Great Britain, which has invaded 9 out of every 10 countries on the planet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...uxembourg.html. The United States, about 70. http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm. Compare that the the ominous threat of China. If you go back to the 12th century, you will see that they have a total of perhaps twenty five countries, only ten or so in recent times. http://www.quora.com/China/How-many-...in-its-history.

[davidbfpo]

Always interesting to read how Israeli intelligence, in this case Mossad, see their potential enemies. Hat tip to Bruce Hoffman on Twitter, citing an article in today's Haaretz by the Head of Mossad on IS/ISIS in:

This organization is here to stay. Hamas is a lightweight organization by comparison

The actual article is behind a paywall. Here is a little I assume he said on other threats:

The biggest threat to Israel’s security is the conflict with the Palestinians and not Iran’s nuclear program, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said Thursday at a meeting at a private home attended by 30 businesspeople.

Link:http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.603249

[davidbfpo]

Just as interesting as Mossad is the team in Norway who watch jihadists, so Thomas Hegghammer's article evaluating ISIS is a good read:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/07/t...ted-caliphate/

It ends with:

The bottom line is that business in the jihadi world will largely continue as usual after the declaration. Over time, the new caliphate will come to be seen as just another militant group, albeit a very presumptuous one. In the meantime, it is probably wise for Western governments to let the internal jihadi debate run its course. Premature military intervention will give the caliphate a jump start it does not deserve.

[Bill Moore]

Just as interesting as Mossad is the team in Norway who watch jihadists, so Thomas Hegghammer's article evaluating ISIS is a good read:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/07/t...ted-caliphate/

It ends with:

After reading this I reviewed some other papers, and listened to a talk, by Dr. Hegghammer. The general theme of his message is his increasing uncertainty, so at best he is sharing some random thoughts on potential directions that ISIS (or IS) could evolve in. I think it is a bit of pipedream to believe, or hope, it will remain a localized terrorist or jihadi movement. The number of foreign fighters and stated ambitions indicate they have wider aspirations. The question is do they have the capability? His recommendation of not intervening at this time is based on a logic bias of not acting without better information, which is usually good advice, but in this situation I'm not so sure that caution is the best answer. On the other hand, if there was an opportunity to prevent or reduce this situation in the first place it is long past, so holding off on intervention, if required, may be the best answer. In either case (intervention or not), we can only speculate on the possible outcomes. We won't know the result of taking or not taking action until we watch the situation unfold, and then we still risk attribution error (e.g. our intervention or lack there of is what caused X to happen).

Dr. Hegghammer certainly doesn't dismiss the potential of high rates of terrorists returning home and staying active after their adventure in Syria and Iraq ends. There is certainly a history of it after AQ and other jihadists left Afghanistan. JI in Indonesia, ASG in the Philippines, and others throughout Africa and the Middle East. It would be a mistake to confuse the percentage of foreign fighters that remain active combatants when they return home with the risk they pose to their home countries. Even if a paltry 2% remained active, that is enough to form terrorist cells, train new recruits, and conduct sophisticated attacks. In the West, at least in the forseeable future, we don't have to worry about large scale mobilization of Muslims into the Jihad (like we see in Syria and Iraq), we have to worry about London bus bombings, the Madrid train bombing, hijacking and/or blowing up civilian aircraft, individuals conducting small scale acts of terrorism. Any of these events will result in a media frenzy and force a reaction by our governments that is disproportionate to the scale of attack we suffer.

So whether a low or high number seek to conduct attacks outside the current Caliphate (notional), ISIS will not remain focused on just Iraq and Syria, they'll focus on the broader the Middle East, which does threaten our interests, and some will have aspirations to target the West. Did al-Qaeda or Lebanese Hezbollah restrict their attacks to the local area of jihad? Absolutely not, so why would we expect ISIS with their large number of foreign fighters to do the same?

I do think throwing a large number of Western troops into the fray would backfire on us in many ways, but active support of the Iraqi Army to get them back in the fight, and possibly providing fire support and precision targeting is an option worth implementing sooner rather than later. I'm very much undecided at this point, and I'm of the belief we have a choice of bad and less bad options at this point.

[Bill Moore]

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA...T-20130718.pdf

The Future of Anti-Western Jihadism

I have been doing academic research on al-Qaida since before 9/11, and never has the future of the jihadi movement seemed more unpredictable to my eyes than now. Still, for this testimony I have decided to look ahead and speculate about the long-term future of al-Qaida.

First, it is my assessment that we are past the peak of organized jihadi terrorism in the West. Al-Qaida Core is weak and most affiliates are not systematically targeting the US homeland.

My second and more pessimistic point is that the jihadi movement writ large is thriving and will be with us for another decade at least.

My third point, which is more of a guess, is that I expect a “second wave” of serious plots in the West some 4-6 years down the line.

[OUTLAW 09]

And the Sunni discourse begins now;

http://www.arabnews.com/news/597026

The core problem IS will have is that while they are Takfiri the Sunni Coalition to a large degree are Sunni secular--with say an influx of foreign fighters coming to the "caliphate" based on the "advertising by al Baghdadi and social media" --not so sure that will sit well with the Iraqi Sunni.

Remember a vast majority of AQI foreign fighters from 2005 thru to 2010 did not co-mingle with Iraqi's basically AQI did not allow the co-mingling---will be interesting to see how this works out-but am betting it is becoming a friction point in short fashion.

The US over the long haul would do well to truly understand the "moderate" Islamist as they will be around a lot longer than most anticipate in the ME and if one really looks at their stated goals, needs and wants they are a number of interesting mid and long term crossing points that both can talk about---but by defining all Islamists as enemies we defeat our own self interests in the region.

It is not the "moderate" Islamists that carried out the 9/11 strikes nor will they attack the US as they have been strictly focused on their own countries ie Syria and Iraq and have shown absolutely no interest in the US motherland.

[OUTLAW 09]

Jwing---

1. Looks like the IS/Sunni Coalition killed it's first ISF General (Commander 6th Division). Not surprised to see the 6th near Baghdad as it's Commander was always a hand picked Shia---it was originally designed to be near Mandali and responsible for Diyala Province.

A senior Iraqi general was killed today in fighting with islamists not far Baghdad. Major General Negm Abdullah Ali, commander of the army's sixth division, responsible for defending part of Baghdad, "met martyrdom on the battlefield as he was fighting ... terrorists", Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said in a statement.

Ali was killed "when mortar rounds fell" in the Ibrahim Bin Ali area, which is about 16 km northwest of Baghdad.

Government Security forces have been in a standoff with Sunni radicals in the area since the city of Fallujah that was taken earlier this year had fallen.

Insurgents led by a group called the Islamic State seized large areas in northern and western parts of the country last month and have threatened take the capital of Iraq soon.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_0...Iraqi-PM-4834/

2. The Shia militia are fighting now in Tikrit---but apparently not well as over 50 were killed yesterday in and or near the University that the ISF claimed several days ago they cleared and "owned".

JWing--it appears that one of the major reasons for the lack of ISF success is that they are in fact copying our style of warfare which we the US military have not really thought about going back in history and relooking how we fought in Iraq---and COIN has nothing to do with how one fights.

From about 2004 through and after the surge a large number of the BCTs were deploying with between 63 and 74% fully manned and maneuvered
using 114s some of the HBCTs still used their Bradley's, but those were venerable to EFP IED strikes so they shifted as well to 114s.

The most a 114 can carry is four plus the top gunner and if say a 114 patrol is made up of 4-6 vehicles and they engage into a firefight how many of those patrol members can actually dismount and engage on foot an insurgent force---not many so a firefight becomes more or less a gun truck fire fight until normally the insurgent breaks contact because he feared Apaches were coming.

If one really thinks about it ---it is the same concept in AFG but there one is using the MRAP instead of 114s. The fight is one of using stand off weapons not dismounted infantry.

Yesterday there was a video coming out of Baghdad showing fighting around Baqubah in the typical palm groove small villages---must have been say 6-8 114s in a line patrol working their way through a mud and water area and at the same time fighting insurgents---they have been hung up in to village for going on five days and still they are not making head way and yet via their press releases they are beating IS.

Sometimes it takes straight foot infantry without all the snick snack to clear and hold insurgent villages---not run in via 114s shooting everywhere, then pulling out, and later "claiming" you have driven out IS/Sunni Coalition.

So the question becomes has our training the ISF in our image helped or hurt the ISF now in the fight with the IS/Sunni Coalition?

[JWing]

Here's my latest interview "Analysis Of Ayatollah Sistani’s Fatwa To Defend Iraq Interview With Tel Aviv Univ’s Rachel Kantz Feder". I talked with Tel Aviv Univ's Rachel Feder about Ayatollah Sistani's Fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country's shrines and states which was immediately seen both within and without Iraq as a sectarian move to mobilize the country's Shiites against militant Sunnis.

[JWing]

Outlaw

Since the fighting started insurgents have been able to kill a generals before. June 22 a police general was assassinated in Baghdad. Also June 11 a general from the 4th Division was killed in combat in Awja, Salahaddin.

As for the fighting the Iraqis are hindered by a number of factors.

1) Most commanders are political appointees who have proven to be incompetent

2) The ISF were flooded with volunteers after Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country. From reports these guys are getting anywhere from 3-7 days of training and then sent to the front. Some are just doing guard duty but others have been put into combat. These guys are obviously going to be a hindrance to combat effectiveness but strain an already bad supply system.

3) Iraqis can't shoot whether its regular ISF or the militias. I can't tell you how many videos I've seen of hip firing, putting guns around corners without looking or over a wall and blasting away a whole clip. I call this "going rambo". Again this is not only ineffective but wastes huge amounts of ammo on a poor logistics system.

4) The ISF can't hold any ground they take. ISF continues to go thorugh an area, clear it, and then leave allowing insurgents to move right back in. Ishaqi in Salahaddin for example has been cleared 2 times since fighting started. Yesterday there was fighting in Khalidiya, Anbar 2 days after the ISF claimed it had cleared it.

5) Disintegration. One report claims that up to half of the army's divisions are combat ineffective because of the loss of personnel & equipment from those first few days of fighting when the ISF collapsed across northern Iraq. Who knows how long that will take to rebuild all that.

6) Most importantly Baghdad has shown no strategy for who to counter the insurgents. Right now they're just trying to hold ground and kill their way out of the situation and doing a very poor job at that.

Overall I think the only way the government is going to be able to turn this situation around not only militarily but politically is if Baghdad finds Sunnis on the ground in local communities that it can ally with, and provide them with military and political support to fight insurgents otherwise the Sunnis areas will never be held and the larger complaints about Baghdad's discrimination against their community will never be overcome. That's not going to happen with Maliki and may not even happen if he's replaced. That's a major reason why I see this fighting going on for years.

[OUTLAW 09]

Here's my latest interview "Analysis Of Ayatollah Sistani’s Fatwa To Defend Iraq Interview With Tel Aviv Univ’s Rachel Kantz Feder". I talked with Tel Aviv Univ's Rachel Feder about Ayatollah Sistani's Fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country's shrines and states which was immediately seen both within and without Iraq as a sectarian move to mobilize the country's Shiites against militant Sunnis.

JWing---

1. this is a link to the German Der Spiegel German interview with the Sunni Sheikh al Hamdun (one of the major Sunni protest movement leaders and close ties to the IAI/al Duri) where he outright tells the current Iraqi government ---- a larger proportion of Kurds and Sunni's in the government and an three federation state under one flag with Baghdad as the capital ----if not the Sunni's will create their own government and state---a de facto split up of Iraq.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-979714.html

2. Appears the Voice of Russia article on the killing of the ISF General was a tad off---seems that he was killed by a sniper instead of a mortar attack which indicates to me that the fighting in the area of the General was going the way of the IS.

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw

Since the fighting started insurgents have been able to kill a generals before. June 22 a police general was assassinated in Baghdad. Also June 11 a general from the 4th Division was killed in combat in Awja, Salahaddin.

As for the fighting the Iraqis are hindered by a number of factors.

1) Most commanders are political appointees who have proven to be incompetent

2) The ISF were flooded with volunteers after Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country. From reports these guys are getting anywhere from 3-7 days of training and then sent to the front. Some are just doing guard duty but others have been put into combat. These guys are obviously going to be a hindrance to combat effectiveness but strain an already bad supply system.

3) Iraqis can't shoot whether its regular ISF or the militias. I can't tell you how many videos I've seen of hip firing, putting guns around corners without looking or over a wall and blasting away a whole clip. I call this "going rambo". Again this is not only ineffective but wastes huge amounts of ammo on a poor logistics system.

4) The ISF can't hold any ground they take. ISF continues to go thorugh an area, clear it, and then leave allowing insurgents to move right back in. Ishaqi in Salahaddin for example has been cleared 2 times since fighting started. Yesterday there was fighting in Khalidiya, Anbar 2 days after the ISF claimed it had cleared it.

5) Disintegration. One report claims that up to half of the army's divisions are combat ineffective because of the loss of personnel & equipment from those first few days of fighting when the ISF collapsed across northern Iraq. Who knows how long that will take to rebuild all that.

6) Most importantly Baghdad has shown no strategy for who to counter the insurgents. Right now they're just trying to hold ground and kill their way out of the situation and doing a very poor job at that.

Overall I think the only way the government is going to be able to turn this situation around not only militarily but politically is if Baghdad finds Sunnis on the ground in local communities that it can ally with, and provide them with military and political support to fight insurgents otherwise the Sunnis areas will never be held and the larger complaints about Baghdad's discrimination against their community will never be overcome. That's not going to happen with Maliki and may not even happen if he's replaced. That's a major reason why I see this fighting going on for years.

JWing---it appears that the fighting has moved closer to actual Baghdad and now even in the south ie Basra area via car bombs and bombs in general---the Iraqi's are good at/for rumors--there is one going around that IS has in fact teams already inside Baghdad waiting for the go signal to launch strikes all over the city---anything on your info side to confirm or deny?

Think that yes the fighting will go on for years but politically the Sunni's as well as the Kurds are making moves rather rapidly towards separate states in the anticipation that Malaki is not going to cave and step down.

Which if one looks at the meetings today in Baghdad is where this is heading---Malaki lets everyone negotiate and when they are finished, tired, and have not reached any agreement he simply steps in and continues.

So I do not see him leaving anytime soon so the threat issued by al Humdan will occur.

[OUTLAW 09]

Seems the KSA has an interesting way to get Saudi foreign fighters back home from Syria.

Dozens of Saudis fighting in Syria have voluntarily surrendered to security authorities, said Sami Al-Saleh, Saudi ambassador to Jordan.
The statement comes in the wake of the recent surrender of 28-year-old Khalaf Al-Enezi, who approached the Saudi Embassy in Amman after fighting in Syria for over 18 months.
“Al-Enezi is not the first nor the last person to surrender at the Jordanian border,” said Saleh. “He is one of dozens of Saudi young men who were misled.”
The Interior Ministry previously said that the Royal Court had approved a 15-day grace period for former fighters to come forward and return to the Kingdom.
“Many young Saudis benefited from the grace period granted by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah in March,” he said. “Since that time, we have had individual cases of surrender."

[OUTLAW 09]

While we watch the activities of the IS in Iraq do not forget their activities in Syria--this is interesting oil article as it ties into a NYT article on the IS Syrian/Iraqi strategic strategy.

Currently the IS through the declaration of the Caliphate has created effectively a new Sunni State complete with oil reserves and revenue streams so the argument that the Sunni's in Iraq can not sustain themselves is actually false from the IS perspective---they are in fact right now in this time and space a viable state.

Then if you take the statement by al Hamdun that the Sunni's are ready to declared themselves independent of Baghdad if Malaki does not increase the number of Kurds and Sunni's in the government and allow a Sunni federated region.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/596796

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ers.html?&_r=0

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-979714.html

[Dayuhan]

complete with oil reserves and revenue streams

What's the actual extent and condition of those oil reserves and revenue streams?

Syrian oil production was unexceptional at its peak and has declined enormously. The production infrastructure has deteriorated. Turning oil into money is not all that simple: does ISIS have the money or the expertise to get even the limited reserves they may control onto the market? To bring in foreign expertise you have to be able to pay for it or convince investors that you are stable enough to let them take their cut from downstream earnings... can ISIS do either?

[Dayuhan]

2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?

3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.

The "banner of Freedom and Democracy" is not intended to stabilize the targets of intervention, it's intended to make intervention acceptable to the American domestic audience. This is one of the stronger reasons for the US to avoid "regime change" where possible: the requirements of the domestic audience are too restrictive too allow realistic post regime change action.

I don't know that drones or anything else the US can send are going to stabilize Iraq. The construct we call "Iraq" is inherently unstable; either it's held together by force under a dictator or it falls apart.

And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/...r-john-mccain/

That's only a "bombshell" if it's corroborated by reliable sources. Lot of nonsense on the internet, have to be skeptical of everything we read.

[OUTLAW 09]

What's the actual extent and condition of those oil reserves and revenue streams?

Syrian oil production was unexceptional at its peak and has declined enormously. The production infrastructure has deteriorated. Turning oil into money is not all that simple: does ISIS have the money or the expertise to get even the limited reserves they may control onto the market? To bring in foreign expertise you have to be able to pay for it or convince investors that you are stable enough to let them take their cut from downstream earnings... can ISIS do either?

Dayuhan---following your logic then we do not need to understand that IS is sitting on a 2B USD war chest, they have effectively unified both the Syrian and Iraqi Sunni's and control all the production oil and gas fields in Syria/there have been oil deposits located in Iraq Sunni areas and are to a degree in partial control of the largest refinery in Iraq.

And if you read through the NYT article of the IS strategy-- they control a large amount of the water infrastructure in both countries and who controls water controls the farming economies of both countries.

Then on top of all that they are effectively blocking a 300K man ISF and another 50K Shia militia/Quds from retaking territory they control.

So why are you worried about how high the oil revenues are? There is a lot of other things that are more important.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan----


Robert Jones would say ---the current problem in Iraq is the lack of the rule of law and good governance.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ni-revolt.html
Taken from the above link:
“I can assure you a widespread spectrum of groups participated in what happened in Mosul. The media is focusing on ISIS,” he said. “They are influential and empowered on the ground and they are participating in this armed revolution. But we shouldn’t be blamed for that.”

The Maliki government reneged on its promises to build an inclusive government with the Sunnis as soon as the American troops left Iraq, Hashimi said, and went after Sunni moderate leaders even though those leaders had led the Sunni awakening in 2008 that resulted in extremist groups leaving Iraq in the first place.

“We managed to clean up our territories, especially Anbar, and we put an end for a time to he extremists. But Nouri al-Maliki, instead of involving the Sunni moderates, he attacked them, starting with me,” said Hashimi. “There are two sides, the extremists and moderates. If you target the moderates, you intentionally create a vacuum that could be filled by the extremists and that’s exactly what happened.”

As former U.S. official in Iraq Ali Khedery wrote in The Washington Post, the U.S. policy during the crucial years following the 2008 Sunni awakening was to place faith in Maliki to build an inclusive system rather than use American influence to support other political actors.

WaPo link:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions...9f1_story.html

Hashimi said that the Obama administration was repeating that mistake again by sending U.S. advisers and equipment to shore up the Iraqi military and considering U.S. military force against Sunnis inside Iraq. He urged the U.S. to stay out of the conflict.

“It’s a really annoying development. The U.S. is in the process of committing itself into another set of grave mistakes. Definitely we consider all this military support to Nouri al-Maliki an alliance with Iran against the Arab Sunnis,” he said. “Try to avoid any use of military means, try to be fair, try to diffuse the bomb by asking Nouri al-Maliki to immediately to establish a caretaker government. Try to be neutral at least.”

And don’t expect another Anbar awakening this time around, Hashimi warned. The Sunni tribes still remember what happened last time and they are not going to make the same mistake of expelling the extremists and thereby leaving themselves vulnerable to Shiite forces.

“Nobody from the Arab Sunnis are ready to repeat the same experience of 2008, no way. But if we establish a real state in Baghdad, extremism will be over, I assure you.”

“The U.S. ethically is still in charge of our security, our stability and preventing interference from foreign countries, whether neighboring countries or far away countries, it is still the responsibility of the U.S.,” he said. “Transparency, human rights, no corruption, justice, no interference. All of these values have been talked about nicely but nobody has pressed the government on which have been achieved and which have failed. That is the role of the United States.”