Point finger at Maliki
Politics being what they are in this country, it was predictable Democrats and Republicans would point fingers at each other when Sunni insurgents began taking over territory in Shiite-controlled Iraq.
It was George Bush’s fault for starting the 10-year war that resulted in nearly 4,500 Americans dead and raised new fears about the future stability of the Middle East.
It was President Obama’s fault for not insisting a larger U.S. military force remain in Iraq after the war to discourage insurgents.
In reality, the man most responsible for Iraq’s situation is Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has long ignored the Obama administration’s pleas to treat the Sunni minority as fellow citizens.
Instead, Maliki excluded even moderate Sunnis from government while he forged ties with Iran’s Shiite ayatollahs.
The deaths of all the American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians who lost their lives so the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein could be toppled could be in vain now because, rather than providing his nation with the truly democratic postwar leadership it needed, Maliki continued Saddam’s legacy of playing favorites.
The U.S.-equipped Iraqi army, derisively referred to as Maliki’s militia, has purged Sunnis from the officer corps and is despised in Sunni areas for its overzealous response to any unrest.
Meanwhile, Maliki’s government ranks among the most corrupt in the world, according to Transparency International.
Those who criticize Obama for not leaving more troops in Iraq also seem to forget the decision to remove them by the end of 2011 was not only what most war-weary Americans wanted at the time.
It was also what Maliki desired so he could appear independent of the United States and bolster his own political position.
Now, Maliki wants America to again come to his rescue, along with his Shiite brothers in Iran. And Iranian and U.S. officials have suggested they could work together.
“All countries must unite in combating terrorism,” said Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
But labeling the rebellion a terrorist campaign is misleading.
Its participants do include the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but also Sunni groups who say ISIS is not leading the fight.
Tribal leader Khamis al-Dulaimi told the Wall Street Journal the insurgency “is a rebellion against the unfairness and marginalization” of Maliki’s government.
The insurgents have taken Mosul and Tal Afar, and with Iraq’s army putting up little resistance, Baghdad appears vulnerable.
Stopping the advance will likely require some U.S. military support other than troops.
But the Obama administration is right to tie any such aid to Maliki’s ending his repression of Sunnis.
Otherwise, any peace will not last.
— Philadelphia Inquirer
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.