Posted on 06/18/2014 10:25:40 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie
The battle between Iraq’s government and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which threatens to plunge Iraq back into the chaos of sectarian civil war, puts Saudi Arabia in an increasingly awkward position.
The Saudis have long been at loggerheads with the Iran-backed Shia-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, seeing Iraq as a key theater of its battle for influence with Tehran that also plays out in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. But while ISIL poses the deadliest challenge yet to Maliki, its rapid emergence as a key regional player threatens Saudi interests as well as those of Iran. Still, the military effort to reverse ISIL’s rapid gains over the past week with possible U.S. and Iranian assistance is likely, at least in the short term, to strengthen the hand of Riyadh’s adversaries in Iraq.
The Saudis took several days to respond to last week’s news that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps was involved in the Iraqi fight against ISIL, and that some form of alliance of convenience between the U.S. and Iran was being mooted to stabilize security in Iraq.
When Riyadh did speak out on the crisis on Monday, it blamed events on Maliki’s failure to reconcile with Iraq’s Sunnis, and it also issued a veiled threat to Iran.
A Saudi government statement said that the events of the past week “could not have taken place if it was not for the sectarian and exclusionary policies implemented in Iraq over the past years that threatened its stability and sovereignty.”
Riyadh said it rejected “foreign interference in [Iraq’s] internal affairs,” and called for a state that would realize the “participation of all components of the Iraqi people in determining the future.”
Maliki has been widely accused of governing on a sectarian basis, using the demographic advantage of the Shia to prevail in elections but using the instruments of power to exclude and alienate the Sunni minority, many of whom had enjoyed comparative advantages under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
“Ideally, what Riyadh would want is some sort of political accommodation … where Sunni interests are better represented,” said Toby C. Jones, a professor of Middle East studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He said Riyadh wants Iraq “beholden to interests that the Saudis could support.”
But the rapid gains of ISIL in the past week present Riyadh with a policy dilemma.
“[The Saudis] blame Maliki for inviting this crisis by alienating Sunnis and for failing spectacularly when faced with the ISIL blitz. But their fear and distrust of ISIL is real. This is a group that would storm Riyadh and Mecca if it could,” said Matthew M. Reed, vice president at Foreign Reports, a Middle East–focused consulting firm in Washington, D.C.
Like the United States, then, Saudi Arabia finds itself caught in a security conundrum with no clear endgame — although with far closer proximity to the consequences of the ISIL surge.
“The Saudis are caught,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a professor of Middle East studies at the University of Vermont. “They don’t like Iran or Maliki … but they don’t like [ISIL] either. I think they’re risk-averse and divided about what they want to do.”
Riyadh is hardly unique in demanding greater Sunni inclusion in the Shia-dominated Maliki political order. The same view has been constantly reiterated by President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials, and endorsed by many analysts who view Sunni alienation from the new political order in Iraq as increasingly undermining the security of the Iraqi state.
“The question of Sunni Arab participation in Iraq’s political order that has plagued the transition [from Saddam Hussein] since its inception is as acute and explosive as ever,” warned the International Crisis Group in a report published in August 2013, months before ISIL’s meteoric rise on the Iraqi battlefield.
Some experts believe that the Saudis’ embrace of Sunni armed groups fighting the Iran-backed regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria has inadvertently fueled the crisis in Iraq — ISIL operates on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border, and is beyond the orders or influence of any government. (Advocates of greater backing for Syria’s rebels counter that insufficient support to rival groups there allowed ISIL to prosper.)
On Tuesday, the Iraqi government blasted the Saudis, accusing them of supporting ISIL.
"We hold [Saudi Arabia] responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that — which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites," a government statement read.
But that’s a vast overstatement of Saudi influence, said Reed at Foreign Reports: “Assad’s durability up to now only underscores how limited Saudi influence is,” he said. “Saudi influence in Iraq is modest also, contrary to what Maliki claims.”
While the Saudi authorities officially reject ISIL, criminalizing its citizens who join such groups abroad and targeting domestic supporters, ISIL’s funding stream is believed by many to reach into the wealthy elites of the kingdom and of some of its Gulf neighors, and there appear to have been divisions in Riyadh over the extent of the risk to Saudi interests posed by backing radical groups fighting Assad.
Writing in an op-ed for The New York Times, Steven Simon, a former member of Obama’s national security council, said states such as Saudi Arabia that “tacitly support the rebels as payback against Iran for its perceived takeover of Iraq will do nothing to support the rebels’ military campaign, for fear of creating an uncontrollable situation, even if their nationals privately fund the rebel army.”
The resulting carnage seems more likely to favor Iran, whose influence in Baghdad is much stronger, and on whom Maliki will be even more dependent in the face of ISIL’s challenge. That leaves Riyadh without many options.
“One of the interesting things is how little involved they are. They have a hard time finding local clients that aren’t really problematic,” Gause said regarding Riyadh's possible choices.
But Saudi concern over some of Washington’s recent moves to thaw relations with Tehran — including continuing efforts to reach a final agreement over Iran’s nuclear program — is likely to be confined to private displeasure, and tempered by the reality that Saudi Arabia still leans heavily on U.S. power in the region.
“They’re dependent on the U.S. for all sorts of reasons,” said Rutgers’ Jones. “If they flip the switch, and go back and pursue a more antagonistic line [with Iran], that’s not going to go down well in the U.S.”
“This is a balance-of-power game,” Jones continued. “They want to win the chessboard.” Given the options available in Iraq’s current situation, that will be a long strategic game.
Meanwhile, although Gause said it was not a fantasy that a regional thaw between Riyadh and Tehran might emerge from the flames of Iraq’s current violence, he thought the opposite scenario was more likely. “I see everyone running to their corners,” he said.
That comes very close to what my take on things would be.
I’m not in favor of killing people who have surrendered on the battle-field. In certain circumstances, it might be advisable.
Some operations are carried out by the rules of war. If you capture someone under those circumstances, then treat them by the rules of war.
If they have been breaking the rules of war, simply execute them as an example of what happens to people who don’t play by the rules of war. It’s very simple really.
Live by breaking the rules of war, die for breaking the rules of war.
RE Rules:
That’s part of the problem of here. We’re playing by rules, but the other side isn’t.
RE Innocents:
How about the argument of bombing Dresden or Tokyo into a firestorm. There were innocents there too - civilians who were not part of the war machine. There were no large troop concentrations there, or heavy war industry... it was done purely to break the other side’s will to continue fighting.
I know... it’s a delicate line. Where do you draw it...
As I understand it, upwards of 100 major cities in Japan were firebombed, destroying upwards of 50% or more of the city.
I will have to admit to not being a big fan of that or what took place at Dresden.
It’s easy for me to say from the comfort of my home office, not privy to the realities of the time, particularly to the commanders that had access to information I don’t, under pressures I am not.
At the end of a conflict, you need to be able to look back and know that you didn’t become an evil part of civilization.
In many instances, with victory comes exoneration. In some instances it may not be deserved.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been a very tough call for me. Knowing what he did, and facing what he faced, I don’t fault Truman at all. I think he made the right call. I detest that Japan’s leadership left very little choice there.
Imagine us proving we had that ability, and Japan waffling for three days more, so we had to do it again. Seriously, the leadership were truly vile men.
Woah, I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in 2004.
With a small "g". There is no god named Allah.
I guess its the word ‘catch’
Catch could mean he's armed in which case in war you go right for the kill. Its war.
Catch could also mean they surrender with hands up and you execute him, maybe ask him to turn him around so you don't see his face when you shoot him in back.
That's much like Stalin's treatment of Polish army in that Forest ~ 1939. He saved USSR taxpayers lots of $$$ too, not feeding those dead Polish soldiers.
You are right, this is 2003 crap but it no longer works.
While the neocons got our troops in these Islamic crapholes the Mexicans are invading here, and neocons (McCain, Grahmansety, King, Rubio) want amnesty so they can use them as Army IED fodder in those places.
Last time I looked there was this thing called an Ocean.
Europe is way easier to get to than America is from those poor Muzzie sh.t holes, but you don't see them making forced adoptions of those muzzie states with their blood and $$$
Americans are darn sick of paying to protect Europe with our blood and $$$$ just to have them condemn us for it.
How about this, bring our troops home and protect our borders??/
Another problem with an ‘execute all prisoners’ policy, you cant get intelligence info from a dead body, not even water-boarding works on them once they are DEAD.
“..Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been a very tough call for me. Knowing what he did, and facing what he faced, I don’t fault Truman at all. I think he made the right call. I detest that Japan’s leadership left very little choice there....”
Having one Uncle who was seriously wounded on Okinawa, and another who died on Iwo Jima at 22 years old, I guess maybe my viewpoint is somewhat different regarding Japan.
But objectively, looking back at what Truman saw through the prismatic lens of history, with all we know now about the Empire of Japan, the atomic destruction of those two cities WAS what ended the war in the Pacific.
Knowing that there were innocent civilians there - who were being handed sharpened bamboo spears, anti-tank magnetic mines to slap onto American tanks, suicide boats to ram American landing craft... it would have been a complete and total bloodbath for the Japanese civilian population as well as the American landing forces.
Hard call Truman had to make... but I think history proves it the correct one.
“....At the end of a conflict, you need to be able to look back and know that you didn’t become an evil part of civilization.....”
I don’t think we did. We took land, and gave it back, unlike most conquering armies throughout history. We disarmed the militant psychopaths in Japan and Germany (my father was part of that for two years in Germany after the war), helped the people rebuild their shattered nations, gave them money, food, aid, and turned them into prosperous, peaceful members of the world.
Are we perfect? No, not at all. But overall, I think we’re damn better than almost everyone else out there for doing so.
We ARE the “Bigger Man” at the end of the day. Regardless of what this current clown does/is doing.
“...Seriously, the leadership were truly vile men....”
Yes indeed... they would kill millions of their own people just to get their own “glorious death”.
Thank God the Emperor wasn’t as stupid. And thank God MacArthur didn’t order him arrested and hanged as a war criminal - we’d STILL be fighting them.
“...intelligence info ...”
Understood. If you’re ordered to take prisoners, then you go out and capture prisoners.
But in the scenarios I stated earlier, you don’t mess around when there is a chance you or your buddies could die. You bust a cap in the bad guy and make sure he’s dead and no longer a threat.
Wasn’t it 2003? LOL
Take care Impy.
Once again you roll things that happened in a war where both sides were supposed to be playing by the rules of war, with people who are terrorists, don’t adhere to the rules of war, and seek to kill civilians to cause havok.
Nobody is defending what Stalin did, and this isn’t the same as what Stalin did.
If a terrorist is planting an IED, I don’t care if he raises his hands or not. Simply execute the guy.
There’s no humanitarian claim that can be made that this person should be treated humanely. The man was involved in an inhumane act.
Do you remember Operation Desert Storm, when the Iraqi troops came staggering and stumbling out of their dugouts and fighting holes, surrendering to NEWS CREWS after being bombed and shelled for x number of days straight?
These guys were crying, throwing their weapons down, peeing themselves trying to surrender, anything to stop the hell we put them through.
That’s not a scenario where you mow them down, clearly no.
RE Shoot in Back:
Any of our people doing that would almost definitely be brought up on charges. But if he’s shooting at you, and killing your friends, and then suddenly runs out of ammo and throws his weapon down... I doubt anyone would blink if he suddenly developed lead poisoning.
RE Stalin - Forest:
That was Katyn, and that was political murder. He murdered that entire Officer and NCO corps because they were the nucleus of a fighting army that could be used against him.
We don’t do that. If we did, there wouldn’t have been a Nazi - OR Wermacht - officer left alive at the end of the war.
I believe we do need to seal our borders. One thing doesn’t eliminate the need for the other though.
As for what Europe does or does do, where did 09/11 take place? Hint: It wasn’t Europe.
We can’t let the Middle-East run amok. Eventually it spills over here at home.
It’s the sad reality. Not one troop that died in Iraq, died needlessly. Terrorism was abated for a considerable period of time while terrorists focused on the War on Terrorism and not U.S. soil.
What’s happening in Iraq right now, would not be happening if we had a guy with even 10% of a clue in the White House.
I think that’s an important point.
I will expand my thoughts on this to include the idea that while I have no problem with gunning down a terrorist, it’s not my first choice either.
If some guy gets worked up and offs a terrorist, I’m not going to demand the guy’s head.
On the other hand, you’re right that there is an intel component at play, and it would be wiser to take the guy into custody and learn what he knows.
“...If a terrorist is planting an IED,...”
And from the perspective of the fact that he’s NOT wearing a uniform, can take off his gear, stash it, and immediately fade back into the population to kill MORE people, that makes perfect sense.
And what do you do when the guy is hiding behind women and children, AND shooting at you? Allow yourself and your people to be killed?
They don’t care about things like the Geneva Convention.
I think Clauswitz said “Moderation in war is imbecility.” IOW, if you’re going to war, then fight to win it, not a stalemate, not a cease-fire. End it, so the threat is not constantly standing in front of or behind you.
But... like GOPSterinMA said, I’m going to disengage from this one. There’s no sense in going around and around on it. I don’t have answers for it, and I hate arguing with friends.
I agree with all your points.
I didn’t mean to infer at any point, that I thought we were guilty of something evil.
Japan, even attacked as I mentioned, still remain defiant to the bitter end. They just wouldn’t wise up and by killing the people we did, they finally did wise up.
Thanks for the comments.
I don’t wish to bicker either, and I certainly don’t consider our discussion to be hostile at all. I appreciate the give and take.
You know, in the instance you mention, I would hate to kill innocents because some filth decided to hide behind them.
If at all possible, I would disengage an make sure that guy was hounded to the end of his days..., hopefully a matter of hours later.
I think the press is shifting from ISIS to ISIL lately as too many people are asking what the former has to do with Isis the Egyptian goddess. Things are getting weird.
Agreed. Someone yesterday stated a pretty good case for the name waffling a uncertainty about the pre or post operational nations that were or will be involved.
Interesting take on it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.