Posted on 05/06/2016 7:13:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the perspective of leftists and liberal mainstream media outlets, US foreign policy circa 2003 is to blame for all the instabilities and conflicts in the Middle East and Muslim world.
Intriguingly, this perspective is in alignment with the Islamist philosophy of blaming the US for everything.
However, the leftists’ approach of analyzing the instabilities in other countries is unsophisticated and does not reflect the complexities and realities on the ground. Let’s examine Iraq and the current protests in Baghdad, for example.
Hundreds of followers of the Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr stormed into the Iraqi parliament building this week, demanding that its speaker halt the session. The prime minister, Haidar al Abadi, warned that these protests could lead to the state's failure.
The leftists’ take on this is that these uprising are happening because of the 2003 US-Iraq war. However, this is very convenient. It seems that their answer to why there is violence in Iraq or other Muslim countries has always been blaming the US for the 2003 war.
They hardly discuss the underlying reasons for the protests, such as the Iranian regime's role in Iraq. For example, Muqtada al-Sadr, who led the protests and violence, is someone who is trained, financed, and supported by Iran. He studied in the city of Qum, a place where radical Shiite figures are brainwashed, for several years. After these protests, Moqtada al-Sadr also travelled to Iran.
Currently, some of the powerful Iraqi Shiite groups that Iran has close connections with and is investing its resources in are Sadr’s Promised Day Brigade—the successor to the Mahdi Army—the Badr Organization, Asa’ib Ahl al Haqq (League of the Righteous) and Kata’ib Hezbollah (Battalions of Hezbollah).
Iranian leaders have spread the narrative throughout their media that Iran is the savior of Iraq, that Iraq is following in the footsteps of the Islamic Republic’s revolution and that Iran has the obligation to support the Iraqi people for humanitarian reasons.
When it comes to Iran’s role in Iraq, Iranian leaders – across the political spectrum, including reformist, moderates, and hardliners -- follow the directions of the key decision makers: the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
For example, even the pragmatist Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chairman of the Expediency Council and supporter of President Rouhani, pointed out this week that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s support to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people is anchored in humanitarian and Islamic principles. He stated during a meeting with Jan Kubis, the UN special envoy for Iraq, “Iran is ready to cooperate in various areas if the international community and the UN are honest and determined to solve Iraq’s problem.”
Any opposition from Iran’s political figures towards Iran’s current role in Iraq would mean opposition to Mr. Khamenei and the IRGC. Their opposition would most likely lead to the death of their political lives and they would never again be approved by the Guardian Council to run for government positions.
Iran’s propaganda regarding Iraq contradicts the reality. Iran has utilized its soft and hard power, as well as its sectarian agenda, skillfully to exert influence in Iraq. On the one hand, Iran’s social, religious and cultural affinities with the Shiite population in Iraq have provided the Islamic Republic with a powerful platform to exert influence in Iraq. In addition, economically speaking, Tehran has used trade to ratchet up its leverage in Baghdad. The Islamic State has also provided Iranian leaders with the venue and excuse to increase Tehran’s military presence in Iraq and further dominate Iraqi’s security, intelligence and political establishments.
On the other hand, by establishing ties, training, financing, unifying and arming Iraqi Shiite militias, Iran seeks to accomplish several objectives the foremost of which are to assist the Shiite militias to achieve political successes in Iraq and enter the parliament and have a say in the internal affairs of Baghdad. This will ensure Iran’s influence in Iraq for the long-term. Reportedly, Iran has repeatedly attempted to encourage the followers of Dawa and Sadr to unite in order to win more seats in the elections, and Tehran had funded its preferred candidates in the parliamentary elections.
If the Iraqi government becomes reluctant in preserving Tehran’s political and economic interests in Baghdad, IRGC leaders can threaten the government by showing their influence through provoking the Shiite Iraqi leaders to protest against the government and threaten their hold-on-power. In addition, the Iraqi Shiite militias allow Iran to exert more influence in Iraq, tipping the regional balance of power in favor of Iran and against the United States. The political instability will continue to persist in Iraq, mainly due to Iran’s sectarian agenda, IRGC support for Shiite militias, and Iran’s policy of divide and rule.
The leftists need to realize that Iran and Islamism are two crucial factors in the ongoing violence and conflict in the region. Blaming the 2003 policies of the US for all Middle Eastern conflicts misleads the population and shows a very unsophisticated and naïve way of examining US foreign policy and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Muslim world.
The csuse was Obama and Hillary’s policy
According to a study compiled by United States intelligence agencies in early 2007, the ISI planned to seize power in the central and western areas of Iraq and turn it into a Sunni caliphate.[94] The group built in strength and at its height enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad, claiming Baqubah as a capital city.[95][96][97][98]
The Iraq War troop surge of 2007 supplied the United States military with more manpower for operations targeting the group, resulting in dozens of high-level AQI members being captured or killed.[99]
Between July and October 2007, al-Qaeda in Iraq was reported to have lost its secure military bases in Al Anbar province and the Baghdad area.[100] During 2008, a series of US and Iraqi offensives managed to drive out AQI-aligned insurgents from their former safe havens, such as the Diyala and Al Anbar governorates, to the area of the northern city of Mosul.[101]
By 2008, the ISI was describing itself as being in a state of “extraordinary crisis”.[102] Its violent attempts to govern its territory led to a backlash from Sunni Arab Iraqis and other insurgent groups and a temporary decline in the group, which was attributable to a number of factors,[103] notably the Anbar Awakening.
In late 2009, the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, stated that the ISI “has transformed significantly in the last two years. What once was dominated by foreign individuals has now become more and more dominated by Iraqi citizens”.[104] On 18 April 2010, the ISI’s two top leaders, Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, were killed in a joint US-Iraqi raid near Tikrit.[105] In a press conference in June 2010, General Odierno reported that 80% of the ISI’s top 42 leaders, including recruiters and financiers, had been killed or captured, with only eight remaining at large. He said that they had been cut off from al-Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan.[106][107][108]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Not the wars fault, it’s Iranian influence. Influence that would not be present were it not for the war. Got it.
RE: Influence that would not be present were it not for the war.
In other words, Saddam is a SOB, but he was the lesser of the worst SOB’s in the region?
Look, I’m not a fan of Saddam Hussein, but none of the conflicts listed above would have occurred if he were still in charge.
Possibly lesser, possibly worse. Either way it really doesn’t matter to the point of maintaining order.
I always assumed one of the many reasons/excuses for taking Saddam out was that inevitably Iran would take over Iraq. W’s war/regime change was in some part an attempt to change that outcome, but all it did was just hit the fast forward on that timeline. Then Odumbo/Hillary added the extra dynamic of Syrian destabilization/rise of ISIS and it’s spill over into Iraq.
SO yes. Their leaders were big meanies but it’s become all too apparent big meanie is what the job requires.
Bush won the war and screwed up afterwards. WHy the hell didn’t he authorize the execution of this radical monster when we had the country over? WHy did he allow him to continue to spout his anti-western Hate? Why did the Bush administration permit the Iraqis to set up a Sharia Based government, a recipe for sure disaster considering the Sunni Shiite feud? WHy did the Bush administration do NOTHING to protect Iraqi Christian communities in Iraq?
Maybe our involvement in Iraq had more to do with the fears of the Saudi Sheiks about Saddam, the Bush family’s connections to the Saudis and the Saudi need for Dhimmi bodies to fight for them than anything else.
Fundamental Sunnis consider Shiites heretics, and regularly kill them when the opportunity presents itself.
That is why there won't be any peace in Iraq, now that Saadam is gone and the warring Islamic factions can't be kept apart.
Christians won't be protected from either Muslim faction now. -Tom
Iraq was an artifical construct by the Brits anyway. It would have made more sense to divide the country into a Sunni, a Shiite and a Kurdish sector, or force a secular government on them.
When the US invests LIVES and MONEY into a war and we win, WE should call the shots. These Islamic sheikdoms are no reflection on what was once a vibrant Islamic civilization. They are primitivized by the influence of poisonous Wahhabi Saudi Imams, money and mosques.
The real enemy is Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.
The divide Iraq policy was promoted by Biden of all people.
Even a broken clock, etc, etc.
Probably the only logical thought of his life.
The 2007 Dem-controlled Congress cut the 2008 OCO funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2008 budget. Existing programs were cut to make up the short fall. F-22s were cut. With OCO funding cut, along with a lack of decent SOFA the withdrawal was pre-ordained. Without US forces Iraqi politics and inertia took charge (read: corruption and infighting).
ISIS, aka Al Qaeda-in-Iraq (AIQ), aka Sunni Insurgents, aka Ba’athist Sunnis used their basis of operation in Syria to re-enter Iraq.
After US forces departed Iraq Assad ordered AIQ out of Syria where they had a safe haven since 2005. AIQ refused and began attacking Syrian forces. AIQ’s two-front war against both governments resulted in their re-branding as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
It is Pelosi, Reed and the rest of the 2007 Democrat Congress which created ISIS.
Unfortunately for us Kafirs I believe Ibn Taymayah,late 1200s, and Muhammed Wahhab, 1700s, and Sayyid Qutb,1900s have the correct interpretation of Islam and how to implement it.
I don't like it, since they want me and my family killed. But to me , after doing a lot of research on Islam Wahhabism is the corect inerpretation of Islam and is what Allah wants, and that is the example set by the prophet Muhammad on how to deal with us Infidels.
We have to learn that, and face up to the fact, and 1400 years of history , that we are in an "It's us or them situation" since the year 622.
Islam is just getting around to dealing with us Americans in our lifetime.
It is not going way. - Tom
Its past time we dealt with them - permanently.
>Unfortunately for us Kafirs I believe Ibn Taymayah,late 1200s, and Muhammed Wahhab, 1700s, and Sayyid Qutb,1900s have the correct interpretation of Islam and how to implement it.
Don’t forget al-Ghazali. He didn’t help matters either.
Yes, and their are others as well.
The back to basics Muslims kill plenty of Muslim slackers,and us Kafirs, but need those heretical slackers to form an area of protection when the fundamentalists are in our Kafir territory, and need protection from scrutiny.
To me , any Muslim who collaborates with us Kafirs is a flat out traitor to Islam , and should get out of the religion and stop passing themselves of as Muslims.
IMHO they don't follow the basics of Islam.
These Muslim heretics have twisted Islam to accommodate their modern lifestyle and thinking.
If it wasn't for Islamic apostasy and heresy us Kafirs would be in a lot more trouble.
And that is a good thing from our point of view.- Tom
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.