Posted on 06/18/2014 10:25:40 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie
The battle between Iraqs 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 ISILs 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 Riyadhs adversaries in Iraq.
The Saudis took several days to respond to last weeks news that Irans 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 Malikis failure to reconcile with Iraqs 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 [Iraqs] 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 Eastfocused 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 dont like Iran or Maliki but they dont like [ISIL] either. I think theyre 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 Iraqs 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 ISILs 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 Syrias 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 thats a vast overstatement of Saudi influence, said Reed at Foreign Reports: Assads 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, ISILs 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 Obamas 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 ISILs 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 arent really problematic, Gause said regarding Riyadh's possible choices.
But Saudi concern over some of Washingtons recent moves to thaw relations with Tehran including continuing efforts to reach a final agreement over Irans 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.
Theyre 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], thats 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 Iraqs 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 Iraqs current violence, he thought the opposite scenario was more likely. I see everyone running to their corners, he said.
I understand your point, and I agree with it.
Good points. I agree with your take here as well.
One last comment, my friends:
The Japanese had stockpiled one and two-man Suicide Boats laden with high explosives on Kerama Retto Island.. Hundreds of them. They were going to use these to ram American landing craft and transports. They would be crewed with troops, Rikusentai (Special Naval Landing Forces), and civilians.
Had Operations Olympic and Coronet taken place on Kyushu in October 45 as scheduled, the slaughter would have made Okinawa pale in comparison.
Defiant to the end, indeed. There is only way to defeat an enemy determined to die. You help him.
My old man was in Germany with the occupation forces for two years, part of the groups looking for the fabled Bavarian Redoubt that the SS had said was setup for the “Werewolves” to continue guerrilla operations against the Allies. That proved not to be the case, but again, the threat was there and plausible enough to send people to put to an end to it.
There’s no reasoning with fanaticism.
You just kill it so it’s not longer a threat.
Terrorism was abated because the government was doing a hundred other things to abate it like airline security and homeland security, things they are still doing.
I sure wouldn't have given my life to give Iraqis the vote to elect the Shiites in power in Iraq then kick the US out anyway, and I imagine the families of those fallen and crippled soldiers are now thinking the same to, asking themselves what the hell was the point?
Yes but I don't think our soldiers today risk their lives trying to capture alive suicide bombers in action when they come across them, nor are they told to, I bet the standing orders are already to kill them on the spot.
Hell, look at all the unarmed Americans police kill here and get cleared for.
Good points Hale. Those suicide boats were a very big threat.
We have all sorts of vulnerabilities that are not covered by our Homeland Insecurity Goombas.
Yep, they are called illegals and they are making a wholesale invasion of this country while Obama and the neocons screw around in these poor Islamic crapholes.
The neocons want the illegals to use for more Bush/Cheney/McCain like invasions. That's what McCain and Grahamnsety want them for.
“...Yes but I don’t think our soldiers today risk their lives trying to capture alive suicide bombers in action...”
My point is, fanaticism with a uniform on, or without a uniform is STILL fanaticism. And in THIS war, you don’t know exactly when the suicide bomber is going to walk through the shopping mall doors, or drive his truck or car into the city center and detonate it.
I agree that some of the 20-35 million will join the military. I doubt the percentage would be of significance. I don’t see that as the reason for amnesty not an amnesty.
I think it’s more the idea these people will work for cheap. The chamber of commerce wants it. That’s word for the main supporter’s mouth.
I agree we need troops on the border. I have called for it for a long time. Get things under control, and then pull them off.
We have to de-incintivise illegal border crossings.
Stop wrongly interpreting the 14th Ammendment, so that children of illegals are instant citizens.
End the ability for illegals to get any government services whatsoever, the ability to work, find housing, or be able to live here.
End their access to medical care and education. If they need these things, they need to be in Mexico, period.
Once the gig is up, we won’t need the military on the border.
We need to bring pressure on the Mexican government to clean up their act.
I see reading comprehension is optional.
When I said “I’m signing off from this thread.” that means STOP PINGING ME WITH YOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD.
Yet, I received 21 more pings. WTF?!?! STOP PINGING ME REGARDING THIS THREAD!!!
Ok, bro. Not a problem.
Not asking you to return and reply. Just wanted you to know what was being said because you were part of the discussion.
I’ll make sure to remove your name from any further exchanges.
I think there is an argument to be made to simply mow these pricks down as they move their convoy and forces around Iraqi territory. Just send in some munitions and eradicate massive numbers of them.
in a sane world/US gubmint, both options are doable, *IF* we were still strong enuff PC-wise to tell the world to get bent if they dont like it, or if they try to follow our lead using the big weapons...
we dont even dare hit the armies and crush their ability to fight, dating back to before the 'road of death' in papa bush's spanking of iraq...we allowed a large part of his armies go home to fight another day, because we didnt want the world to think we were bullies [spit]...
we cant nuke their civilian populations and wont commit wholesale slaughter of their men-wimmi&children at arms, so why in hell spend a drop of our blood there, when eventually theyll be here anyway ???
like i said before, our policies/actions have all been, by design, meant to fail, securing the rise of the muzz power base to finally eradicate the joos and any other infidels in the general area...
*if* they succeed, then ultimately theyll need to kill the rest of us, either before or after they return to killing each other as the untrue version of mo-ham-head-eans [piss & bacon be upon them]...
And in a world still woozy from a credit depression, this is an existential threat.
Gilbo, I think you answer your own question.
“...so why in hell spend a drop of our blood there, when eventually theyll be here anyway ???”
That’s why we spill drops of our blood.
Look at Iraq before our last military action there.
Look at it prior to this recent surge.
Which situation was more anti-U.S.?
Right now, we’re doing more harm to our cause that we could possibly do any other way.
We are abandoning those who took us at our word, that we would help them when they needed us.
Now those people who trusted us are being beheaded.
By just sitting back and watching, we are proving that we couldn’t be trusted then, now, or in the future.
Is that how we wind hearts and minds?
No.
This president, and sadly some on our own side are undermining our efforts to make this a safer world.
> [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 Eastfocused consulting firm in Washington, D.C.
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.