Friday, June 13, 2014

Can We Lose What We Never Had?

You know all about it now: Iraq is beginning to fall into the hands of an al Qaeda offshoot, while neocons are up in arms over the policies of the Obama administration for 'losing Iraq'.

I don't accept the notion that 60% of Iraqis who are Shia will tolerate being ruled over by an extreme Sunni movement, and this bloodshed is only beginning. ISIS may stretch to Baghdad, but it will be stopped there.

What ISIS needs to worry about is the legacy of Saddam Hussein and the policies/ideologies of the Baathist party that ruled Iraq for decades. One thing can be said about Iraq is that it does have an educated population. This is not a collection of goat herds living with 15th century ideas. These are modern thinking folks that won't be easily subdued into a medieval dictatorship.
The mainstream Sunnis themselves will bring about the end of ISIS as soon as they are able to gather up their head of steam, while Iran will not tolerate Shias being subjugated by an extreme brand of Sunnism.

Speaking of Iran, they are the big gorilla in the room. This is a perfect time for them to strike and claim a form of dominion over south Iraq, maybe set  up their own client state.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think a divided Iraq into three parts is the best way to go and will finally give the Kurds the nation state in the north they've been fighting for and deserve to have.

One thing for sure...
It looks to me like the political map of the Middle East will be changing.


Bike Bubba said...

I'm not quite so sanguine about the matter. One of the nasty outcomes already from the war is that most Christians and Jews have left the country due to mounting oppression and terrorism. So there is at least enough affinity for 7th century ideas (sorry, not 15th) to intimidate the sane faction, whether that faction is a minority or a majority.

And for ignoring pleas for air strikes against terrorist factions for a month while they got into position to strike: Heckuva job, Barry.

Gino said...

you speak of 7th century ideas, and their danger... i hear ya, its like the strangle-hold hasids and orthodox jews have over more sensible policies in Israel.

John said...

I think the likelihood of the Kurds getting the nation-state they deserve is, at best, unrealistic. It seems unlikely Turkey would tolerate that potential, and based on what went on after the first gulf war the Kurds would not be happy with just a small region in Northern Iraq.

Gino said...

fine point, John. Kurdistan actually covers parts of 3-4 nations as the lines are currently drawn.

to be fair, the kurds should not have to settle with a small section of Iraq. they should have their country, the land they have occupied all this time, as their homeland.

Bike Bubba said...

Hasidic would be 3rd-4th century, when the Talmuds were completed, I believe. And for that matter, I subscribe to a lot of ideas from 4000BC to the years of Christ. So an idea being ancient does not make it untenable.

What makes an ideology untenable is the idea that because of your (whatever century) ideology, you're somehow entitled to launch rocket attacks from hospitals and elementary schools at the same. I see only one side doing this, and their flag is not blue and white.