Day: August 7, 2014

Is This That Slippery Slope?

The clock is ticking and winding down……what will the US do?  What will the rest of the world do?

Newser) – Both passive and active options are on the table as President Obama decides how to handle the humanitarian catastrophe developing at Iraq’s Mount Sinjar, says a senior administration official who spoke to the New York Times. The passive alternative: Airdrops of food and much-needed medicine to the 40,000 Yazidi religious minorities said to be dying of hunger and thirst, according to the Washington Post. The more active option: conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State extremists who’ve camped out at the base of the mountain. A decision from the Oval Office is expected “imminently,” says a second White House source, adding, “this could be a fast-moving train.”

Obama reportedly instructed the Pentagon to draw up a game plan for possible military action during a meeting with his national security team today, notes NBC News. Iraqi airdrops to the refugees earlier this week fell short, with water and milk bottles smashing to bits, according to the Post. “Is help coming?” one of the trapped Yazidi asked the Post when contacted on his cellphone. “I’m standing here next to an old lady and a child lying on the ground. They are not dead, but we fear they are dying.” UNICEF says it has received reports that 40 children have perished already on the mountain.

Waiting for the pin drop.

Who will step up?

Iraq: Will Yugoslavia Be The Example?

Inkwell Institute

Middle East Desk

I am an old guy and have witnessed a lot of history in my time……and I am always looking for cycles in the international arena….now I think that maybe I found one when it comes to the future of Iraq.

Back in the 80’s the former communist regime of Yugoslavia started disintegration with the death of Tito……each of the federated states within the country started stretching out for freedom and independence and unfortunately it involved years of fighting one faction against another……..it erupted into the Yugoslav Wars beginning in 1987 first it was in Croatia and then it moved to a more serious conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina….resulting in  thousands of deaths mostly along ethnic lines….in essence a race war.  Eventually, the US and NATO had to intervene to prevent the ethnic cleansing and by 2000 the region was in relative peace but not before NATO had to bomb it into submission in 1999…….the UN stepped in and administered Kosovo until 2009.

Sorry but that is as simply put as I could without boring you guys into a coma.

My point is that Yugoslavia took a while to sort out it’s differences and yes it was bloody for a time but since those dark days the region is relatively calm.  Could this be a template for Iraq?

If it is it would require the US and its NATO friends to intervene…..but then the question is….on whose side?

But before they make that decision maybe they should spend a little time analyzing the situation…..and I do not mean from some Ivy League educated academic that is a lifer in the US diplomatic corps……these people may be knowledgeable but they lack a comprehension of the region.  Years behind a desk in DC does not mean they have a grasp on the situation other than cables from other Ivy League academics.  Without first hand knowledge any attempt to solve this conflict will be WRONG!

The options are very limited……the Arab states around Iraq will do very little for most of them are having problems of their own and cannot risk making their situation worse.  Without them who does that leave?  UN, NATO and of course the US.  As much as I would like to see the Iraqis work this out for themselves…..I am afraid it is looking more like some sort of intervention will be needed.  And as usual the US will have to lead the way.

The US biggest problem as I see it is that they have this unyielding desire to see countries stay intact even if it means more trouble down the road….in other words what is good for the US……maybe now is a good time to see what is best for the people of Iraq and make a determination from that line of thinking.

The hard truth is Iraq is three separate entities…..now the problem is to see just how a three can be made peaceful and prosperous.

As much as I may dislike the conclusion….the US may be the key to a stable Region.

Should We Go Or Should We Stay?

I can hear the tune by the Clash playing in my head…love Combat rock!  But in this case I am referring to our return to action in Iraq…….there are lots of opinions on the Hill….some pro, some con…..

There is a growing cause that we should let the prez handle this in his way……Congress is waiting and watching….

The bipartisan consensus emerging among leadership on the Hill is that the President has leeway to act in Iraq as long as the mission remains narrowly defined.

It’s a hands-off approach that has afforded the White House a bit more flexibility when it comes to making strategic decisions. On Monday, the administration announced that it would be sending an additional 200 troops to Baghdad to protect the airport and American Embassy there. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told The Huffington Post that the administration continued to believe that it did not need a new congressional authorization even in light of that new troop movement.

That a little piece was reported in the HufPo.  But is it up to the prez to make that decision?  Well, if the truth be known….it is NOT up to him to make that decision…….

As the US debates its future in Iraq, all eyes are on President Obama—but where we should be looking is Capitol Hill. Yes, congressional leaders recently said Obama needed no new authorization for further military action in Iraq. “But they’re wrong,” writes Rachel Maddow in the Washington Post. The Founding Fathers gave “the responsibility for war and peace to the clamorous Congress.” The War Powers Act puts power in Obama’s hands for 60 days; after that, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to authorize additional troops.

The Constitution puts Congress in charge “so that decisions about war and peace would be made not on one person’s say-so but only after vigorous national debate,” and we need that debate on Iraq. There is a precedent here: A year and a half after the US departure from Vietnam, North Vietnam planned a new offensive, and President Ford sought $700 million “to stabilize the military situation.” Lawmakers’ views on the matter were clear: “Congress knew that it was in its power to say no, and it said no. There would be no second coming of America’s war in Vietnam.” Click for Maddow’s full piece.

So which is it?  Keep in mind that an election is only months away and the biggie in 2016….so of course the Congress wants someone else to make that decision so they cannot be held responsible when the next election rolls around……

As I have said before…..my opinion is watch but stay out……the region will sort this out without our interference….we may not like it but it is their region to control….any action by the US will only make more enemies…..something this country does NOT need.

With that said….I may be a dreamer…..in the end the US may have no other choice but to act.  It is going to be a balancing act something the US has NEVER been any good at doing.

Iraq: What To Do, What To Do?

Opinion from the desk of the Editor:

The ceasefire is holding in Gaza…….so I will take this opportunity to write on areas that time and the media have forgotten……

Everybody has an opinion on what should be done about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Syria……some want to “bomb Iran” syndrome…..others preach caution…..and yet others think we need to step back and let the events play out…….

There is a prevailing opinion that Iraq should be allowed to break up……..and for good reason……Prof. JK Choksy…..Iraq is really three separate geographical regions, now contested by Kurds and Arabs ethnically, Arabic and Kurdish speakers linguistically, and Sunni and Shiite Muslims religiously. Ethnically Iraqis are approximately 75 percent Arabs, 20 percent Kurds, and 5 percent Turkmen and Assyrians. Religiously they are 65 percent Shiite Muslims, 30 percent Sunni Muslims, and 5 percent Christians and Mandeans. Monarchs and dictators held the tripartite configuration together for nine decades as modern Iraq. Without their iron fists enforcing coexistence, bloody fault lines are sundering the artificial nation back into its customary divisions.

Iraq’s current national boundaries arose from British action through a League of Nations mandate in 1920. It was also the British who, influenced by notions that Shiites were fanatical and uncultured, vested authority in the new nation’s Sunni minority. The colonial masters bequeathed rule to the Hashemite prince Faisal of Mecca and Istanbul, who had previously ruled for less than five months in Syria before being forced out by the French. Several attempted and one successful coups d’état, followed by another British occupation, quickly demonstrated how unstable Iraq really was.

History should have warned of the horrors to come when colonials are allowed to make the borders….for they set up the region for turmoil….it took almost 100 years but ….”you asked for it..you got it”.

Personally, No matter which decision the US makes…….and BTW, everyone needs to stop accusing the prez of inaction and for good reason…….the Middle East will change.

As the US debates its future in Iraq, all eyes are on President Obama—but where we should be looking is Capitol Hill. Yes, congressional leaders recently said Obama needed no new authorization for further military action in Iraq. “But they’re wrong,” writes Rachel Maddow in the Washington Post. The Founding Fathers gave “the responsibility for war and peace to the clamorous Congress.” The War Powers Act puts power in Obama’s hands for 60 days; after that, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to authorize additional troops.

The Constitution puts Congress in charge “so that decisions about war and peace would be made not on one person’s say-so but only after vigorous national debate,” and we need that debate on Iraq. There is a precedent here: A year and a half after the US departure from Vietnam, North Vietnam planned a new offensive, and President Ford sought $700 million “to stabilize the military situation.” Lawmakers’ views on the matter were clear: “Congress knew that it was in its power to say no, and it said no. There would be no second coming of America’s war in Vietnam.” Click for Maddow’s full piece.

Now what about ISIS……..eventually the Sunni tribes will take on ISIS and destroy it.  At present they are using the militants as a hammer against Maliki…..once they exact their revenge on Maliki for treating the Sunnis like crap….they will turn on ISIS and set them on the lamb.

And there is a image of what the ‘New” middle East may look it in the near future…….

Some of the “experts” are calling for a federated Iraq….broken down into 3 separate entities….and they think it is a good idea……..STOP!………that same idea was purposed by a presidential candidate during the 2008 primaries by democratic candidate Joe Biden…….and these same “experts” scoffed at the idea of a federated Iraq the very idea that they now embrace…….so tell me again just who it is that “has no clue”.

Once this situation has been rectified the Middle East will appear much different and will most likely return to a relative calm.  It will never be as calm as the west would desire….but the people of the region will be satisfied with their new region (for now).

My thought is to step back and allow this situation to work itself out…..it may take a decade but I feel that the residents will find the proper balance.