This would require a willingness to send American forces back to Iraq. ... This is the only chance we have to persuade Iraq’s Sunni Arabs that they have an alternative to joining up with al Qaeda or being at the mercy of government-backed and Iranian-backed death squads, and that we have not thrown in with the Iranians. It is also the only way to regain influence with the Iraqi government and to stabilize the Iraqi Security Forces on terms that would allow us to demand the demobilization of Shi’a militias and to move to limit Iranian influence and to create bargaining chips with Iran to insist on the withdrawal of their forces if and when the situation stabilizes.I wonder who these people are Kagan and Kristol mention who want to support Iran? I don't think anyone is suggesting that; certainly not liberals. It's just that Iranian and American interests are more in harmony these days, and we may as well talk to them. The enemy of my enemy being my friend, and all. In other words, politics, as usual. And we spent eight years lecturing the Shiites about demobilizing their militias. They told us to pound sand. Why would that change with a reintervention?
...Throwing our weight behind Iran in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, as some are suggesting, would make things even worse. ... But backing the Iranians means backing the Shi’a militias that have been the principal drivers of sectarian warfare, to say nothing of turning our backs on the moderates on both sides who are suffering the most. ... In addition, the U.S. would be perceived as becoming the ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran against all of the forces of the Arab and Sunni world, conceding Syria to the Iranian-backed Bashir al-Assad, and accepting the emergence of an Iranian hegemony soon to be backed by nuclear weapons. And at the end of the day, Iran is not going to be able to take over the Sunni areas of Iraq—so we would end up both strengthening Iran and not defeating ISIS.
Now is not the time to re-litigate either the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 or the decision to withdraw from it in 2011. The crisis is urgent, and it would be useful to focus on a path ahead rather than indulge in recriminations.
And I think it's the perfect time to re-litigate the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
Yes, it must be hard to be a Neocon these days, wringing hands about Sunnis suspecting Americans of treachery, and all. The Sunnis are perfectly-capable of judging events as they see them and taking matters into their own hands.
Neocons, always seek path that leads to war so their masters who sell war machines can profit. Lets trace history. Iran Revolution was Carter's invention as part of creating Islamic belt against USSR. secret deals with Ronald Regan to release hostages on the day of his inauguration , Iran gate scandal, etc are evidence of that. Calling Iranian regime enemy now is disparaging.
ReplyDeleteUS policy today is to control China, to that end they must weaken Russia (whom has military power to come to china side in case of war) and by extension her mid-east allies Iran, and Syria. it is no wonder that No one had problem with Assad regime till 2011, and Ukraine did not want to join EU at any bloody cost till late 2013 but suddenly the neocons saw to it . turmoil in this plan has has side effects, because, world is not a simple playground. Powerful countries can destroy but can not conquer. proof is the Israel, Gaza War. Since US tax payer foot most of the bill for such adventures with their treasure and blood they should demand more from the lawmakers, and powers in charge. I as US Tax payer am puzzled at simplicity of those who repeat actions that fails to achieve anything for American people but benefit some here and there.