![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe crisis in Iraq caused by the Islamic State is now effectively drawing Iran and the US together, two sworn enemies. And this is a chance for them to work together and bring their relations into a more constructive territory. Otherwise Iraq will fall apart.
Right now, Iraq is standing in front of two crises. The political crisis around the scramble for the prime minister's chair, plus the existential crisis coming from the advance of the Islamic State (former ISIS, former ISIL). The two crises are interconnected, and both the US and Iran have their share of responsibility for having caused them. America is responsible, because the US invasion and the political chaos that followed, has undermined all political structures in Iraq. The result was a severe deterioration of security and stability. At this point, almost no one contests the fact that the war in Iraq was a dire mistake (not to mention that it was based on a lie).
But constantly looking back to the past and accusing each other is hardly a constructive approach to seeking an efficient solution for the future. The ayatollahs in Iran also share responsibility, because they used the political vacuum after Saddam's fall, to their advantage. Prime minister Al Maliki maintained friendly relations with Tehran. During his rule, he in fact followed the example of the ayatollahs, centralising all power in the hands of the Shia and marginalising the Sunni. That was a mistake with disastrous consequences. Many young Sunni were radicalised because of it. The lacking security structures in the country and the flood of US weapons among the populace have done the rest. The advance of the terrorist militias of Islamic State is a direct result of these policies.
It all began in 2003 with the so called Coalition of the Willing. But now the situation could be put under control only through forming a Coalition of the Unwilling. Cooperation between America and Iran will definitely not be a voluntary decision. But neither of the two can single-handedly tackle the problem with the Islamic State. The US does have the necessary military power, and Iran has the necessary political influence. In other words, each side has to solve that part of the crisis that it had caused. The US should stabilise security in Northern Iraq, and Iran should use its political influence to pacify the region by making concessions to the Sunni.
Without the shared efforts of Iran and the US, Iraq's Balkanisation is imminent. Such a development would have fatal consequences and could plunge the entire region, including Iran itself, into long years of chaos. And the international community will blame America for it. So, cooperation between the two sworn enemies is the only viable option.
Right now, Iraq is standing in front of two crises. The political crisis around the scramble for the prime minister's chair, plus the existential crisis coming from the advance of the Islamic State (former ISIS, former ISIL). The two crises are interconnected, and both the US and Iran have their share of responsibility for having caused them. America is responsible, because the US invasion and the political chaos that followed, has undermined all political structures in Iraq. The result was a severe deterioration of security and stability. At this point, almost no one contests the fact that the war in Iraq was a dire mistake (not to mention that it was based on a lie).
But constantly looking back to the past and accusing each other is hardly a constructive approach to seeking an efficient solution for the future. The ayatollahs in Iran also share responsibility, because they used the political vacuum after Saddam's fall, to their advantage. Prime minister Al Maliki maintained friendly relations with Tehran. During his rule, he in fact followed the example of the ayatollahs, centralising all power in the hands of the Shia and marginalising the Sunni. That was a mistake with disastrous consequences. Many young Sunni were radicalised because of it. The lacking security structures in the country and the flood of US weapons among the populace have done the rest. The advance of the terrorist militias of Islamic State is a direct result of these policies.
It all began in 2003 with the so called Coalition of the Willing. But now the situation could be put under control only through forming a Coalition of the Unwilling. Cooperation between America and Iran will definitely not be a voluntary decision. But neither of the two can single-handedly tackle the problem with the Islamic State. The US does have the necessary military power, and Iran has the necessary political influence. In other words, each side has to solve that part of the crisis that it had caused. The US should stabilise security in Northern Iraq, and Iran should use its political influence to pacify the region by making concessions to the Sunni.
Without the shared efforts of Iran and the US, Iraq's Balkanisation is imminent. Such a development would have fatal consequences and could plunge the entire region, including Iran itself, into long years of chaos. And the international community will blame America for it. So, cooperation between the two sworn enemies is the only viable option.
(no subject)
Date: 16/8/14 14:06 (UTC)Again, war is the worst solution. Going "all in" and acting like a trigger-happy cowboy is immature, irresponsible and plain dangerous. It may appear to calm things down for a while, but in the long term, it makes things worse. I don't know if you feel proud, accomplished, or any other self-fulfilling feeling for having been part of all that, or perhaps just idealistically patriotic, but the fact that you still seem surprised from the end result is, in itself, surprising.
I know it is painful to realise that you have been used as a tool, and to see once more the confirmation that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have no doubt that your intentions were pure when you enlisted. And believe me, I deeply sympathise with the feeling of betrayal that you and many of your comrades must be feeling right now.
As for the Iraqi situation, the whole thing was done in an inadequate way right from the onset, despite the temporary good signs that you are talking about. It is because the whole premise was flawed. You do not fix a society through war, especially when there are so many factors involved, many of them obviously incomprehensible for the one who is intervening - and especially when there are other options available. I am aware that Americans tend to resort to the violent option as the first and only option more often than not, especially when their economic interests are directly at stake, but maybe you should have asked yourself first - what were you doing there, and on whose behalf? The Iraqi people? The American people? Or for something else? Something tells me that deep down, you have already realised what the answer to this question really is. Whether you want to acknowledge it and if not, why not, is another story that this is neither the place nor is it my business to discuss.
(no subject)
Date: 3/9/14 17:57 (UTC)Not really, I made my peace with being disposable a long time ago, I may have been stupid and idealistic the first time out but I reenlisted with eyes wide open. The problem is not getting sold out, it is getting sold out for so little. The betrayal was in expecting there to be an end goal and caring more about the outcome than our leaders apparently do.
If this war was about oil, why haven't we secured the oil fields?
If this war was about terrorism, why are we sitting on our thumbs? Can you imagine Cameron or Obama declaring "Haynes alive! or Mosa dead! (http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/perdicaris.html)" and meaning it? I know I can't.
Please tell me how the current situation serves our national interests. Is there any end being served beyond blood and chaos?
As I said before, there is a dark shitty part of me that wonders if the certain people in the government and the media WANT Iraq to fall to ISIS. If it falls their predictions of doom will be vindicated and they'll be able to pat each other on the back for being so much smarter and morally enlightened than the average voter. A stable Iraq, following a South Korean or post war German model would afford no such opportunity.
After all, why would anyone in the DNC give a shit about dead brown people in a far away place or about a bunch of ignorant rednecks and house-niggers who were probably gonna vote republican anyway? There are elections to be won.