Iraq: Al Qaeda 'Controls Half Of Fallujah'


#1

news.sky.com/story/1189453/iraq-al-qaeda-controls-half-of-fallujah

                        Sounds like all out war in Iraq may be about to start.

#2

Of course.

This is why the Sunni leaders wanted the U.S. to stay in force in Iraq. Well, and among the Shia, so did Al-Sistani. So did the Kurds.

But we threw away what our troops had gained with blood, sweat and tears because Obama and his people had condemned the Iraq War as "Bush's War".

Al Sadr came back as an Iranian client, the Sunni states are undoubtedly funding and arming the Sunni radicals, and now Iraq is one of the Sunni/Shia battlegrounds in the Middle East again.

Didn't have to be, but easily predictable. We're going to see a lot more of this, and worse.


#3

I think what you're proposing Ridgerunner, is a permanent occupation. Even with American boots on the ground the Shia were still vulnerable to Salafist suicide bombers. By Middle East standards, Nouri Al-Maliki wasn't doing a bad job. He asked Iraqi Christian refugees to return home, but the Saudi inspired Salafists are out to destroy everyone who isn't one of them.


#4

[quote="Seamus_L, post:3, topic:350111"]
I think what you're proposing Ridgerunner, is a permanent occupation. Even with American boots on the ground the Shia were still vulnerable to Salafist suicide bombers. By Middle East standards, Nouri Al-Maliki wasn't doing a bad job. He asked Iraqi Christian refugees to return home, but the Saudi inspired Salafists are out to destroy everyone who isn't one of them.

[/quote]

I don't know about "permanent", though we sure have been in South Korea a long time. What we have to ask is whether a relatively battle-ready but fairly modest force would have kept the peace in Iraq. Many, including the Sunni Arab tribal leaders and the Kurds, who begged us to stay, thought so. We also have to ask whether it would have been worth it compared to war all over the Middle East.

Actually, there was a conflict among the Shia themselves, with Al-Sistani and others quite willing to live with the Sunni as one element, and the Iranian client Al Sadr being another. Remember when Sistani and a lot of his Shiite supporters were willing to walk into the gunfire of Al Sadr's people to get them out of a revered mosque in Iraq? They were the majority at the time, and Al Sadr became powerless.

And the "awakening council" of Sunni leaders were quite happy to reject Al Quaeda and related groups when they thought America would remain as a peacekeeper. They threatened no war against the Al-Sistani Shiites. They didn't much like Al Maliki, but they were willing to work with him until he allowed Al Sadr and the Iranians back into the country.

So, we left, and the oil states and Sunni leaders turned back to the radicals as "their fighters" against Iranian imperialism. Same thing is going on in Syria and Lebanon.


#5

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:2, topic:350111"]
But we threw away what our troops had gained with blood, sweat and tears because Obama and his people had condemned the Iraq War as "Bush's War".

[/quote]

The state of affairs in Iraq is the responsibility of Iraqi's. You can't help people who won't help themselves.


#6

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:5, topic:350111"]
The state of affairs in Iraq is the responsibility of Iraqi's. You can't help people who won't help themselves.

[/quote]

Then why have we been in Afghanistan these past five years? (yes, and before) Af/Pak held less promise in 2008 than Iraq did. None, really. But we left the place where there was demonstrable hope for stability and stayed in the one where there never was any.

And Iraqis did help themselves, at least to a degree not unreasonable for a people who had lived under a dictator for so long and colonial powers before that. The cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders and some Shiite Arab leaders, combined with American military power, was what turned Iraq into a relatively stable place.

It isn't entirely a matter of Iraqis helping themselves, either. When we left, agents (even soldiers) of Iran moved in. That was intolerable to Sunnis, who (we being gone) then turned back to the Sunni radicals, many foreign, to combat Iranian imperialism. Iraq, like much of the Middle East now, is a battleground between transnational powers. You can't just condemn Iraqis for that, anymore than you can condemn WWII Poland for being a battleground between Nazis and Soviets.


#7

Sunnis in the Middle East are very fearful of what Iran might do one day, but yet it's the Shia who are regularly being murdered in Salafist terror attacks in Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria, while being politically oppressed in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.


#8

I think that it would have been a wiser move for America to still maintain a presence in Iraq, but the American people and Obama chose differently.

Albeit cold-blooded, there is an advantage to having the fanatics of the Middle East killing each other rather than directing their rage against the rest of the world.

I would have preferred that American and the coalition of the willing to have stayed in Iraq for the long haul though and give a little presence of muscle to ensure that a somewhat freer Iraq might have emerged. That kind of Iraq certainly was a possibility when Obama entered into power.

Mine was a minority position though, and still is. Option 2 is to watch the region descend into varying degrees of anarchy, with no successful moderate governments around to serve as a model.
It is all bad for Muslims and the people of the Middle East in general. On the other hand, it is not all bad news for the rest of the world.


#9

[quote="Seamus_L, post:7, topic:350111"]
Sunnis in the Middle East are very fearful of what Iran might do one day, but yet it's the Shia who are regularly being murdered in Salafist terror attacks in Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria, while being politically oppressed in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

[/quote]

"What Iran MIGHT do?" Its client Hezbollah has virtually taken over Lebanon, and its client, Assad has gassed Sunni, tortured and massacred many. I think that horse left the barn a long time ago. And so the Sunni turn to the Islamists who are well trained and armed, rather like people in poor Italian neighborhoods once turned to the Mafia for protection because there simply was no other. And so, the Islamists rule. Well, yes, they kill Christians and peaceful Alawite neighbors, but to the Syrian Sunni mother whose child was gassed, that is an acceptable price even if she doesn't otherwise approve of it, because those Islamists will also kill Assad's troops as well as the Hezbollah, and Iranian fighters in her country.


#10

[quote="Darryl1958, post:8, topic:350111"]
I think that it would have been a wiser move for America to still maintain a presence in Iraq, but the American people and Obama chose differently.

Albeit cold-blooded, there is an advantage to having the fanatics of the Middle East killing each other rather than directing their rage against the rest of the world.

I would have preferred that American and the coalition of the willing to have stayed in Iraq for the long haul though and give a little presence of muscle to ensure that a somewhat freer Iraq might have emerged. That kind of Iraq certainly was a possibility when Obama entered into power.

Mine was a minority position though, and still is. Option 2 is to watch the region descend into varying degrees of anarchy, with no successful moderate governments around to serve as a model.
It is all bad for Muslims and the people of the Middle East in general. On the other hand, it is not all bad news for the rest of the world.

[/quote]

I would perhaps correct the first sentence a bit. The Left, of which Obama and the American media are a part, chose to abandon Iraq, and persuaded a majority of Americans to believe that success was failure. And so, it was abandoned to Iranian encroachment, Islamist "protection racketeers" and civil war.

Why? Because it made a good campaign slogan; "Bush lied, people died" and all that.

On the other hand, Af/Pak was the "good war" even though it had zero chance of ultimate success. And so, we're still there for now, "holding place" for the Taliban who are, after all, Pakistan's "CIA's" bulwark against Iranian encroachment. As rotten as ISI is, at least it knows what it's trying to do.


#11

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:10, topic:350111"]
I would perhaps correct the first sentence a bit. The Left, of which Obama and the American media are a part, chose to abandon Iraq, and persuaded a majority of Americans to believe that success was failure. And so, it was abandoned to Iranian encroachment, Islamist "protection racketeers" and civil war.

Why? Because it made a good campaign slogan; "Bush lied, people died" and all that.

On the other hand, Af/Pak was the "good war" even though it had zero chance of ultimate success. And so, we're still there for now, "holding place" for the Taliban who are, after all, Pakistan's "CIA's" bulwark against Iranian encroachment. As rotten as ISI is, at least it knows what it's trying to do.

[/quote]

I would go further than saying that it was just a good campaign slogan. It was a deliberate lie and slander against Bush that the Left chose to run with, because they saw a way back into the halls of power through running with that lie. The lie absolved them for their initial support of Iraq.

The larger part of the media are a part of that propaganda campaign, but whether the American people were duped by the lies of the left, or simply have had enough, and chose to follow along because they were sick of the thankless task of world leadership is an open question for me.


#12

While it is true that in Lebanon, Shia-Sunni tensions are much worse than
either group's relations with Christians, (alot more Christians are
sympathetic to Hezbollah, than Sunnis) Hezbollah is not an anti-Sunni
organization. Of it's 12 members in the Lebanese Parliament, 11 are Shia,
and 1, Elwalid Succariyeh is a Sunni. As for Syria, numerous Sunnis support Bashar Al-Assad, including cabinet ministers and the country's highest ranking cleric.


#13

Iraq militants 'still control parts of western cities'
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25588615


#14

I wonder how much Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni militants?


#15

[quote="gilliam, post:14, topic:350111"]
I wonder how much Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni militants?

[/quote]

From the point of view of Saudi interests, they should be funding the Sunni militants.


#16

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:2, topic:350111"]
Of course.

This is why the Sunni leaders wanted the U.S. to stay in force in Iraq. Well, and among the Shia, so did Al-Sistani. So did the Kurds.

But we threw away what our troops had gained with blood, sweat and tears because Obama and his people had condemned the Iraq War as "Bush's War".

Al Sadr came back as an Iranian client, the Sunni states are undoubtedly funding and arming the Sunni radicals, and now Iraq is one of the Sunni/Shia battlegrounds in the Middle East again.

Didn't have to be, but easily predictable. We're going to see a lot more of this, and worse.

[/quote]

Saddam was doing a fine job keeping the peace before the illegal Bush/Blair crusades...


#17

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:5, topic:350111"]
The state of affairs in Iraq is the responsibility of Iraqi's. You can't help people who won't help themselves.

[/quote]

The current state of affairs in Iraq is a direct result of the US not actually cleaning up the mess we made there. Anyone who thinks you can remove an oppressive government that has been in power for decades without reigniting sectarian strife is a fool. The biggest blunder the US made was getting out too early; the second biggest is not having a plan for what happened after Saddam's regime fell.


#18

Leave them to it. They're big enough to sort out their own backyard. The strongest faction will win out and life will go on, without Crusading Westerners sticking their oars in...


#19

Getting even worse !\

                                  Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq [washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html)

                                   I think it's time the Shia started supplying arms to there co-religionists in Eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The Saudis are behind this and someone needs to take the fight to the Salafists at there home base.

#20

[quote="Seamus_L, post:19, topic:350111"]
Getting even worse !\

                                  Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq [washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html)

                                   I think it's time the Shia started supplying arms to there co-religionists in Eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The Saudis are behind this and someone needs to take the fight to the Salafists at there home base.

[/quote]

Do you think that the Shia have a chance of winning anything in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia for its part is not constrained by anything resembling a code of human rights that would keep it from being very punitive against Shia in general, if civil unrest starts brewing in their territories.

Iraq on the other hand is a fairly easy target for the regional powers who are not necessarily interested in taking each other on directly.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.