'Hunter Gray' hunterbadbear@hunterbear.org [marxist]
2014-06-16 10:28:15 UTC
----- Original Message -----
From: David McReynolds
To: Bruce Cronin
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 1:12 AM
Subject: Quick look at the Syrian / Iraqi mess
Hope, as always, to get a longer piece written on the broader meaning of this, but, pending that, some quick thoughts. (Bruce, sorry to send this to you as the "header" but it goes to the Edgeleft list but I can't send it BCC unless I use someone's name as the subject).
First, I had just been listening to the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee and - no surprise - not much intelligence.
The ISSI military force in Iraq, which has seized so much territory, is small and the speed with which it has moved makes clear that large sectors of the Sunni population have sided with it. One reason for the Iraqi army "dissolving" in the face of much smaller forces is that the Sunnis in the army are totally disillusioned with the Maliki government. There is something close to a consensus, by analysts who had previously supported US policy in Iraq, that Maliki, a Shiite, had been ruthless, establishing a virtual Shiite military government, leaving the Sunni minority feeling not only angry, but disillusioned with any hope from the central government in Baghdad.
Obama has been clear that Maliki needs to make major political moves to broaden his base - but thus far Maliki has shown no signs of doing that. He is a hard line sectarian, I think it doubtful if he is psychologically capable of making the needed concessions.
This is a case where some of those calling for US "troops on the ground" have lost track of the history. It was Maliki's own decision which made it impossible for Obama to leave any troops behind - he refused to give US troops protection from Iraqi law in case of actions
taken by US troops. The US Congress would not have agreed to leaving troops behind under those conditions. (In addition, of course, Obama had made withdrawing from Iraq a major issue in his campaign).
Generally Obama's reactions have been cautious and thoughtful. He is in an impossible situation - direct military support for Maliki puts the US on the side of the Shiite population in what is rapidly becoming a sectarian civil war between the two factions of the Islamic world in Iraq.
While I always find Senator McCain has occasional touches of decency, he has been, for years, a military nut who would rush US troops into battle anywhere in the world. He is, in this matter, rare for
the military, which is much more cautious in rushing troops into battle - that is a game played best by politicians who never saw battle.
It is likely that the ISSI forces will stop before "taking" Baghdad, though
if they prove able to cut off access to Baghdad the situation will be grave. (I must confess a secret desire to see the US Embassy in Baghdad,the largest such in the world, evacuated!). It is very likely that the area now seized by the Kurds will remain in their hands. ISSI is not likely to move into the Kurdish area. Their military forces are formidable and morale is good.
I don't see any long term happy outcome without a radical shift in the government in Baghdad.
Meanwhile the events have had an interesting fall out in two areas. One is that the US is engaged in at least informal and unofficiall talks with the Iranians (who support the Shiites). The other area is Syria.
Syria has been a horrible crisis in human terms, and the Assad government has used unlimited violence against any opposition in Syria. But Assad has consolidated his hold on power. A number of Americans have supported the "rebels" in Syria, (Fellowship magazine in its last issue had a long and sympathetic look at the democratic rebels). The problem is that the rebels are divided into two general groups. One is allied with ISSI, ruthless, brutal, and organically linked with the ISSI military and political force in Iraq and frankly much worse than Assad. The other rebel group began nonviolently, as a secular and democratic movement against the Assad regime. But even this rebel "group" is divided internally, it does not trust those in Geneva who have sought to speak for it, and it has gradually been defeated militarily. In short, there really is not a serious secular democratic rebel group holding territory in Syria (or if there is, the NY Times, etc., have not reported on it).
But Assad has proven he can defeat ISSI on the battle field. Unlike Iraq, where the army has folded in battle, Assad's military has remained loyal to him and, while it is painful to admit it, Assad has a degree of popular support in Syria.
The constant talk of the need to send military aid to the Syrian rebels
has always dodged the hard question - where and how do you find these "good rebels", and how do you keep advanced military weapons from falling into the hands of the ISSI forces. (This leaves aside the most serous objection - how does sending any military aid into Syria
help solve the political problem. Obama has been sending some limited aid to Syrian "rebels" but most of the military aid has come from Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the most violent of the Islamic forces - precisely the forces the Republicans are now so alarmed at seeing in action in Iraq!)
If Obama has few options, the Republican critics have absolutely none. We should, of course, oppose US military intervention. Not only because as pacifists or radicals we should do that, but for the very practical reason that the real problem is not the ISSI military attack, but the nature of the Maliki government. Support for that government is support for a return to a bloody Iraqi civil war along religious lines.
There is much more that needs to be said, and I'll close with the important and essential point - the Bush/Blair policy of invading Iraq
was not only criminal but incredibly stupid. We are watching the fallout from what happened once we destroyed the nation of Iraq.
(These comments can be sent on without permission. The author is a former long-time staff member of War Resisters League, and a member of the Socialist Party, twice their candidate for President. Now retired. He can be reached by email at: ***@gmail.com)
From: David McReynolds
To: Bruce Cronin
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 1:12 AM
Subject: Quick look at the Syrian / Iraqi mess
Hope, as always, to get a longer piece written on the broader meaning of this, but, pending that, some quick thoughts. (Bruce, sorry to send this to you as the "header" but it goes to the Edgeleft list but I can't send it BCC unless I use someone's name as the subject).
First, I had just been listening to the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee and - no surprise - not much intelligence.
The ISSI military force in Iraq, which has seized so much territory, is small and the speed with which it has moved makes clear that large sectors of the Sunni population have sided with it. One reason for the Iraqi army "dissolving" in the face of much smaller forces is that the Sunnis in the army are totally disillusioned with the Maliki government. There is something close to a consensus, by analysts who had previously supported US policy in Iraq, that Maliki, a Shiite, had been ruthless, establishing a virtual Shiite military government, leaving the Sunni minority feeling not only angry, but disillusioned with any hope from the central government in Baghdad.
Obama has been clear that Maliki needs to make major political moves to broaden his base - but thus far Maliki has shown no signs of doing that. He is a hard line sectarian, I think it doubtful if he is psychologically capable of making the needed concessions.
This is a case where some of those calling for US "troops on the ground" have lost track of the history. It was Maliki's own decision which made it impossible for Obama to leave any troops behind - he refused to give US troops protection from Iraqi law in case of actions
taken by US troops. The US Congress would not have agreed to leaving troops behind under those conditions. (In addition, of course, Obama had made withdrawing from Iraq a major issue in his campaign).
Generally Obama's reactions have been cautious and thoughtful. He is in an impossible situation - direct military support for Maliki puts the US on the side of the Shiite population in what is rapidly becoming a sectarian civil war between the two factions of the Islamic world in Iraq.
While I always find Senator McCain has occasional touches of decency, he has been, for years, a military nut who would rush US troops into battle anywhere in the world. He is, in this matter, rare for
the military, which is much more cautious in rushing troops into battle - that is a game played best by politicians who never saw battle.
It is likely that the ISSI forces will stop before "taking" Baghdad, though
if they prove able to cut off access to Baghdad the situation will be grave. (I must confess a secret desire to see the US Embassy in Baghdad,the largest such in the world, evacuated!). It is very likely that the area now seized by the Kurds will remain in their hands. ISSI is not likely to move into the Kurdish area. Their military forces are formidable and morale is good.
I don't see any long term happy outcome without a radical shift in the government in Baghdad.
Meanwhile the events have had an interesting fall out in two areas. One is that the US is engaged in at least informal and unofficiall talks with the Iranians (who support the Shiites). The other area is Syria.
Syria has been a horrible crisis in human terms, and the Assad government has used unlimited violence against any opposition in Syria. But Assad has consolidated his hold on power. A number of Americans have supported the "rebels" in Syria, (Fellowship magazine in its last issue had a long and sympathetic look at the democratic rebels). The problem is that the rebels are divided into two general groups. One is allied with ISSI, ruthless, brutal, and organically linked with the ISSI military and political force in Iraq and frankly much worse than Assad. The other rebel group began nonviolently, as a secular and democratic movement against the Assad regime. But even this rebel "group" is divided internally, it does not trust those in Geneva who have sought to speak for it, and it has gradually been defeated militarily. In short, there really is not a serious secular democratic rebel group holding territory in Syria (or if there is, the NY Times, etc., have not reported on it).
But Assad has proven he can defeat ISSI on the battle field. Unlike Iraq, where the army has folded in battle, Assad's military has remained loyal to him and, while it is painful to admit it, Assad has a degree of popular support in Syria.
The constant talk of the need to send military aid to the Syrian rebels
has always dodged the hard question - where and how do you find these "good rebels", and how do you keep advanced military weapons from falling into the hands of the ISSI forces. (This leaves aside the most serous objection - how does sending any military aid into Syria
help solve the political problem. Obama has been sending some limited aid to Syrian "rebels" but most of the military aid has come from Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the most violent of the Islamic forces - precisely the forces the Republicans are now so alarmed at seeing in action in Iraq!)
If Obama has few options, the Republican critics have absolutely none. We should, of course, oppose US military intervention. Not only because as pacifists or radicals we should do that, but for the very practical reason that the real problem is not the ISSI military attack, but the nature of the Maliki government. Support for that government is support for a return to a bloody Iraqi civil war along religious lines.
There is much more that needs to be said, and I'll close with the important and essential point - the Bush/Blair policy of invading Iraq
was not only criminal but incredibly stupid. We are watching the fallout from what happened once we destroyed the nation of Iraq.
(These comments can be sent on without permission. The author is a former long-time staff member of War Resisters League, and a member of the Socialist Party, twice their candidate for President. Now retired. He can be reached by email at: ***@gmail.com)