Scores killed during battle for Iraq provincial capital

If it walk like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck was one of former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s favorite sayings in 2003 when Shock and Awe turned the Iraqi capital into a ball of flame. But just as he was wrong about Saddam’s nuclear weapons that were destroyed in the early 1990s, those who are jumping to conclusions about the situation now could be misguided.
The mainstream thinking is that a bunch of extremists have captured provinces of northern Iraq slated to be included in an Islamist state stretching westwards into northern Syria as a precursor to a caliphate. That may or may not be the case, but it’s worth considering various anomalies. For instance, why is the self-ascribed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) marching on Baghdad which is not only extraneous to their stated ambitions, but will also be defended by Shiite troops, militias and volunteers?
Secondly, ISIL’s behavior toward the civilian population in Mosul and other cities under its control is out of character. Whereas in Syria, its own strict interpretation of Islamic law was imposed, civilians in Iraq were simply asked to go about their daily lives after being advised that ISIL was a force of liberation from Shiite domination. One theory doing the rounds is that, in Iraq, ISIL is acting as a gun-for-hire with former Baathists led by Saddam’s elusive former vice-president and military commander Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri (The King of Clubs within George W. Bush’s “most wanted” pack of cards) responsible for the hiring. So is this, in fact, a planned Sunni insurgency. Too early to tell, but we do know that officers and soldiers in the disbanded Baathist army under the banner “Naqshbandi Army” are fighting alongside ISIL and, we know too, that Sunni tribes are cheering them on. Curious, too, was the sheer speed of ISIL’s success, enabled by the melting away of Iraqi troops and police who left their uniforms strewn along the highways along with their tanks and weapons. There are unconfirmed reports that they were ordered by their superiors to do just that. A second theory revolves around the US, which invested blood and trillions of dollars in Iraq but left virtually empty-handed. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 58 percent of Americans feel that war wasn’t worth fighting. A status of forces agreement was rejected because Iraq’s government would not agree to American soldiers operating outside the laws of the land.
Moreover, the White House has been critical of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s failure to include Sunni politicians in his government and of ignoring the demands of the Sunni population; he is guilty of giving preferential treatment to Shiites and cozying up to Iran where he lived in exile for years. But now that his chair is threatened, he’s calling out to the US for help. The war weary American public has little appetite to see their country involve in yet another war in the Middle East and Obama has come across as reluctant to intervene. But is he really? He has ruled out boots on the grounds but has tasked an aircraft carrier and two ships with guided missiles to head to the Gulf in preparation for a likely bombing campaign to send ISIL packing, but this time, he’s made it clear that US assistance comes with conditions.
A third theory is that Al-Maliki permitted ISIL’s sweep to consolidate his grip on the country with emergency powers permitting the use of unrestricted force to quash the Sunni insurgency in Anbar once and for all. If that was the case, then his plan has badly misfired because he was unable to whip up a Parliamentary quorum required to impose a state of emergency. An even bigger shock to the PM has been the disloyalty of his troops; he’s resorting to calling for Shiite volunteers and working with Shiite militias to defend Baghdad as well as the south.
In the meantime, Iraq Kurds are making hay while the sun shines, grabbing the disputed oil-rich town of Kirkuk, which they hope will be subsumed into an eventual autonomous Kurdish state. We will have to wait until the dust settles to discover the truth or some semblance of it. The question now is whether Iraq will exist as we know it — or will it be partitioned into three, which was the plan of the neoconservatives who prodded Bush to war all along?

Iraqi Shiite fighters chanted “Labeiki ya Zaynab,” as they swayed, dancing with their rifles before TV news cameras in Baghdad on June 13. They were apparently getting ready for a difficult fight ahead.
That chant alone is enough to demonstrate the ugly sectarian nature of the war in Iraq, which has reached an unprecedented highpoint in recent days. Fewer than 1,000 fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) advanced against Iraq’s largest city of Mosul on June 10, sending two Iraqi army divisions (nearly 30,000 soldiers) to a chaotic retreat.
Shiite cleric Ali Al-Sistani made the call to fight in a statement read on his behalf during a Friday prayer’s sermon in Kerbala.
The terrorists of whom Sistani speaks are those of ISIL, whose numbers throughout the region is estimated to be at only 7,000 fighters. They are well organized, fairly well equipped and absolutely ruthless in their conduct.
To secure their remarkable territorial gains, they quickly moved south, closing in on other Iraqi towns: They attacked and took over Baiji on June 11. On the same day, they conquered Tikrit, where ex-Baathist fighters joined them. For two days, they tried to take over Samarra, but couldn’t, only to move against Jalawala and Saaddiyah, to the east of Baghdad. It is impossible to verify reports of what is taking place in towns that fall under the control of ISIL, but considering their bloody legacy in Syria, and ISIL’s own online reporting on their own activities, one can expect the worse.
Within days, ISIL was in control of a large swathe of land which lumped together offers a new map fully altering the political boundaries of the Middle East that were largely envisioned by colonial powers France and Britain nearly a century ago.
What the future holds is difficult to predict. The US administration is petrified by the notion of getting involved in Iraq once more. It was its orginal meddling, at the behest of the neoconservatives who largely determined US foreign policy during George W. Bush’s administration that ignited this ongoing strife in the first place. They admitted failure and withdrew in Dec 2011, hoping to sustain a level of influence over the Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. They failed miserably as well and it is now Iran that is an influential foreign power in Baghdad.
In fact, Iran’s influence and interests are so strong that despite much saber rattling by US President Barack Obama, the US cannot possibly modify the massively changing reality in Iraq without Iranian help. Reports in the US and British media are pointing to possible US-Iranian involvement to counter ISIL, not just in Iraq, but also in Syria.
History is accelerating at a frantic speed. Seemingly impossible alliances are being hastily formed. Maps are being redrawn in directions that are determined by masked fighters with automatic weapons mounted on the back of pickup trucks. True, no one could have predicted such events, but when some warned that the Iraq war would “destabilize” the region for many years to come, this is precisely what they meant.
When Bush led his war on Iraq in order to fight Al-Qaeda, the group simply didn’t exist in that country; the war however, brought Al-Qaeda to Iraq. A mix of hubris and ignorance of the facts — and lack of understanding of Iraq’s history — allowed the Bush administration to sustain that horrible war.
The Americans toyed with Iraq in numerous ways. They dissolved the army, dismissed all government institutions, attempted to restructure a new society based on the recommendations of Pentagon and CIA analysts in Washington D.C. and Virginia. They oppressed the Sunni Muslims, empowered Shiites and fed the flame of sectarianism with no regard to the consequences. When things didn’t go as planned, they tried to empower some Shiite groups over others, and armed some Sunni groups to fight the Iraqi resistance to the war, which was mostly made of Sunni fighters.
And the consequences were most bloody. Iraq’s civil war of 2006-07 claimed tens of thousands to be added to the ever-growing toll caused by the war adventure. No sham elections were enough to remedy the situation, no torture technique was enough to suppress the rebellion, and no fiddling with the sectarian or ethnic demographics of the country was enough to create the coveted “stability.”
In December 2011, the Americans ran away from the Iraq inferno, leaving behind a fight that was not yet settled. What is going on in Iraq right now is an integral part of the US-infused mayhem. It should be telling enough that the leader of ISIL, Abu Baker Al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi from Samarra, who fought against the Americans and was himself held and tortured in the largest US prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca for five years.
It would not be precise to make the claim that ISIL started in the dungeon of a US prison in Iraq. The ISIL story would need to be examined in greater depth since it is as stretched as the current geography of the conflict, and as mysterious as the masked characters who are blowing people up with no mercy and beheading with no regard to the upright values of the religion they purport to represent. But there can be no denial that the US ignorant orchestration of the mass oppression of Iraqis, and Sunnis in particular during the 2003 war until their much-touted withdrawal was a major factor in ISIL formation, and the horrendous levels of violence the extremist group utilizes.
It is unclear whether ISIL will be able to hold onto the territories it gained or sustain itself in a battle that involves Baghdad, Iran and the US. But a few things should be clear:
The systematic political marginalization of Iraq’s Sunni communities is both senseless and unsustainable. A new political and social contract is needed to re-order the mess created by the US invasion and other foreign intervention in Iraq, including that of Iran.
The nature of the conflict has become so convoluted that a political settlement in Iraq would have to tackle a similar settlement in Syria, which is serving as a breeding ground for brutality, by the Syrian regime and opposition forces, especially ISIL. That factory of radicalization must close down as soon as possible in a way that would allow Syria’s wounds, and by extension Iraq’s, to heal.

— Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.

The recent developments in Iraq sent shockwaves throughout the world because it was unimaginable that anyone could rival Iraqi forces — trained with most modern weapons — when it comes to protecting the government. But when Nuri Al-Maliki’s forces in Mosul dissolved like salt within hours, no one believed how weak the military command was until other cities, military bases and government installations were seized.
Events once again proved that the problem lies with Nuri Al-Maliki’s leadership. He is a man who knows nothing about management and at the same time he deprives his ministers of their powers. One of his current follies is that he’s attacking his rivals and provoking them to collectively act against him. This may lead to a bigger war and to the collapse of the entire regime. This is where Iran’s role as protector of the Iraqi regime becomes apparent. Is Iran really a protector or is it just a greedy country that has aims in the world’s second most oil-rich country? We must not believe sectarian suggestions that Iran will support Al-Maliki’s government due to the Shiite ties. Iran’s disagreement with Shiite Azerbaijan has prevailed for years while its relations with Sunni Turkey are flourishing.
Relations between Iraq and Iran have been competitive for centuries, regardless of who was in power. Even during Al-Maliki’s term, and despite his special relationship with Tehran, Iran took over border posts and robbed plenty of Iraq’s oil in the south. One can still hear Iranian artillery shelling the mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan under the excuse of targeting the Iranian-Kurdish opposition.
Considering recent developments, it’s certain that Iran will intervene to support the Iraqi regime. But how large will the intervention be and what are Iran’s real intentions? It’s unlikely that we will see Iranian tanks in Baghdad’s streets — unless in the case of the total collapse of the state. Also, Iraq — unlike Syria — is a vital country for the industrial world since it produces oil. Thus it will not be easy to alter realties on the ground or at the regional level without bringing bigger forces into the struggle.
What’s certain is that Iran rushed to support Al-Maliki since the first day of Mosul’s collapse. Its militias are participating in leading the fight. This raises more questions and speculations: Does Iran posses the capacity required to go on? Will it bear the financial burden and the cost to human lives on two fronts — Iraq and Syria? This firstly depends on the intra-Iraq struggle. Secondly it depends on the intentions of the Iranian command and on whether it sees in chaos across the borders a chance to impose its control especially as the Republican Guards’ leadership has a great desire to expand. In my opinion, this will incite Iraqis of all sects and will set the struggle between the two countries on its old path.
If Iran becomes involved, either via supporting Iraq or occupying it, there will be major security fallout in the region and the struggle will expand to include the Arab Gulf, Israel and Turkey.