Iraq voices anger as US air force defends Irbil – but not Baghdad

[Dems to Win]

Iraq's political class has watched with fear and envy in the last fortnight as American jets have slowed the Islamic State extremist group's advance towards the Kurdish stronghold of Irbil.

At the same time, the group, formerly known as Isis, has been trying to encircle Baghdad – untroubled by air strikes. Its manoeuvres near the national capital in recent days have consolidated gains it has made in the last two tumultuous months and made the very existence of Iraq in its current borders ever more precarious.

With a new central government only three weeks from being sworn in, Iraqi leaders are imploring the US to honour what they perceived to be an implicit deal to protect Baghdad once an inclusive leadership was installed.

Officials say that support for only one side will guarantee the end of Iraq, allowing the Isis insurgents menacing the capital to whittle away what is left of state control and terrorise large numbers of people into fleeing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/16/iraq-anger-us-air-force-defends-irbil-not-iraq-kurds-maliki


From The Guardian, which is one of the best sources of news about Iraq.

[msongs]

1. here's a thought...maybe the IRAQIS could defend baghdad themselves nt

[Dems to Win]

2. Indeed.

The Iraqi Sunnis seem remarkably sanguine about ISIS controlling their territory.

Here's another recent headline: Sunni tribal leaders offer to battle Islamic State if Baghdad makes concessions http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014872485

Isn't that special -- they are 'offering' to fight for their own land!

[TwilightGardener]

3. Calm down, Iraqis, we'll be bombing in your neighborhood soon.

Sheesh, no patience with this crowd.

[Dems to Win]

4. Thanks for the chuckle

[Scootaloo]

5. Well... because we want baghdad to fall

The US has decided to invest in a pliable oil-rich Kurdish state, and simply has no interest in a competing state to the south - so we're happy to let it fall to chaos and destruction, just to keep them out of the market.

Same policy as ever - "if we can't have it no one can."

[Dems to Win]

6. I'm not sure I buy that....

If Baghdad and southern Iraq fall into chaos and Iraq disintegrates, Iran will step in and make the area the newest province of Iran (they are all Shia)

Can't see the US wanting that to happen.

[Scootaloo]

8. And what do you think it would take for Iran to do that?

Baghdad might vote - inasmuch as Baghdad votes - to allow annexation by Iran... But will the Iraqis nominally ruled from Baghdad take it? There's lot of distrust there. It would essentially force Iran to mobilize itself in counter-insurgency efforts to control the very situation we're abandoning iraq to in the first place.

So it becomes win-win from US policy perspective; either we shed the dead weight of the region we have intentionally destabilized to stew uselessly in its own juices... or we do that and get Iran sucked into a ground war it doesn't want.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. They have a point. ISIS is on the doorstep of Baghdad, too.