Kerry, Iraqi PM embrace unity to defeat insurgency

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-EXCITE

By LARA JAKES

BAGHDAD (AP) — With a new Iraqi government finally in place and a growing Mideast consensus on defeating insurgent threats, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Iraq's Shiite leader on Wednesday to quickly deliver more power to wary Sunnis — or jeopardize any hope of defeating the Islamic State group.

Kerry landed in the Iraqi capital just two days after newly sworn Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi seated his top government ministers, a crucial step toward restoring stability in a nation where security has spiraled out of control since the beginning of the year.

The trip marks the first high-level U.S. meeting with al-Abadi since he become prime minister, and it aimed to symbolize the Obama administration's support for Iraq nearly three years after U.S. troops left the war-torn country. But it also signaled to al-Abadi, a Shiite Muslim, that the U.S. was watching to make sure he gives Iraqi Sunnis more control over their local power structures and security forces, as promised.

Al-Abadi's predecessor, former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, for years shut Sunnis out of power and refused to pay tribal militias salaries or give them government jobs — and in turn sowed widespread resentment that Islamic State extremists seized on as a recruiting tool.

FULL story at link.



Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi meets with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014. Kerry is traveling to the mideast this week to discuss ways to bolster the stability of the new Iraqi government and combat the Islamic State militant group that has taken over large swaths of Iraq and Syria. (AP Photo/Brendan Smialowski, Pool)

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140910/ml--kerry-iraq-358e4e4a15.html

[another_liberal]

1. We've been there, and we've done that . . .

It was stupid under George W. Bush. It is even more so now.

Our President needs some new advisers in the field of foreign policy. He is a scholar of Constitutional law, not international relations, and he is being badly misled by those in his inner circle you promote themselves as such.

[blm]

2. You're wrong. The quiet steps taken by Kerry the past 18mo have been giant ones.

It has always been his goal to persuade the players in the region that the fight is THEIRS and that they need to depend on themselves and their neighbors to defend the region from threats like ISIL.

This is something Bush and his control freak administration would not impress upon the region - he couldn't - he had no credibility.

[another_liberal]

3. If it's "their fight" . . .

Why are American warplanes bombing IS targets leading the charge? We are the ones who will (once again) own the blame for whatever disasters this intentional escalation ends up causing.

To operate one F-18 for an hour costs us about twenty thousand dollars. The guided bombs they have been dropping so liberally cost over fifteen thousand dollars each. Is there really no better way to spend what little is left of our international borrowing credit? Is there really nothing we need more than to waste it all on getting re-mired in Iraq?

Mr. Kerry is, perhaps, following his orders well; however, it is the logic behind those orders I find fault with in this case.

[blm]

4. We were STUCK with it - Kerry's doing what needs to be done to UNSTICK us

but, I don't expect his efforts to be noticed or placed in context of the hand they were dealt and the goals they are pursuing.

Getting Maliki out of office had to be done to get Iraqis to coalesce around a plan to defend their own nation from ISIL.

You see what you need to see to keep yourself from seeing and understanding the big picture. Just like corporate media expects. That's why they only tell part of the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-in-iraq-to-congratulate-new-premier-build-alliance-against-islamic-state/2014/09/10/dcfd8c2c-38ad-11e4-8601-97ba88884ffd_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

[former9thward]

9. "Getting Maliki out of office"

Funny. I guess you forgot Maliki finished 2ND in the balloting in 2010. The U.S. forced his way into power. There is no unity in Iraq, Kerry or no Kerry.

[another_liberal]

15. Iraq is not our country . . .

What gives us the right to say who should govern them and who shouldn't? This country's foreign policy is pure, brutal arrogance. Our grandchildren will come to hate us for the payback our hubris will surely earn them.

[blm]

16. That is exactly what Kerry is working to prevent and YOU don't WANT to see it.

And, again, YOU take it OUT of context of the hand this administration was DEALT.

Get into the arena. Pretty sure that if hundreds of thousands were being brutally slaughtered for ethnic cleansing and religious purging and this country looked the other way saying it's not our business, many of you harping now would be complaining at the nation's lack of compassion. THIS administration isn't lying us into a war for oil. This administration is actually targeting a threat to the stability of that region in order to PREVENT a greater military action.

You don't WANT to see it. You prefer your outside the arena potshots.

[another_liberal]

22. "This administration isn't lying us into a war for oil . . ."

Maybe not (though I have my doubts) but it is sending the American taxpayer on a wild goose chase anyway, and it is doing so while frantically trying the same tired old strategies (like bribing Sunni villagers to fight for Western goals) so as to hold that crazy quilt of a country together at least until after our November elections. We are done in Iraq, and we should never have even started to go back there with our military.

Look up "lost cause" in the dictionary and you will find it defined as America's renewed military involvement in Iraq.

[karynnj]

17. Obama/Kerry did not say who should be in the government -- they

said that they would not help them if they did not form a unity government. Note that theoretically, Maliki could have done so himself. In reality, he couldn't as he had alienated all the non Kurds.

The Iraqi government has elections, and then the President asks the person, who has the best chance to form a government with at lest 50% of the members behind it. The President, a Kurd, picked the current Prime Minister, because there was a coalition of parties - equally more than 50% behind him. Maliki argued that because he had the plurality (something in the 30s) he should have first chance. Note that Israel, with a similar structure, did essentially the same thing when Livni had more votes than Netanyahu, but given where the other votes were - it was likely true that Netanyahu had a better chance to gather the number of MK needed. President Peres was to the left of Netanyahu.

When Kerry was in Iraq in June, he very carefully saw EVERY possible leader and did not indicate any favorite. The only American comments that referred to any leader were those that accurately spoke of Maliki having marginalized both the Sunnis and Kurds.

So, the strongest case you could make is that because Iraq wanted (or needed) the US military assistance, they saw that anyone but Maliki would be a better choice - which would have encouraged them to consider coalitions that would exceed 50% without Maliki. However, it seems fair for the US to be able to say that if there is NO unity government, they will not fight ISIS on Iraq's behalf - when they do not think that would work as there would be no local forces to backfill any areas where air strikes and the Iraqi army on the ground move ISIS out.

Yesterday, there was an article that spoke of how the new government - as part of its military - was planning to recruit Sunnis into local (by towns, tribes) in national guard type organizations that could take the lead in their own areas. They would have government salary and pensions. This would be a "regularized" version of the Sunni awakening where the US paid the tribes informally. The ambitious attempt here is to have a unity government that does not marginalize non Shiites, where the people they see defending them are theirs.

As bad as things are, a solution seemed even less likely last June when Obama first spoke of this US effort. One thing that annoys me is that many pundits on the left (especially Hayes and Maddow) are saying that it was the beheadings that led to this as foreign policy. However, there is nothing that could be called a change from Obama saying in June what he intended to do. That was when US troops were sent back in, when the air strikes were spoken of, when Kerry was first sent to the region (including Iraq itself) and to EU. What DID change was the level of outrage and the level of American support --- and the interest level of pundits.

[another_liberal]

21. Lets not be naive . . .

The United States owns the Iraqi government. If we closed our embassy and brought all of our personnel home today, tomorrow Iraq's entire government would flee from its own people!

[karynnj]

5. Odd that I saw nothing from you criticizing any of the "help" Putin gave to the

Ukrainian rebels. HIS economy is in worse shape.

[another_liberal]

7. I thought that side of the street was being worked already . . .

As it clearly has been, and pretty thoroughly at that, I'm sure you have to agree.

I also am not afraid of Russia going to war with Ukraine (I'm very certain they wouldn't unless directly attacked) and I am, on the other hand, quite afraid of our being doomed to another ten year war in Iraq.

[blm]

24. And I hear Denmark occasionally smells.

.

[another_liberal]

27. That's what Shakespeare said . . .

Be sure and to check and see if Polonius is behind that curtain.

[karynnj]

6. Who would you recommend?

Kerry and Hagel are both reluctant to use the military if there is an alternative. Carter has praised Kerry for what he has done.

[another_liberal]

8. Like I've said on several occasions . . .

Don't invade Iraq in 2003.

Since that boat has, of course, already sailed, we need to bite the bullet and stay the hell out of there this time. We will ultimately only make things worse for everyone involved. There are regional powers who should have been dealing with IS for quite some time now. Why is the United States the go-to country for the Middle East anyway? Let Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan stand up for once.

[karynnj]

10. That was not the question - who should advise the President on foreign affairs?

[another_liberal]

12. No one who is now, for starters . . .

Someone who does not believe in "American Exceptionalism." Someone who does not think we should make foreign policy through super carrier intimidation or overturning the results of democratic elections. An anti-TPP individual would be good too, and one who believes we should respect the sovereignty of all sovereign nations (not just the ones under our control).

Noam Chomsky and Stephen Cohen come to mind. How many names do you want? If you have a couple of days, and I'll see if I can't get together a list.

[karynnj]

13. Neither could get confirmed by the Senate and I doubt Obama is at all close to their positions.

I can see that you and Chen agree on Ukraine and Russia - though many Russian lies have been proven. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/stephen_cohen_vladimir_putin_s_apologist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html

[another_liberal]

14. Professor Cohen is a very good teacher, an accomplished Russian expert and he is not insane . . .

President Obama needs to have a long talk with someone like him, for a change, not just about the Ukraine crisis and Iraq, but about what the United States is becoming toward the World in general.

[karynnj]

18. He could be all of those things, and a poor adviser to a President

I would assume that only his students can judge his ability as a teacher. There the reviews are mixed - http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=111269 While an average of 3.6 on a scale of 5 is not bad, it is not "very, very good". Note at the bottom, they compare to three history professors - two are better (one much better) and one far worse. Reading the comments, if I were looking at a class taught be all 4 - I would take the highest rated one - not because of the rating, but because of the comments underlying it.

As a Russian expert, he might be outstanding in knowing their history, but he clearly did not predict Putin's behavior this year with any accuracy at all. As to sane, who said he was not sane -- that would be a smear that is completely uncalled for.

[another_liberal]

19. It is hard to imagine how our President could possibly get worse advice . . .

The advice he is apparently following now might as well be coming from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

[karynnj]

20. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry have nothing at all in common with Rumsfeld/Cheney

It says more about where you are on the spectrum than where they are that you can not see a difference. I don't think Sec Kerry is in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc this week because it is a fun vacation. There is a major diplomacy piece of this effort -- and it is in process and not complete.

Not to mention, his actions with regards to Ukraine have been as successful as any other options would have been. The economic sanctions, whether you agree or not, have been semi successful. The problem is Putin - and his actions.

[another_liberal]

23. Then they are not the President's advisers on Iraq . . .

Or perhaps they are just channeling Cheney and Rumsfeld? Something like that is clearly going on.

[blm]

25. You haven't a clue what has been done and being done to address the

situation as it EXISTS and not what anyone's fantasy world designates.

[another_liberal]

26. Oh, I might have a clue . . .

Paying attention to what is actually said and done is always more reliable than trusting to blind loyalty, or mindless obedience for obedience's sake.

Don't you agree?

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Omaha Steve.