Who’s to blame for Iraq crisis
By Derek Harvey and Michael Pregent
updated 2:12 PM EDT, Thu June 12, 2014
(CNN) — Observers around the world are stunned by the speed and scope of this week’s assaults on every major city in the upper Tigris River Valley — including Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city — by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. But they shouldn’t be. The collapse of the Iraqi government’s troops in Mosul and other northern cities in the face of Sunni militant resistance has been the predictable culmination of a long deterioration, brought on by the government’s politicization of its security forces.
The politicization of the Iraqi military
For more than five years, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his ministers have presided over the packing of the Iraqi military and police with Shiite loyalists — in both the general officer ranks and the rank and file — while sidelining many effective commanders who led Iraqi troops in the battlefield gains of 2007-2010, a period during which al Qaeda in Iraq (the forerunner of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) was brought to the brink of extinction.
Al-Maliki’s “Shiafication” of the Iraqi security forces has been less about the security of Iraq than the security of Baghdad and his regime. Even before the end of the U.S.-led “surge” in 2008, al-Maliki began a concerted effort to replace effective Sunni and Kurdish commanders and intelligence officers in the key mixed-sect areas of Baghdad, Diyala and Salaheddin provinces to ensure that Iraqi units focused on fighting Sunni insurgents while leaving loyal Shiite militias alone — and to alleviate al-Maliki’s irrational fears of a military coup against his government.
In 2008, al-Maliki began replacing effective Kurdish commanders and soldiers in Mosul and Tal Afar with Shiite loyalists from Baghdad and the Prime Minister’s Dawa Party, and even Shiite militia members from the south. A number of nonloyalist commanders were forced to resign in the face of trumped up charges or reassigned to desk jobs and replaced with al-Maliki loyalists. The moves were made to marginalize Sunnis and Kurds in the north and entrench al-Maliki’s regime and the Dawa Party ahead of provincial and national elections in 2009, 2010 and 2013.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/opinion/pregent-harvey-northern-iraq-collapse/
Iraq
In no particular order
The British Empire
Saddam Hussein
George Bush (both)
Obama
Abraham
Mohammad
Obama – for not following through on the effective US policy that was in place in Iraq when he took office. (but everyone knows that)
He knew this would be the outcome but he also knew that he could successfully come out unscathed with his I-didn’t-start-it posture. His legacy will remain intact and he will spend the rest of his life making millions in appearances.
The person who sent American troops in the first place – by lying to congress and the American people.
“Lying”? Show any proof of there being a lie? Every major intelligence service around the world, including even those countries that opposed the invasion, believed Saddam had WMDs. Former President Clinton gave speaches about the Iraq WMD threat. Hillary and other prominent dems, who had access to the same intel that the President had, supported the intel and the vote to invade. Saddam perpetuated the myth for his own regional power ambitions, and went on to strengthen the belief with his cat and mouse inspection games. Was there a mistake? Of course. The world was duped. Lying? That’s up there with us staging the whole 9/11 attacks and filming the moon landing in a film studio.