Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: The carving out of the new MENA (middle east and north africa)  (Lida 2088 vezes)

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
How the British Screwed Up the Middle East, in 10 Classic Cartoons



"The sun never sets on the British Empire."

This phrase was often used to describe the British Empire at the peak of its power as the largest empire in history. Covering 13.01 million square miles of land, almost one-fourth of the world, the empire encompassed about 458 million people in 1938 through overseas colonies, dominions, protectorates, trading posts and mandates.


Image Credit: AP. British troops in the Egyptian Desert, 1936.

Despite its numerous accomplishments, the imperial empire was also responsible for sowing the seeds of global tension, conflict and wars, many of which still continue to rage on.

When asked how Britain could help end the conflict over Kashmir during a visit to Pakistan in 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron said, "I don't want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world's problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place."


Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons. All countries and regions that have ever been under British rule.

While the British may not have been directly responsible for every event, their interference and self-serving policies at the time were more often destructive than helpful.

Many historians also say Britain does bear historic responsibility for many regional disputes in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it is near-impossible to summarize the entire history of the Middle East in just one article, with all of its complexities and nuances, here is a brief modern history lesson on how Britain basically screwed up the region:

1. 1875: Making their way to India


Via: By Tenniel, 'Punch', December 11, 1875

During the 19th century, Egypt and Sudan were considered strategic regions for imperial powers in terms of continental and possible global control. In 1875, Britain bought Egypt's shares in the Suez Canal for £4 million, making them the largest shareholder and safeguarding the water route to India.

While Britain held these until 1956, this strategic move marked the beginning of imperial Britain's control over Egypt.

2. 1876-82: Protecting Egypt before taking over


Via: By Tennison, 'Punch', September 27, 1882

By 1876, Egypt's ruler, the Khedive Ismail Pasha had run up debts of about £100 million, in spite of Egypt's sale of its holdings in the Suez Canal to Britain in 1875. As a result, he was forced to accept Anglo-French control of his treasury, customs, post offices, railways and ports.

Following riots in Alexandria, heightened tensions and the rise of a nationalist movement led by Ahmad Urabi Pasha Al-misri, Britain ordered the bombardment of Alexandria which led to the Anglo-Egyptian War of 1882 between British and Egyptian defenses, and eventually the seizure of both the canal and the country by British troops.

3. 1915: Dividing up the Ottoman Empire



Just two days after the British navy lost against the Turkish army, the British government signed a secret agreement with Russia that included a hypothetical post-WWI division of the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence.

According to the agreement that was signed on March 20, 1915, Russia would claim Constantinople, the Bosporus Strate, the Dardanelles, the Gallipoli peninsula and more than half of the European section of Turkey. Britain, on the other hand, would lay claim to other areas of the former Ottoman Empire and central Persia, including Mesopotamia, which was known to be rich in oil.

The sneaky agreement signified a change in alliances during the Great War, as Britain promised away territory it sought to defend a few years earlier. In 1854, Britain had gone to war with Russia to prevent it from claiming Constantinople and the strait, while in 1878, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli sent the British fleet to the Dardanelles during the Russio-Turkish War to send them away from Constantinople.

4. 1914-18: World War One and the Fall of the Ottoman Empire


Via: By Raven Hill, 'Punch', November 11, 1914

Although the German attempt to take over Europe was stopped, the Middle East was also affected in the process. The Ottoman Empire, once the greatest Islamic power in the region, sided with Germany and declared war against France, Russia and Great Britain in November 1914.

Considering the Ottoman Empire a serious threat to the British Empire, London launched preemptive strikes and attacks to knock Turkey out of the war and take down the Ottoman Empire.

The war ended with Great Britain occupying territory that would eventually become Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

5. 1916: Encouraging the Great Arab Revolt


Via: The Passing Show

"Employing bags of gold, the diplomacy of Lawrence of Arabia and promises of Arab independence," the British sparked and encouraged an Arab uprising in 1916, known as the "Great Arab Revolt," against the Turks. 

However, after the war, the victorious allies failed to grant full independence to the Arab people, and instead placed them under British and French control according to the mandate system under the Treaty of Versailles.

6. 1916: Carving up the Middle East


Via: The San Francisco Chronicle

More than a year after the agreement with Russia, Great Britain and France also signed a secret agreement known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, by which most of the Arab region under the Ottoman Empire would be divided into British and French spheres of influence after World War I.

British and French representatives, Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot, believed that the Arab people were better off under European empires and divided up the region with a ruler and without Arab knowledge.


Image Credit: Mideast Cartoon History

The two men created uncomplicated, immaculate straight-line borders that would cater to the needs of Britain and France. However, these borders "did not correspond to sectarian, tribal or ethnic distinctions on the ground," and failed to allow for future growth of Arab nationalism and secularism.

"Even by the standards of the time, it was a shamelessly self-interested pact," writes British historian James Barr in his book A Line in the Sand.

7. 1914-18: Sowing the seeds for the Israel-Palestine conflict


Via: By Kennington from 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom'

After World War I, the British government was given a mandate to rule Palestine in the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire, including a commitment to Britain's Jewish community to create a Jewish "national home" in the region put forth by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour. Eager to make sure Britain kept good on their promise, Arabs also demanded an Arab state on the same land.


Image Credit: Mideast Cartoon History

The simmering tension that would eventually evolve into the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict had already begun. For the next quarter of a century, the British faced riots and uprisings from both the Arab and Jewish sides.

8. 1947: The United Nations votes for partition of Palestine


Via: By Illingworth, 'Punch', March 31, 1948

Having ruled Palestine since 1920, Britain handed over responsibility for solving the Zionist-Arab issue to the United Nations in 1947. At the time, the region was plagued with chronic unrest between native Arabs and Jewish immigrants dating back to the 1910s, when both groups laid claim to the British-controlled territory.



Image Credit: By Illingworth, The Daily Mail, December 2, 1947

The U.N. recommended splitting the territory into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. According to the partition plan, 56.47% of Palestine would be given to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state. While the Palestinians opposed the plan, the Jewish forces secured control of their U.N.-allocated share of Palestine, as well as some Arab territory.

9. 1948: Setting the stage for today's Israel-Palestine conflict



With the expiration of its mandate, Britain withdrew from the region on May 14, 1948, and the State of Israel was proclaimed as the first Jewish state for nearly 2,000 years.

The next day, five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq invaded Israel.



Image Credit: By Illingworth, The Daily Mail, May 10, 1948

The Israeli army managed to fend off the Arabs and seize key territories, including Galilee, the Palestinian coast and a strip of territory that connected the coastal region to the western side of Jerusalem. After a U.N.-negotiated cease-fire in 1949, Israel gained permanent control of these areas.

10. Post-WWI: Self-serving interests in Iraq


Via: Mideast Cartoon History

After the Ottoman Empire fought on the side of the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary), the British captured Baghdad. Iraq remained a British mandate for the next three decades as a complex mix of ethnic and religious groups.

However, Britain's gluttonous appetite for the new nation's oil fields, new railway system and navigable rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, for trade and transportation overshadowed their concern over the country's ethnic communities and tribes, including the Kurds, the Shi'a in and around Basra and the Sunni kings in Baghdad.

A Hashemite monarchy was established in 1921 under the British, and the country was granted independence on Oct. 3, 1932. Under the terms of the Anglo-Iraqi treaty in 1930, the British retained military bases and an agreement to train Iraq's army. The army, however, "became a breeding ground of resentment against the British presence, particularly amongst new nationalist officers."

After the Hashemite Royal family and politicians were swept away in a vicious nationalist army revolt in 1958, the Republic of Iraq was created and was then ruled by a series of military and civilian governments for the next two decades until General Saddam Hussein became the Iraqi dictator. Hussein's authoritarian tactics and hold on power suppresed any regional, sectarian revolts. The face of the country, however, took a turn for the worse after the American-led, British-supported invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to renewed sectarian violence that was brewing for nearly a century and attacks from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

world.mic
« Última modificação: 2015-12-07 17:59:17 por Lark »
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #1 em: 2015-11-26 21:01:43 »
a colonizacao nao ajuda mas o principal eh mesmo a porcaria da cultura local, sao uns primitivos tribalistas

Thunder

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2009
    • Ver Perfil
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #2 em: 2015-11-30 16:38:39 »
The two men created uncomplicated, immaculate straight-line borders that would cater to the needs of Britain and France. However, these borders "did not correspond to sectarian, tribal or ethnic distinctions on the ground," and failed to allow for future growth of Arab nationalism and secularism.

"Even by the standards of the time, it was a shamelessly self-interested pact," writes British historian James Barr in his book A Line in the Sand.

Esta parte diz muito sobre a confusão daquela zona geográfica.

A questão Israelita é outra questão abordada pelo resumo que também é super importante.

Para mim falta um acontecimento crucial. A "Operação Ajax" para depor Mossadegh.



Nullius in Verba
Divide et Impera
Não há almoços grátis
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
Bulls make money, bears make money.... pigs get slaughtered

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #3 em: 2015-11-30 18:27:38 »
The two men created uncomplicated, immaculate straight-line borders that would cater to the needs of Britain and France. However, these borders "did not correspond to sectarian, tribal or ethnic distinctions on the ground," and failed to allow for future growth of Arab nationalism and secularism.

"Even by the standards of the time, it was a shamelessly self-interested pact," writes British historian James Barr in his book A Line in the Sand.

Esta parte diz muito sobre a confusão daquela zona geográfica.

A questão Israelita é outra questão abordada pelo resumo que também é super importante.

Para mim falta um acontecimento crucial. A "Operação Ajax" para depor Mossadegh.

isso já são anos cinquenta. esta análise está mais virada para o desmembramento do império otomano.
a deposição do Mossadegh, pela CIA, por encomenda do big oil, alienou o Irão do ocidente por mais de 50 anos. Já lá vão 62 and counting.
um líder moderado eleito democraticamente. o seu grande erro foi querer nacionalizar o petróleo iraniano.

primeiro foram as potências europeias a fazer porcaria - inglaterra e frança. depois, como a casa não estava suficientemente desarrumada, foram os americanos acabar o trabalho. lindo serviço.

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #4 em: 2015-11-30 20:55:23 »

os russos já andam há uns tempos a dizer baixinho que são os turcos os principais enablers do ISIS. dinheiro saudita, logística turca e o baksheesh a ir para o erdogan (pelos vistos via filho).
repetiram agora na reunião do G20.
a seguir os turcos abateram-lhes um bombardeiro.

na grande reconfiguração do médio oriente a turquia é capaz de não saír ilesa.
com os US a tirarem as mãos e a apoiarem tacitamente o Irão;
com um crescente territorial Irão, Curdos, Hezbollah;
com os sauditas a esgotarem brevemente as reservas de forex graças à queda do preço do petróleo;
com os russos a fornecer logística, command & control e principalmente, armamento;

o mapa pode vir a ficar radicalmente diferente.

o curdistão pode ir de uma região semi-autónoma no nordeste do iraque, a um estado-nação que abarque mossul e kirkuk, se estenda para oeste até ao mediterrâneo, interpondo-se entre a turquia e a síria e o iraque e quem sabe? reclamando o curdistão turco.

a região sunita síria e iraquiana reunidas num outro estado, debaixo de um regime similar ao egípcio - ditatorial e militarizado.  pró-russo? pró-ocidental? não alinhado?

a síria reduzida à zona costeira e damasco.

o iraque reduzido à região shiita e na prática uma região sob controlo do Irão.

a derrocada da monarquia saudita sob pressão militar e económica.
a passagem do controlo de Meca e Medina para outras mãos - hachemitas?

o médio-oriente dentro de poucos anos, pode ser um novo mundo.

resta saber qual é o papel que Israel quer ter nesse mundo.
É melhor que se apresse, o comboio já está a apitar e parece-me que eles estão distraídos.

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Thunder

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2009
    • Ver Perfil
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #5 em: 2015-12-07 17:06:30 »

isso já são anos cinquenta. esta análise está mais virada para o desmembramento do império otomano.
a deposição do Mossadegh, pela CIA, por encomenda do big oil, alienou o Irão do ocidente por mais de 50 anos. Já lá vão 62 and counting.
um líder moderado eleito democraticamente. o seu grande erro foi querer nacionalizar o petróleo iraniano.

primeiro foram as potências europeias a fazer porcaria - inglaterra e frança. depois, como a casa não estava suficientemente desarrumada, foram os americanos acabar o trabalho. lindo serviço.

L

Sim, tens razão. Sendo o objectivo do artigo focar-se sobre a divisão após o colapso do Império Otomano, faz sentido (não falar sobre a deposição do Mossadegh).
Eu é que precipitei-me e achei que a intenção do autor era falar sobre intervenções externas em geral.

Mas realmente se fosse para abordar todos os tópicos sobre intervenções do Eixo USA/UK/França, ia ficar um artigo beeeeeem extenso ...
Nullius in Verba
Divide et Impera
Não há almoços grátis
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
Bulls make money, bears make money.... pigs get slaughtered

Reg

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 13528
    • Ver Perfil
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #6 em: 2015-12-07 17:18:38 »
antes europeus...Os otomanos nao eram  muito tolerantes
Quase três milhões de cristãos assírios, armênios e gregos foram assassinados pelos turcos otomanos islâmicos durante a Primeira Guerra Mundial por causa de sua etnia e fé.
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocídio_assírio




Democracia Socialista Democrata. igualdade de quem berra mais O que é meu é meu o que é teu é nosso

Thunder

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2009
    • Ver Perfil
Re: the carving out of a new middle east
« Responder #7 em: 2015-12-07 17:27:42 »

os russos já andam há uns tempos a dizer baixinho que são os turcos os principais enablers do ISIS. dinheiro saudita, logística turca e o baksheesh a ir para o erdogan (pelos vistos via filho).
repetiram agora na reunião do G20.
a seguir os turcos abateram-lhes um bombardeiro.

na grande reconfiguração do médio oriente a turquia é capaz de não saír ilesa.
com os US a tirarem as mãos e a apoiarem tacitamente o Irão;
com um crescente territorial Irão, Curdos, Hezbollah;
com os sauditas a esgotarem brevemente as reservas de forex graças à queda do preço do petróleo;
com os russos a fornecer logística, command & control e principalmente, armamento;

o mapa pode vir a ficar radicalmente diferente.

o curdistão pode ir de uma região semi-autónoma no nordeste do iraque, a um estado-nação que abarque mossul e kirkuk, se estenda para oeste até ao mediterrâneo, interpondo-se entre a turquia e a síria e o iraque e quem sabe? reclamando o curdistão turco.

a região sunita síria e iraquiana reunidas num outro estado, debaixo de um regime similar ao egípcio - ditatorial e militarizado.  pró-russo? pró-ocidental? não alinhado?

a síria reduzida à zona costeira e damasco.

o iraque reduzido à região shiita e na prática uma região sob controlo do Irão.

a derrocada da monarquia saudita sob pressão militar e económica.
a passagem do controlo de Meca e Medina para outras mãos - hachemitas?

o médio-oriente dentro de poucos anos, pode ser um novo mundo.

resta saber qual é o papel que Israel quer ter nesse mundo.
É melhor que se apresse, o comboio já está a apitar e parece-me que eles estão distraídos.

L

A situação naquela zona é algo muito complexo.
Sempre o foi, e continua a ser.

Eu sinceramente não consigo ter a capacidade de dominar tanta informação actual e ainda as questões históricas. E ainda tenho que ponderar o facto de muita informação não estar disponível.
Como tal não consigo prever nada.

Mas os factos (imho) mostram-me que a posição da Arábia Saudita é bastante frágil.
E a forma truculenta e nojenta como operam, mais cedo ou mais tarde cobrará a sua tarifa.
A questão do Yemen, que basicamente está fora dos radares da CS ocidental é um triste (mesmo muito triste) exemplo.

Gostava mesmo muito que houvesse uma solução evolutiva e humanista para melhorar a governação naquela zona.
Mas sendo eu céptico como sou, e sabendo a importância geoestratégica e económica da zona, temo que aqueles seres humanos continuem a sofrer duma forma que em nem tenho bem palavras para descrever ... é de cortar o coração o que a ganância é capaz de gerar.

Em relação a Israel, penso que só perderá protagonismo se a região se tornar estável. Até lá será sempre importante ter como asset do lado ocidental (principalmente USA).

Mas concordo contigo que há situações e eventos com um peso enorme.
-A aproximação ao Irão (principalmente sendo xiitas).
-As dificuldades de tesouraria da A. Saudita. E o facto de estarem a vender activos ao invés de comprarem.
-A questão do caça russo que foi derrubado.
-Todas as questões que estão a "vir a lume" sobre a Turquia e o Erdogan

Lark, o que achas de este tópico ou o tópico sobre a Arabia Saudita, passar a chamar-se algo como "Médio Oriente e Norte de África"?
Ou então abre-se outro ...
É que a questão que abordaste sobre o desmembramento do Império Otomano é um excelente ponto de partida para um tópico do gênero.
E a geopolítica dessa zona é tão importante; permite entender muita coisa que está "abaixo da superfície".

Fico à espera do feedback.
Nullius in Verba
Divide et Impera
Não há almoços grátis
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
Bulls make money, bears make money.... pigs get slaughtered

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: The carving out of the new MENA (middle east and north africa)
« Responder #8 em: 2015-12-07 17:59:37 »
já tá...

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: The carving out of the new MENA (middle east and north africa)
« Responder #9 em: 2015-12-09 00:44:30 »
On the Front Line Against Islamic State
The Kurdish intelligence chief in Iraq says Islamic State can be beaten, but U.S. troops and more weapons will be necessary.

Kurdish intelligence chief Masrour Barzani’s forward base on the Iraqi-Syrian border isn’t easy to reach. On a bright Sunday morning, two members of his staff drive me there from Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. We race four hours around Kurdistan’s barren hills, passing numerous checkpoints, a circuitous route that avoids the tentacular territory that Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has carved out of Iraq and Syria.

It is late November, and the Kurds have just severed one of those ISIS tentacles by capturing Sinjar, 15 months after the jihadist army overran the Iraqi city and forced Kurdish Peshmerga forces to beat a hasty retreat. The Kurds’ comeback at Sinjar means the main highway linking ISIS-controlled Mosul, Iraq, and the so-called caliphate’s capital in Raqqa, Syria, is now cut off.

Security is tight at the base. Mr. Barzani, who heads the Security Council of the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, is dressed in fatigues, with a pistol at his waist. We sit in a trailer that serves as a conference room. A portrait of Kurdish-nationalist hero Mustafa Barzani—Mr. Barzani’s grandfather; his father is KRG President Masoud Barzani—hangs above opulent furniture with golden, rococo details that look oddly out of place. Liberated Sinjar lies 40 miles southwest. A little beyond it is an ISIS front that stretches for 650 miles.

“The Kurds have broken the myth of ISIS,” says Mr. Barzani, who speaks English fluently. Including Sinjar, Peshmerga forces have retaken 7,700 square miles of territory and nearly double that if you count the successes of Syrian Kurds across the border. The Kurds’ front-line efforts combined with coalition airstrikes, Mr. Barzani says, have removed about 20,000 ISIS fighters from the battlefield.

He attributes the Sinjar triumph to Western air cover, good planning and a swiftness that surprised ISIS fighters. “Excellent intelligence” also helped, Mr. Barzani adds, because it allowed the Kurds to defuse the jihadists’ main defensive barrier, a network of remotely controlled booby traps and improvised explosive devices, before it could be detonated. Military analysts had predicted days of house-to-house combat. “But it didn’t happen,” Mr. Barzani says. It was all over in 48 hours.

While ISIS fighters may be inspired by a “radical, terrorist, extremist ideology,” he says, the Peshmerga go into battle with a fervor “to defend their territories and defend their people.” It was the same spirit that deterred previous attempts, by Saddam Hussein’s regime and others, to eradicate the Kurds, he says. “That has been the only reason that we as the Kurds still exist.”

But Kurds alone can’t put ISIS on the path to defeat, especially with the group still able to recruit new members and acquire weapons. Defeating the jihadists will require stanching the flow of funding, arms and fighters. War needs to be carried out on the ideological front too. “If Islam doesn’t accept what ISIS is doing,” he says, “the Islamic scholars have to talk to their own people, to say ‘Islam rejects this. You cannot terrorize people.’ ” This, he adds, “is an Islamic duty—the West cannot help.”

The most important factor remains geography. Islamic State’s legitimacy rests on its ability to exercise sovereignty over land. The Kurds have reclaimed much of their territory, but now the front has moved to “other parts of Iraq, and in Syria, where you don’t have such a reliable force to fight on the ground while airstrikes target the enemy,” Mr. Barzani says.

That’s an implicit rebuke to the Obama White House, which says it can “degrade and destroy” ISIS without committing U.S. ground forces. The American strategy of airstrikes and special operations, Mr. Barzani says, is “very effective in terms of weakening ISIS, disabling their movements, targeting their leadership. But you can never defeat an enemy if you don’t have ground forces.” And contrary to Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz, the Kurds can’t serve as “our troops on the ground”—at least not outside their traditional territories.

Consider Mosul. The second-largest city in Iraq, today it remains under ISIS control. Mosul lies just 50 miles west of Erbil, and were it not for coalition airstrikes that came in the nick of time last year, the Kurds’ vibrant capital would almost certainly have fallen to ISIS as well.

Today Peshmerga surround Mosul. Kurds have pledged to help dislodge ISIS from the city, but they can’t spearhead the operation. The majority of Mosul’s 1.5 million people are Sunni Arabs, the core ISIS constituency. The Kurds think it’s up to the Iraqi central government in Baghdad and the coalition to take the lead on Mosul.

The job calls for a “liberating force, not a force that can create sensitivities in that community,” Mr. Barzani says. That is, a Shiite-dominated Baghdad must win the trust of Sunnis and encourage them to rise against ISIS. That’s a tall order for an Iraqi government increasingly under Iran’s thumb, and dependent on Shiite militias whose preferred counterinsurgency methods are burning Sunni villages and drilling Sunni skulls with power tools.

It doesn’t help that Washington has for years tolerated Baghdad’s ethnic and sectarian chauvinism, an indulgence that even colors U.S. military support for the Kurds. The Obama administration, bowing to Baghdad’s demands, insists that arms shipments intended for Kurdish forces be routed through the capital, despite the near-complete breakdown in relations between the Kurds and the central government.

‘We haven’t received the kind of equipment we want or the amount we need,” Mr. Barzani says. Ammunition shortages are sometimes acute, and many of the Iraqi Kurds’ heavier weapons are antiques wrested years ago from Saddam Hussein’s regime. ISIS, by contrast, fields 12 divisions’ worth of armored vehicles and heavy equipment, Mr. Barzani says, much of it originally supplied by the U.S. to the post-Saddam Iraqi army and later captured by the jihadists.

One Washington argument against directly arming the Kurds is that the Peshmerga aren’t a professional army but a citizen militia with units that pledge allegiance to Kurdish political parties rather than to the Kurdish government.

Mr. Barzani bristles at this: “Peshmerga to us is the honor of our nation. America after the fall of Saddam trained a professional Iraqi army for 10 years and spent billions of dollars. They couldn’t withstand ISIS for 10 days. . . . You tell me which is a professional force, Peshmerga or the Iraqi army?”

Fourteen Peshmerga brigades, of about 2,500 soldiers each, have already been integrated under a Kurdish Ministry of Peshmerga, but reform takes time, and defending the homeland from the world’s deadliest terror outfit takes precedence. “Please do not tell us that this is the reason,” Mr. Barzani says. “It’s a political decision that so far they haven’t supported the Peshmerga in the way that they need and deserve to be supported.”

The Kurds, he notes, are fighting the West’s fight. “We are giving blood. We are giving flesh. We are giving lives, which are much more valuable than any weapons system. . . . To help us win this war, you—the world, the West, the United States—must provide us with better weapons.” Advanced tanks, medical-evacuation helicopters and vehicles resistant to roadside bombs would be a good start. (A U.S. package that includes some of these systems is on its way, Peshmerga officials told Kurdish media on Wednesday.)

The Obama administration also won’t transfer arms directly to the Kurds because it is averse to doing anything that might jeopardize a unified, federal Iraq—even after the rise of ISIS revealed Iraq to be something of a geographic fiction. How sovereign is a state, after all, whose armed forces have lost control of its borders and can’t enter vast swaths of nominally Iraqi territory, including the Kurdish autonomous zone and ISIS-held territory?

“The biggest problem is to run away from reality and work with illusions,” Mr. Barzani says. “Iraq is a fabricated state that has failed. It has always been a failure. It exists on the map. On the map, it has some borders, but these borders weren’t drawn naturally.”

The Iraq created in the World War I peace settlement lasted nearly a century, with Sunnis lording over Shiites, Kurds and other groups for much of that time. The trouble, Mr. Barzani says, was that “people living in this country have never had a common ground.” Once Saddam was gone, Sunnis and Shiites sought vengeance, and sectarian terror escalated once Mr. Obama hastily withdrew U.S. troops in 2011. Syria’s furies arrived in Iraq soon after.

The Kurds took better advantage of the post-Saddam moment. Having attained autonomy with the help of a no-fly zone after the 1991 Gulf War, the Kurds built new democratic institutions and fortified existing ones following the 2003 U.S. invasion. Kurdish democracy isn’t perfect, but Kurdish society is free in ways unimaginable in most of the region. Iraqi Kurdistan welcomes foreign investors, and it has trod a pragmatic path in its relations with neighboring powers like Iran and Turkey.

Most important, Iraqi Kurds have proved themselves reliable Western allies, most recently in the anti-ISIS struggle. “In this entire area the Kurds are probably the most pro-American people that you can find,” Mr. Barzani says. “Forever we will be thankful for the U.S. support since the day of toppling Saddam’s regime.”

Sooner or later, ISIS will cease to exist, or else the future is even bleaker than it now appears. When that time comes, the various communities in Syria and Iraq, U.S. friends and foes alike, will ask where they belong on the new map. It’s better, then, to see today’s tectonic shifts as an opportunity to revisit the old Mideast configuration. For Mr. Barzani that means Kurdish independence and what he hopes will be an amicable divorce from Baghdad.

“Why does every nation on earth have the right to be independent, to have self-determination, except Kurds?” he asks. “Is this justice? Is this what the world wants?” The Turks and the Iranians each have their own state, while the Arabs have 22. “So why cannot the Kurds have one? We’re not asking for any more, and we won’t settle for any less. It will happen.” He adds: “It doesn’t have to be by fighting.”

The Peshmerga, meanwhile, steel themselves for Islamic State’s next move. Since the Sinjar victory the jihadists have been testing the Kurds’ defenses, assaulting perceived weak points. So far, the attacks have been repelled, but ISIS has many fighters and operates with a murderous unpredictability. “Where they counterattack doesn’t have to be in Sinjar,” Mr. Barzani says. “It can be anywhere.”

It could even be in London, New York or San Bernardino.

wsj
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Thunder

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2009
    • Ver Perfil
Nullius in Verba
Divide et Impera
Não há almoços grátis
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
Bulls make money, bears make money.... pigs get slaughtered

Thunder

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2009
    • Ver Perfil
Nullius in Verba
Divide et Impera
Não há almoços grátis
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
Bulls make money, bears make money.... pigs get slaughtered