US Goes Back To Play in Iraq

Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 8 August 2014
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Guido Montesano. Edited by Sean Feely.
We saw it coming. Despite its resistance and the promises of bringing back the troops, the Obama administration agreed to intervene in Iraq with its army, even risking what victories had been attained following the disastrous intervention in Iraq in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

The destructive advance that the radical group Islamic State has been making since June in the north is not only a challenge for the stability of the country governed by the Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, but also a clear threat to its territorial integrity if this bloodthirsty movement manages to consolidate the caliphate it claimed over the Syrian areas already under its control.

The bombings started yesterday by American planes against the Islamic State strongholds are meant not only to diminish its military capability, but also to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe arising from the stampede of at least 2,000 fleeing civilians of the Yazidi minority — believers of a pre-Islamic religion derived from Zoroastrianism — and some 120,000 Christians from the localities of Qaraqosh and Tel Kaif. The U.N. hopes to be able to create a humanitarian corridor to provide help and a way out for these communities.

Beyond humanitarian concern, that thing about "limited intervention" in Iraq seems like a late and desperate measure from Washington showing the holes in its military withdrawal (in December 2011). On the one hand, there's the relative indifference of its support of a regime, like Maliki's, which from the first days presented a sectarian profile to the detriment of the Sunni groups and was unable to form a government; on the other hand, there's the avalanche of Islamic groups that captured the people's legitimate desire for democracy arising from the so-called Arab Spring.

Maliki, as advised by the Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, should move aside, stop pushing for a third term and allow for the formation of an inclusive government. This will be the first step toward decreasing the everyday tragedies of Iraq and for the country, as a whole, to face the threat of radicals who would redesign the map of the Middle East over the corpses of thousands of people.


Editorial: EE. UU. vuelve y juega en Irak
Se veía venir. A pesar de su resistencia y de las promesas de retirar sus tropas, el gobierno de Barack Obama accedió a inmiscuirse militarmente en Irak aun a riesgo de poner en peligro lo alcanzado a partir de su desastrosa intervención de este país para derrocar en el 2003 a Sadam Husein.
El demoledor avance desde junio del grupo radical Estado Islámico (EI) en el norte no solo es un desafío para la estabilidad del país bajo el mando del primer ministro chií, Nuri Al Maliki, sino una clara amenaza a su integridad territorial si el sanguinario movimiento consolida el califato que proclamó en las áreas que domina, sumadas a las que ya controla en Siria.
Los bombardeos que aviones estadounidenses iniciaron ayer contra los reductos del EI pretenden no solo minar su capacidad militar, sino evitar una catástrofe humanitaria por la huida en estampida de al menos 2.000 civiles de la minoría yazidi –fieles de una religión preislámica derivada del zoroastrismo– y de unos 120.000 cristianos de las localidades de Qaraqosh y Telfik. La ONU espera poder construir un corredor humanitario para propiciar la salida y el auxilio de estas comunidades.
Más allá de las preocupaciones humanitarias, lo de la ‘intervención limitada’ en Irak parece una medida tardía y desesperada de Washington que desnuda los vacíos de su estrategia de retirada militar de la zona (diciembre del 2011). Por una parte, está su tibieza en sostener un régimen, como el de Maliki, que desde los primeros días mostró su perfil sectario en detrimento de los grupos suníes y que no logró conformar un gobierno; y por otra, está la avalancha de los grupos islamistas que terminaron secuestrando los anhelos legítimos de democracia salidos de la denominada primavera árabe.
Maliki, como ayer se lo recordó el líder espiritual de los chiíes iraquíes, el gran ayatolá Ali Sistani, debería dar un paso al costado al desistir de su tercer mandato y permitir la formación de un gobierno incluyente. Esta será la primera etapa para que la tragedia cotidiana en Irak amaine y para que el país, en unidad, enfrente la amenaza de unos radicales que quieren rediseñar el mapa de Oriente Próximo sobre los cadáveres de miles de personas.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

India: The World after the American Order

Switzerland: Don’t Give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize Now!

Germany: A Decision against Trump

Turkey: No Kings in America but What about the Democratic Party?

Singapore: Southeast Asia Has Made the Right Moves in Dealing with Trump

Topics

India: The World after the American Order

India: The Real Question behind the US-China Rivalry

Pakistan: No Coalition for Reason

Pakistan: The Beginning of the 2nd Cold War

Sri Lanka: The Palestinian Story Outshines Flattery and Triumphalism

Pakistan: Israel Bent on Sabotaging Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan

Turkey: No Kings in America but What about the Democratic Party?

Ireland: The Irish Times View on the Trump-Zelinskiy Meeting: 1 Step Backward

Related Articles

Colombia: The End of the Dollar’s Reign?

Colombia : Trump’s Strategy against Maduro

Colombia: The ‘Toy’ Trump Gave to Musk

India: Will Fallout at Home, Abroad Restrain Trump Disruption?

Australia: Trump’s Tariff Tango Will Only Reinforce His View that Bullying Works