Genocide in Iraq and Obama’s Reluctant Intervention

Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 08/0802014
by Ciao Blinder (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jane Dorwart. Edited by .

first published 08/08/2014.

Obama is a president who is very reluctant to go to war even for a humanitarian intervention. Obama is cerebral. He admires ex-President Bush (the father), an adept realist in foreign policy, who calculated, in contrast with the son, that it was not in the national interests of American to take the final steps to overthrow Saddam Hussein, in the first Gulf War in 1991. This was even though the dictator had committed genocide against the Shiites and the Kurds, who had rebelled with the encouragement of Washington.

Obama was dragged into engagement and now jets take off from aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush, in the Persian Gulf, to bomb extremist positions of The Islamic State. Hours before the announcement about engagement in the North of Iraq so as to, among other things, avoid a massacre of religious minorities, such as the Christians and the Yizidis, in a blitz of Jihadist barbarism, Frank Wolf, a respected Republican Senator, who plans to retire after 34 years in Congress, wrote an open letter to Obama: “Much like President Clinton has deeply regretted his failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, I believe you will come to regret your inaction for years to come. You will regret the failure to do something to halt the genocide in Iraq". http://wolf.house.gov/sites/wolf.house.gov/files/ObamaletterAug7.pdf *

Obama is acting, but, as I said, with reluctance and insisting that the intervention is limited. And in fact, the principal factor, is not humanitarian. The government believes it is in its national interest to prevent the diplomats and American military accessories posted in Erbil, the autonomous region of Kurdistan, from being threatened by the onslaught of the Islamic State. Giving assistance to the Kurds, a rare success story in the Middle East, is also is in the strategic interest of America. The Kurds are allies of the United States. They should not be betrayed.

And we must not forget the habitual suspect: petroleum. With 1.5 million inhabitants (the population now filled with refuges), Erbil is the capital of the regional Kurd government and the administrative center of its petroleum industry (an autonomous region representing 1/4 of the production of Iraqi petroleum). The Iraqi Kurds say that they would have the ninth-largest world oil reserves if they had an independent country and the oil wells operate near Erbil.

In strategic matters, even knowing of Obama's reluctance to intervene for humanitarian ends. Even a limited operation would have unpredictable ramifications, and there exists an Iraq Syndrome which immobilizes the U.S.A. And little more than ten years after the Iraq invasion it is still appropriate to speak of the abominable legacy of George W. Bush.

Obama prefers to outsource military actions, as with what happened in the fateful intervention in Libya, calling on the Europeans, or overdoing the use of drones, un-manned aircraft. One concrete fact, however, is that Obama is coming back to Iraq, a scenario in which the Americans entered in a disastrous way in 2003 with Bush and left there in an equally disastrous manner in 2011.


The President will do all that is possible to not deepen the engagement in 2014. If it is necessary, he will simply conquer the hearts and minds of the Americans, tired of war, by proclaiming that the Islamic state represents a direct threat to the interests of the United States and not merely to martyred religious minorities and ethics in Iraq.


* Note to editor PLEASE NOTE: The translation of the quote from Caio Blinder's opinion piece is as follows: "Much like President Clinton has deeply regretted his failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, I believe you will come to regret your inaction for years to come. You will regret the failure to do something to stop the genocide in Iraq". This was quoted from an open letter to the President dated August 7, 2014, and certainly accurately reflected the intention of the letter….However I was unable to find the second part of the quote anywhere. The actual quote from the letter is just the first part as follows: "“Much like President Clinton has deeply regretted his failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, I believe you will come to regret your inaction for years to come.” How do I handle a translation issue such as this? The quote does not seem to include the final sentence, at least I am unable to find a source for it. : "You will regret the failure to do something to stop the genocide in Iraq".


O genocídio no Iraque e a intervenção relutante de Obama

Barack Obama é um presidente que vai para a guerra e até mesmo para uma intervenção humanitária com muita relutância. Obama é cerebral. Ele admira o ex-presidente Bush (o pai), um adepto do realismo em política externa, que calculou, ao contrário do filho, que não era do interesse nacional americano ir até às últimas consequências para derrubar Saddam Hussein na primeira guerra do golfo Pérsico em 1991, mesmo quando o ditador iraquiano praticava o genocídio de xiitas e curdos, que se insurgiram com o incentivo de Washington.
Obama foi arrastado para o engajamento e jatos agora decolam do porta-aviões George H.W. Bush, no golfo Pérsico, para bombardear posições dos extremistas do Estado Islâmico. Horas antes do anúncio sobre engajamento no norte do Iraque para, entre outras coisas, frear o genocídio de minorias religiosas, como cristãos e yazidis, na blitz da barbárie jihadista, Frank Wolf,  um respeitado deputado republicano que está para se aposentar após 34 anos no Congresso, escreveu uma carta aberta a Obama: “Assim como o presidente Clinton, que lamentou profundamente o seu fracasso para sustar o genocídio em Ruanda em 1994, eu acredito que o senhor irá lamentar sua inação por muitos anos. O senhor irá lamentar o fracasso para fazer alguma coisa para sustar o genocídio no Iraque”.
Obama está agindo, mas, como eu disse, com relutância e insistindo que a intervenção é limitada. E, de fato, o principal fator nem é humanitário. O governo considera do seu interesse nacional impedir que diplomatas e assessores militares americanos postados em Erbil, na região autônoma do Curdistão, sejam ameaçados pela blitz ensandecida do Estado Islâmico. Dar assistência aos curdos, uma rara história de sucesso no Oriente Médio, também é do interesse estratégico americano. E os curdos são aliados dos EUA. Não devem ser traídos.
E não podemos esquecer o suspeito habitual: petróleo. Com 1.5 milhão de habitantes (população agora inchada com refugiados), Erbil é a capital do governo regional curdo e o centro administrativo de sua indústria petrolífera (a região autônoma representa 1/4 da produção petrolífera iraquiana). Os curdos do Iraque dizem que teriam a nona reserva mundial de petróleo se tivessem um país independente e poços operam perto de Erbil.
Em termos estratégicos, até faz sentido a relutância de Obama para intervir com fins humanitários. Mesmo uma operação limitada poderá ter ramificações imprevisíveis e existe uma síndrome de Iraque que imobiliza os EUA. E pouco mais de dez anos depois da invasão iraquiana ainda é apropriado falar da herança maldita de George W. Bush.
Obama prefere terceirizar as ações militares, como aconteceu na fatídica intervenção na Líbia, convocando os europeus, ou exagerar no uso dos drones, os aviões não tripulados. O fato concreto, porém, é que Obama está de volta ao Iraque, um cenário no qual os americanos entraram de forma desastrosa em 2003 com Bush e saíram de forma igualmente desastrosa com ele em 2011.
O presidente fará o possível para não aprofundar o engajamento em 2014. Se isto for necessário, ele somente irá conquistar os corações e mentes dos americanos, cansados de guerra, apregoando que o Estado Islâmico representa uma ameaça direta aos interesses dos EUA e não meramente a martirizadas minorias religiosas e étnicas no Iraque
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Europe Bending the Knee to Trump

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Germany: NATO Secretary-General Showers Trump with Praise: Seems Rutte Wanted To Keep the Emperor Happy

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump vs the Fed: Rocky Times Ahead

Topics

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Colombia: The Horsemen of the New Cold War

Related Articles

Brazil: Americans Freely Voted Against Democracy

Brazil : US Media Fails in Its Coverage of the Election*

Brazil: With Trump’s Vice President, America’s ‘New Right’ Could Reach the White House

Brazil: What the Biden-Trump Debate Said about the Relationship between the US and China*