us and iraq
obama signals lengthy u.s. role in iraq: president says crisis won't be resolved within weeks
Momentarily distracted from the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the world has turned its attention to Iraq; an accelerating divide between ethnoreligious groups has led to an overthrown government and accusations of genocide. In June 2014, the Shia-led Iraqi government, formed as one of the results of the U.S.-Iraqi war, was overthrown by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)--a group that in February 2014, broke away from well-known terrorist group al-Qaeda. ISIS is comprised of Sunni extremist fighters whose main objective is to establish a caliphate, an Islamic state led by one all-powerful religious and political ruler, a feat that was made all the more possible after the effective expulsion of Iraqi military from the region. Needless to say, innocent civilians are being caught in the middle of the political crossfire, especially the Yazidis, an ethnoreligious group that has experienced heightened persecution since the rule of Saddam Hussein. When attacked with the ISIS ultimatum: "convert to Islam, pay a tax, or die," the Yazidi people were forced to flee from their villages and seek refuge in desolate conditions; currently, tens of thousands of Yazidis are trapped in Sinjar Mountains, a religious and sacred place for the Yazidi people in northwestern Iraq. It appears that ISIS will not stop until it has expelled everything regarding Western, Shiite, or non-Islamic culture from Iraq and Syria; to carry out an extreme mission undoubtedly requires extreme measures, a philosophy that ISIS has undoubtedly demonstrated to the global community.
The resurgence of ISIS has garnered a direct response from a country that is all too familiar with the societal and political structure of the region--the United States. The history of the United States' involvement in the Middle East (as it pertains to the 21st century), is one characterized by its length, complexity, and damages caused to the participating countries. The White House's chosen approach is one that avoids deploying American soldiers to fight on Iraqi soil: airstrikes. According to President Obama, the rounds of airstrikes carried out the week of August 3rd will signal not the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, but the continuance. The President believes that airstrikes and airdrops bringing food, water, and other necessary supplies to refugees will assist in the restraining the "threat of Sunni extremists" until Iraqi leaders can form a new government to combat the fighters. The main threat to the United States is the fact that ISIS' last drive has positioned the militant group 25 miles from Erbil, Iraq--a city in which American military personnel and diplomats are currently stationed.
While monitoring the progression of ISIS, the White House also hopes to sanction an attempt by U.S. forces to "break the siege" ordered on the Yazidis. However, caution must be present among the military plans as President Obama has promised "strictly limited military involvement;" ruling out the return of U.S. combat troops to Iraq. Despite the humanitarian aspect of the proposed rescue mission, apprehension exists, for it will be the first military operation since the withdrawal of the troops in 2011. International indignation has been sparked by America's proposed mission, for it is so unclear how more than 40,000 refugees can be rescued when the liable access points to the mountain range are guarded by the Islamic State; the United Nations are currently searching for a way to create a "humanitarian corridor." Not yet under the confining grasp of ISIS, Syria's Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) has made efforts to aid the Yazidi refugees. Being that a portion of the Sinjar Mountain range borders the Syrian Kurdish territory, the PYD helped create a path into their territory for desperate refugees. Those that escaped either remained in Syria or found a safer place to cross back into Iraqi territory. The International Rescue Committee, stationed in the Syrian province of al-Hasakeh, are tending to nearly 4,000 refugees who are starved and dehydrated after almost no food and water for six days.
In a more diplomatic approach, the White House is pressuring Iraqi officials to establish a government whose main purpose is to unify the country's conflicting groups--a unified front will enable to country to better eradicate ISIS from Iraq. Iraqi politicians must know confer and brainstorm a new political structure, with a constitutional deadline inching closer and closer. Although the U.S. is providing supplies, and eventually manpower, the President has emphasized that neither the U.S., nor its people, wish to become to involved in the Iraqi power struggle: "Ultimately, only Iraqis can ensure the security and stability of Iraq." When asked if the U.S. had doubted the Islamic State's resolution, Obama stated that the militant group was simply more "rapid than expected" by intelligence agencies and foreign policy administrators. However, the brunt of the blame lies with Iraq's inability to remain resilient in the face of an uprising.
The long-term solution to the crisis in Iraq? A non-biased government whose foundation is well-rooted within the people is the ultimate solution. According to the White House, after American troops left, the government our country helped established fell to shambles due to poor leadership; Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been charged with contributing to ISIS' cause by creating "exclusionary policies"--laws that isolate the Iraq's Sunni population, which aggravated Sunni leaders in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. A delicate balance between the diverse group inhabiting Iraq is imperative for a quasi-harmonious atmosphere in the region.
I can't help but to appreciate the irony of this situation--the U.S. and Iraq have now made a full circle. We invaded their country eleven years ago, with the hope to overthrow their dictator Saddam Hussein, which still protecting our oil interests. Now, Iraq is dealing with an internal conflict that is literally tearing the country apart and resulting in the unnecessary deaths of so many innocent civilians. So the question is, should the U.S. sacrifice troops to aid this country is setting up yet another government to combat yet another extremist, terrorist group? In my opinion, I believe that we should involve ourselves, not on behalf of political reasons where we'd inevitably have to choose between a Shia or Sunni leader, but on the behalf of the Yazidi people--a people who have their livelihood and humanity stolen from them by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
The resurgence of ISIS has garnered a direct response from a country that is all too familiar with the societal and political structure of the region--the United States. The history of the United States' involvement in the Middle East (as it pertains to the 21st century), is one characterized by its length, complexity, and damages caused to the participating countries. The White House's chosen approach is one that avoids deploying American soldiers to fight on Iraqi soil: airstrikes. According to President Obama, the rounds of airstrikes carried out the week of August 3rd will signal not the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, but the continuance. The President believes that airstrikes and airdrops bringing food, water, and other necessary supplies to refugees will assist in the restraining the "threat of Sunni extremists" until Iraqi leaders can form a new government to combat the fighters. The main threat to the United States is the fact that ISIS' last drive has positioned the militant group 25 miles from Erbil, Iraq--a city in which American military personnel and diplomats are currently stationed.
While monitoring the progression of ISIS, the White House also hopes to sanction an attempt by U.S. forces to "break the siege" ordered on the Yazidis. However, caution must be present among the military plans as President Obama has promised "strictly limited military involvement;" ruling out the return of U.S. combat troops to Iraq. Despite the humanitarian aspect of the proposed rescue mission, apprehension exists, for it will be the first military operation since the withdrawal of the troops in 2011. International indignation has been sparked by America's proposed mission, for it is so unclear how more than 40,000 refugees can be rescued when the liable access points to the mountain range are guarded by the Islamic State; the United Nations are currently searching for a way to create a "humanitarian corridor." Not yet under the confining grasp of ISIS, Syria's Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) has made efforts to aid the Yazidi refugees. Being that a portion of the Sinjar Mountain range borders the Syrian Kurdish territory, the PYD helped create a path into their territory for desperate refugees. Those that escaped either remained in Syria or found a safer place to cross back into Iraqi territory. The International Rescue Committee, stationed in the Syrian province of al-Hasakeh, are tending to nearly 4,000 refugees who are starved and dehydrated after almost no food and water for six days.
In a more diplomatic approach, the White House is pressuring Iraqi officials to establish a government whose main purpose is to unify the country's conflicting groups--a unified front will enable to country to better eradicate ISIS from Iraq. Iraqi politicians must know confer and brainstorm a new political structure, with a constitutional deadline inching closer and closer. Although the U.S. is providing supplies, and eventually manpower, the President has emphasized that neither the U.S., nor its people, wish to become to involved in the Iraqi power struggle: "Ultimately, only Iraqis can ensure the security and stability of Iraq." When asked if the U.S. had doubted the Islamic State's resolution, Obama stated that the militant group was simply more "rapid than expected" by intelligence agencies and foreign policy administrators. However, the brunt of the blame lies with Iraq's inability to remain resilient in the face of an uprising.
The long-term solution to the crisis in Iraq? A non-biased government whose foundation is well-rooted within the people is the ultimate solution. According to the White House, after American troops left, the government our country helped established fell to shambles due to poor leadership; Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been charged with contributing to ISIS' cause by creating "exclusionary policies"--laws that isolate the Iraq's Sunni population, which aggravated Sunni leaders in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. A delicate balance between the diverse group inhabiting Iraq is imperative for a quasi-harmonious atmosphere in the region.
I can't help but to appreciate the irony of this situation--the U.S. and Iraq have now made a full circle. We invaded their country eleven years ago, with the hope to overthrow their dictator Saddam Hussein, which still protecting our oil interests. Now, Iraq is dealing with an internal conflict that is literally tearing the country apart and resulting in the unnecessary deaths of so many innocent civilians. So the question is, should the U.S. sacrifice troops to aid this country is setting up yet another government to combat yet another extremist, terrorist group? In my opinion, I believe that we should involve ourselves, not on behalf of political reasons where we'd inevitably have to choose between a Shia or Sunni leader, but on the behalf of the Yazidi people--a people who have their livelihood and humanity stolen from them by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.