Iraq voices anger as US air force defends Irbil – but not Baghdad

[LloydS of New London]

Source: The Guardian

Iraq's political class has watched with fear and envy in the last fortnight as American jets have slowed the Islamic State extremist group's advance towards the Kurdish stronghold of Irbil.

At the same time, the group, formerly known as Isis, has been trying to encircle Baghdad – untroubled by air strikes. Its manoeuvres near the national capital in recent days have consolidated gains it has made in the last two tumultuous months and made the very existence of Iraq in its current borders ever more precarious.

With a new central government only three weeks from being sworn in, Iraqi leaders are imploring the US to honour what they perceived to be an implicit deal to protect Baghdad once an inclusive leadership was installed.

Officials say that support for only one side will guarantee the end of Iraq, allowing the Isis insurgents menacing the capital to whittle away what is left of state control and terrorise large numbers of people into fleeing.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/16/iraq-anger-us-air-force-defends-irbil-not-iraq-kurds-maliki

---

Kurdistan is a natural state, whereas "Iraq" was simply conjured up by a couple of diplomats after World War One.

[cheapdate]

1. Then Iraq's "political class" needs to get their shit together.

They have a fully-equipped military with more than 500,000 soldiers. I understand that the US invasion shattered the country, but they still need to get their shit together. They've had a dysfunctional government for too long. They share some blame for their own affairs.

[CJCRANE]

5. I agree. But mainly the Sunni Tribes need to step up to the plate

and clean house otherwise the neocons will find someone else to do it for them and the results won't be pretty.

[Enrique]

8. they just did, in a way

when Maliki stepped aside. I agree with the article saying there was an "implicit promise".

[flamingdem]

2. "Iraq voices" and which would those be?

Anonymous voices could come from any quarter.

[jakeXT]

3. That'll be ugly

http://www.institutkurde.org/en/kurdorama/map_of_kurdistan.php

[tom_kelly]

4. Come on Iraqi's... do you need a refresher course?

Its all about the oil and their ain't no oil fields in Baghdad.

[Dems to Win]

6. Gotta protect that CIA drone base in Irbil

Here's a link to a news story from McClatchy

Expansion of ‘secret’ facility in Iraq suggests closer U.S.-Kurd ties
BY MITCHELL PROTHERO
McClatchy Foreign Staff
July 11, 2014

IRBIL, IRAQ — A supposedly secret but locally well-known CIA station on the outskirts of Irbil’s airport is undergoing rapid expansion as the United States considers whether to engage in a war against Islamist militants who’ve seized control of half of Iraq in the past month.

Western contractors hired to expand the facility and a local intelligence official confirmed the construction project, which is visible from the main highway linking Irbil to Mosul, the city whose fall June 9 triggered the Islamic State’s sweep through northern and central Iraq. Residents around the airport say they can hear daily what they suspect are American drones taking off and landing at the facility.

snip

Peshmerga forces already are manning checkpoints and bunkers to protect the facility, which sits just a few hundred yards from the highway.

“Within a week of the fall of Mosul we were being told to double or even triple our capacities,” said one Western logistics contractor who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he’d signed nondisclosure agreements with the U.S. government on the matter.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/11/233126/expansion-of-secret-facility-in.html#storylink=cpy

[flamingdem]

10. Expect to see stepped up airstrikes in

that part of Iraq at least! A bit too close for CIA comfort I'd say.

[chrisa]

7. Tough shit. Maybe if their army wasn't a collection of drug addicts, paid thugs, and double agents,

they wouldn't need the US.

[candelista]

9. This is excellent news, if true.

The US should not "defend" Baghdad. That would mean its destruction. And don't tell me about "surgical air strikes." IS has fighters ready in the city as well as around it. There is no way to "defend" Baghdad without destroying it.

[KinMd]

11. Here's a thought...why not protect it yourself?

[JI7]

12. why not get Iran to do it ?

[candelista]

13. The New Yorker says that Irbil was the main reason for US airstrikes

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 05:35 AM - Edit history (1)

To the defense of Erbil: this was the main cause that drew President Obama back to combat in Iraq last week, two and a half years after he fulfilled a campaign pledge and pulled the last troops out.

Erbil is the capital of the oil-endowed Kurdish Regional Government, in northern Iraq. There the United States built political alliances and equipped Kurdish peshmerga militias long before the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, in 2003. Since 2003, it has been the most stable place in an unstable country. But last week, well-armed guerrillas loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, threatened Erbil’s outskirts, forcing Obama’s momentous choice. (The President also ordered air operations to deliver humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of Yazidis and other non-Muslim minorities stranded on remote Mount Sinjar. A secure Kurdistan could provide sanctuary for those survivors.)

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/oil-erbil

There is much more of interest in the article.

[thesquanderer]

14. Yes, good New Yorker article. Worthy of its own OP. (n/t)