Saturday, August 16, 2014

Q&A: American Airstrikes on Iraq


In recent days, there has been news coverage that American aircraft has conducted air strikes on some sites regulated by the “State” group (tanzeem ad-Dawlah) in Northern Iraq. Obama and some American officials have claimed that this has been done for humanitarian reasons and for fear of genocide and words to that effect. Indeed worse massacres have taken place in Syria, yet America has not interfered. Even in Iraq massacres occurred in Anbar and Fallujah and America did not interfere. This suggests that humanitarian reasons are not the compelling reason for the American air strikes in the north of Iraq. This is what can be concluded from following the events. Therefore the question is: If this understanding is true, and that this is not the true reason for the raids, then what is the real reason that you see according to your political analysis of the current events?
May Allah reward you.


1. It is true what you said that the humanitarian reasons are not the real drive. The follower of America’s actions and interventions finds that humanitarian reasons are as far apart as the East and the West. Its crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan surround it. Its use of torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo encompass it. Its relations with Myanmar (despite the massacres and tragedies and genocide of Muslims there) encircle it. However America did not take measures to punish or even bother the authority in Myanmar. On the contrary it increased its economic relations with it. To recount the crimes of America in this field requires more time and more pages.
2. America, since its occupation of Iraq in 2003, continues to prepare for Iraq’s disintegration. The Constitution that Bremer framed was on a sectarian basis with quotas for groups and denominations. Positions were separated for these groups between the President, the Speaker of Parliament and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the one who has the executive power, so Bremer made it a sectarian position capable of provoking and agitating others around the role. Therefore the situation in Iraq reached the state where it actually became divided: The Kurds in the north-east, the Sunnis in the west and north, the Shiites in the south, and Baghdad between these sections.
3. The Constitution itself maintains a governing of federal regions, while the powers of the regions are strong. Therefore America has succeeded in creating the conditions for the dismantling of Iraq into three regions, so each region solves its own problems and even fight internally without bringing the conflict outside to other regions. America pursued this way, as they prepared a security agreement that defines the system in Iraq after it withdrew militarily in 2011. Therefore it confined the security as it understands it, in the way of maintaining the division of Iraq with a weak relationship to the centre, as it steps on the road to the future final division if it is capable. Therefore, it understands security in this way i.e. any province transgressing on another, and not the component parts of the region transgressing on themselves.
4. Therefore, there is no breach in security which calls for intervention if the problems of the Sunnis are confined to their region, or the problems of the Kurds are confined to their region, or the problems of Shiites are confined to their region. Baghdad remains a passable road for the three territories with a weak relationship to it . Accordingly, if one territory exceeded the bounds of another, then America will deem it a breach of security, so it intervenes under the pretext of the security agreement. Similarly, if a province makes inroads on the centre, “Baghdad”, she counts that as a breach of security and intervenes. This is how America moved with the security agreement signed with Iraq when only the Kurds had a province. In recent years America begun to effectively set the stage for the rest of the regions: the Sunni and Shiite provinces. This required devious preparation to create enmity between Sunnis and Shiites in a way that makes the differences between them strong, so their agent al-Maliki was sectarian par excellence, provoking others and incensing them, making the atmosphere suited for division and provinces, and he succeeded in this role. Al-Maliki incited enmity with Sunnis and Kurds until the division of Iraq became a request for many people. Al-Maliki succeeded in creating this animosity and creating this atmosphere in the provinces for division, which was the main task that America’s tasked him with as prime minister to implement. It has reached its goal, as al-Maliki has created the atmosphere of hostility among the people in Iraq. Therefore he has ended his role, and the need has now become for a stable Government to exploit the atmosphere of hostility, to arrange the regions and areas to make them effective in their places. It is to move towards semi-detachment with a weak link to the centre in a quasi-state that is called it a federation. This has ended the role of al-Maliki, so he became disgraced and discarded by America, and even from Iran. Al-Maliki was surprised by this expulsion after all that he has done to serve America and her interests, and the service of Iran and her demands, so he fumes in anger. Yet if he was a reasonable person he would not be surprised by this, as every agent when they have exhausted their role has been tossed to the side of the road. For some of them, their masters were honoured by throwing them on the road without stones, and some of them are thrown on the stony road hurting their bodies!
5. Based on the above, America did not consider the bloody events in the Sunni region between the tribes, the “State” group, the Baathists and Naqshbandis. America does not consider that a breach of security, despite the massacres that occurred, as long as the conflict and infighting is within the same region. Similarly America did not see in the arrival of the “State” group to Mosul on 10/06/2014 or to Tikrit or elsewhere, any breach of security or genocide. Nor did it consider it an encroachment of humanity, because the fighting was in one territory. Rather America considered the approaching of the “State” group and the other Sunni groups, and their threatening of Baghdad as a security breach. Therefore security experts were sent as Psaki announced on Monday 06/16/2014, to the American embassy in Baghdad. This is the largest embassy in the world, where a nest of plots, cooking in it malicious styles and dirty methods of aggression on humanity are developed. On the 06/31/2014 America sent about 300 troops in addition to a group of helicopters and drones. The Pentagon decided to put American soldiers in a security role at the airport in Baghdad. Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby said that about 200 soldiers arrived in Iraq to enhance security at the American Embassy in the Iraqi capital, its support facilities and Baghdad International Airport, while 100 more troops were due to fly to Baghdad “to provide security and logistical support”. All of this were threatening signals to prevent those organizations from reaching Baghdad, so they withdrew from attacks on Baghdad and stopped. While the military situation of al-Maliki and his troops was at the time one of weakness, and it was easy for those organizations to reach easily what they want in Baghdad, but they took the American threatening signals seriously so they withdrew.
6. Therefore, encroaching on the arrangements of America to control the events in Iraq are for America an abuse of human rights, fear of genocide, and a security breach stepping over her red lines. But America does not include the massacres being committed, the rivers of blood flowing, and the terrible destruction of human beings, trees and stones, as long as it is in the interests of America and the implementation of her plans. Therefore, the transgressing of the “State” group of the Sunni territory, and its threatening march towards the Kurdistan region is a security breach and an abuse of human rights and genocide. Obama said in the answer to a question in the New York Times interview about military intervention with air strikes in northern Iraq on 09/08/2014, “When you have a unique circumstance in which genocide is threatened, and a country is willing to have us in there … then we have an obligation to do so.” He says this at a time in which brutal and more severe massacres in Syria with barrel bombs are taking place yet, Obama was not afraid for them of genocide! Therefore he did not intervene against the massacres of the tyrant of Syria, but he has intervened in northern Iraq because of the approaching threat to the Kurdistan region. So his speech on Friday 08/08/2014 was to intervene, and Vice President Biden’s call to al-Barazani assured him of American support, and then came the American raids on the 09/08/2014 .
7. The main reason for the American intervention is to prevent any attacks from the “State” group on the Kurdistan region in accordance with the American policy of dismantling Iraq into three regions with a weak bond to the Centre, without any territory occupying the other territories, as she does not want Iraq to return to one state with anyone. It wants it to remain spilt into regions which will eventually lead to an actual official split according to its plans. At the same time she does not see the conflict within these regions as a security breach incompatible with the security agreement which allows the intervention of America .
This is the reason, and it was not for any humanitarian motive or fear of genocide. Capitalist states led by America do not give any weight to any humane or moral factor, but rather the issue is to spread their schemes and promote their plots, even if they destroyed crops and families. They are the disbelieving colonialists treating the believers ruthlessly. The colonialists hands are stained with blood wherever they are, and they are a witness against them, and woe to them for what they have done.
8. In conclusion, it is painful that we see the Islamic ummah which led the world for centuries, we see her falling under the foolish dictators (ruwaybidaat) who have been wrapped around their necks. They made it a theatre for the colonialists and their agents to carry out their plots and their plans. The disasters and calamities on thisummah have intensified since her silence over the destruction of the Khilafah more than ninety years ago. The shield went, which was her protection and the best of carers, so whatever befell her befell her. However, what alleviates this pain a little is this powerful awakening that we see in the ummah, so she is moving today with strength, and solid activity. That which removes the pain, Allah willing, is the presence of those pure dawah carrying men, who work day and night as they work in the pure pious party, with Allah’s permission, to resume the Islamic way of life to establish the khilafah ar-rashidah on the way of Prophethood, and then the ummah will return with the permission of the Almighty to what it used to have of honour and domination. It will be rightfully the bestummah brought out from mankind, and that is not difficult for Allah.

وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ

“You will come to know what it is talking about after a while.’” [Saad: 88]
16th of Shawwal 1435 AH

1 comment:

John said...

While I agree with you that Bremer's conceptualization of a new Iraq was obviously and tragically flawed, I'm not sure it is correct to infer that President Obama was carrying out the supposed policy established by President Bush.

The ship sailed on Syria when President Obama issued his "red line" proclamation and then did nothing. The humanitarian issue in Iraq in Mt. Sinjar is an easier sell. These people can be portrayed as displaced non-combatants, whether true or not. By contrast, getting involved in internal conflicts between armed parties is more complicated. Should the U.S. pick a side? And if so which one?

Mt. Sinjar gave President Obama to use "safe assets" like planes, drones, and cruise missiles to "do something" without putting Americans at great risk. By contrast, getting stuck in at Falujah or these other areas you mentioned would mean fighting an insurgency with ground forces, and the American public is war weary and slowly coming to the realization that fighting insurgencies is a matter of decades even generations.