Iraqi Dominos

From the BBC:
"'Horrible choices' for US next move in Iraq"

The fall of Mosul and Tikrit to Sunni Islamist forces led by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has once again put the ongoing unrest in Iraq - and the consequences of the US invasion and subsequent withdrawal from the country - back into the headlines.  While there's been plenty of hand-wringing and finger-pointing - President Barack Obama is to blame, no he's not, George W Bush is at fault - constructive suggestions about where the US can go from here are much scarcer. While most commentators agree that something has to be done, opinions diverge as to the next step for US policymakers. It's time for the US to get more involved, writes Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow Michael Knights. "With ISIS forces capturing city after city, Washington has to do more (and quickly) to prevent the loss of government in Iraq," he argues in Foreign Policy magazine. "Intensified US on-the-ground mentoring of Iraqi military headquarters and perhaps US air strikes might also be needed to reverse the collapse of Iraq's military." While Mr Obama may feel bound by his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq, he writes, circumstances dictate a change of policy.

"The Middle East could see the collapse of state stability in a cross-sectarian, multiethnic country of 35 million people that borders many of the region's most important states and is the world's fastest-growing oil exporter," he writes. "Any other country with the same importance and the same grievous challenges would get more US support." He concludes: "Washington doesn't have the luxury of treating Iraq as a special case anymore."  The editors of Bloomberg View caution that this week's developments expose the "real possibility" that Iraq could be disintegrating, "with transnational badlands under ISIS's control that serve as a base for the training and radicalisation of foreign volunteers".  US "personnel and equipment" are engaging militants in Nigeria and Somalia, they note. "US interests in Iraq are worth at least as much of a commitment."  In the New York Times, Harvard Kennedy School fellow Nussaibah Younis agrees that the US must provide military aid to defend Baghdad and help Iraqi forces retake Mosul. The US must urge Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki from pushing for dictatorial emergency powers, and instead institute reforms to incorporate Sunnis into the government. In addition, Iraqi counter-insurgency efforts should be sensitive to the Sunni civilian population. Doing nothing is an option, writes the Federalist's David Harsanyi, despite the obvious criticism that it likely would mean that "more than 4,400 U.S. troops and over $700 billion had been wasted in a war that ended but was not won".

^ It is clearly Obama who is at fault (along with the Iraqi Government.) Bush started the war, but he didn't end it and take all American troops and training out of the country the way Obama did. Obama made one of his usual quick decisions that is now hurting ordinary people. I'm not saying the US should send its troops back into Iraq, but we did cause the mess and it would be the right thing to do to clean up our mess before the whole country becomes an Islamist, anti-West State (the way neighboring Iran already is.) ^

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27806564