Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020

What does America want from Iraq?


Posts : 189737
Join date : 2012-12-21

What does America want from Iraq? Empty What does America want from Iraq?

Post by rocky on Sat 22 Feb 2020, 8:20 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What does America want from Iraq?

February 22, 2020

The internal divisions in Iraq are preventing it from determining its destination towards the outside (Facebook)

If you took to the Iraqi street, wanting to ask a specific question to passers-by, is "What does the United States want from Iraq, or in the colloquial language:" You want from Iraq? ", And the same question we ask to those who take care of us. It centers around: They are covetous about our wealth, our land, and also they want to ensure the security of the Israeli entity, which wants Iraq to continue weak, or that they want to destroy Islam and Muslims, as well as fragmenting, dividing the country, and other answers that I do not want to go deep into, rather I took This introduction is intended as an introduction to my main topic as indicated in the title The article is, in order to understand the nature of the popular and official prevailing view about the Americans, and between what I want to reach, which will be far from this vision; that is, in a more accurate sense, I will discuss the issue from the geopolitical aspect, and what Iraq actually represents in the American perception.
The United States of America sees an important strategic patch in Iraq, at the heart of its global strategy, which seeks to achieve absolute domination of the world.

And geopolitics, as defined by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It means "describing and analyzing the various measures that reflect the desire of a state, or system of government, expressed publicly or indirectly, to extend and expand its authority in the global system, starting with its neighboring countries, then at a second stage in consolidating its growing influence over other parts of the world ". Based on this definition, the United States of America sees Iraq as an important strategic area, located at the heart of its global strategy that seeks to achieve absolute domination over the world, and domination here is not in the sense that its armies are sent to invade, and it includes lands and countries, as was common during the past eras; rather, the intention Of them is the political, economic, and military influence by spreading its military bases in various regions, and even social ones! That is, there are political systems that do not adopt policies hostile to them, or to their global interests, such as those that are called "axis of evil states" or "rogue states".
Read also:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
For this, the United States of America follows a policy that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  describes as a "policy of passing responsibility to others", that is, it aligns with and shares with a number of countries in various important global regions such as East Asia and the Persian Gulf, its tool to preserve its interests, as well as a tool to deter its competitors. And its enemies, as in the case of its ally Japan and South Korea, the two countries that are working to contain the Chinese genie, as well as for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which acts as a regional stabilizer for Iran, the country that threatens American interests in the Arab Gulf region, as well as the security of the Israeli entity, which Y P at the core of US national interests.
 However, Saudi Arabia failed to play this role after the year (2003), which led to the infiltration of Iranian influence in this region, and therefore [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  says[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Saudi Arabia, for example, was not the first American demand. The facts of power are made by humans, and oil does not make them." Before the occupation, Iraq had limited this influence. Rather, it was a regional balance factor against Iran in the region, and this strategic role was glorified, until we find that the United States of America, even though it occupied Kuwait in August of 1990, and what It was subsequently arranged by international efforts led by the American administration under the leadership of its former president (George Bush Sr.), which aimed to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in (1991), through a military operation called "Desert Storm", and not only did it drive Iraq out; I pursued systematic destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, as well as the withdrawal of the retreating Iraqi army M. Kuwait, followed by the imposition of a severe international siege on it, continued until its occupation in (2003).
This strategy falls within the John Mearsheimer hypothesis, which he calls "imposing balance", as the great powers, and the major, resort to this policy through direct intervention by it; after the policy of passing responsibility to others fails, meaning that the Arab powers, such as Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, as Allied countries of the United States of America could not deter Iraq at the time, as it had to intervene on its own, to restore the situation in the region as it was before the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and also strengthened its military presence in this region vital to them, which would not hesitate for a moment in defending its interests Proceeding from the principle of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  , if compromised by any force.
Nevertheless, the United States of America worked to preserve Saddam Hussein's regime, and allowed him to suppress the uprising against him in the southern Iraqi provinces, and turned a blind eye to that. Why? Because it did not want the power balance in the region to be disrupted in favor of Iran, in the event of the fall of the Iraqi regime, at a time when there was no reliable alternative for it. Saddam's regime continued because of this goal, even though the communication links between him and the Americans were cut off, and the American administration did not deal with his regime, until it was established in (1998), during the rule of its former president [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  What it called the "Iraq Liberation Law", and among its paragraphs was the use of military force to achieve this goal, which explains that what happened in (2003) was nothing but an achievement, and that the events of September 11 that occurred in (2001) It was an opportunity for the administration of former US President (George W. Bush) to implement this law; and it works to occupy Iraq, topple its political system, and indeed the entire country!
Nothing, except because it wants a new system that you can deal with, which will serve as a democratic model to follow, in light of an Arab region teeming with authoritarian regimes, and for Iraq to be a springboard for American strategy, and for its project in the region, and to continue to be a counterpart to Iran, in addition to investing its natural resources such as oil, from In order for American oil companies to invest in it, as well as using it as a political paper to manipulate its prices and influence the countries consuming it, especially those competing with it, such as China, which is the largest importer of Iraqi oil, as the number reaches (800) thousand barrels per day.
Iraq is the heart of the Middle East, and whoever controls it controls this very important region, and this places America within its geopolitical considerations.

China is also a competitor to Iraq, especially as it is at the heart of its strategy, or what it calls the "Belt and Road" initiative, a Chinese vision that mimics the model of the ancient Silk Road, which was ancient linking China to the countries of the Arab Gulf region. Consequently, this matter worries the American administration, so how can it accept the loss of Iraq, whether it is for Iran, for China, or any other country? The country for which it has lost trillions of dollars, as well as thousands of victims, and the wounded of its soldiers, will not surrender it as easily as we can imagine; these are facts of power, dominance, and status that lie at the heart of the thinking of great and great powers.
Read also:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This American vision did not come from a vacuum, especially since it has many strategic advantages, such as the geographical locations linking the continents of the ancient world, with its enormous wealth, its ancient civilization, and the religious and civilizational influence it possesses on the Arab countries as a whole, which qualifies it to play a role The leader in the Arab region, given that Baghdad was once the capital of the Abbasid state, and the religious weight it represents for the Shiites of the whole world who see it as their spiritual symbol, because their symbols and religious shrines such as Imam Ali, Hussein, and Abbas are present in it, and others Of the advantages. If the Russian Federation is the heart of Eurasia, Iraq is the heart of the Middle East, and whoever controls it controls this very important region, this and others that the United States of America places within its geopolitical considerations regarding Iraq.
However, all the American hopes built by the Bush administration about Iraq evaporated on the ground in Iraq, as with the first months of the occupation the Iraqi resistance that refused the American presence on the Iraqi lands launched and found that the reality is not the way I imagined it before the occupation, as it was imagined that the Iraqi people would receive it with flowers . Here, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  says in his book [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  "The ultimate goal has become not to create a new strategic reality in the region, but rather the goal has become merely the withdrawal of American forces within a reasonable time frame, and the best hope was to leave behind a neutral government, and at best it will be a result The final invasion is chaos. "
This is how the administration of the former American President (Barack Obama) tried, in an effort to collect the cards of her country in Iraq, and work to get out of it as soon as possible, to avoid the size of human and material costs, as well as the damage caused by its occupation of Iraq to its international reputation, and its lack of credibility, because it The project of its occupation built on the basis that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, which turned out to be an illusion, a trick, or a lie, and it has become viewed as an occupying power, contrary to what it was exporting, as a state advocating the fate of peoples and their independence, and this is what Actually it happened in (2011), when the last American soldier left Iraq after the day Hills lasted 8 years.
This is what Iran has invested with any investment, especially since the new authority in Iraq after (2003) is allies of the Shiite political forces with Islamic fundamentalist tendencies, and instead of the United States of America creating a regional balance centered on Iraq; we find that Iran controlled it, and it became He is walking in the process of embarking on her strategy that wants to form what is called the "Shiite Crescent", or rather what is called the "Umm Al-Qura" project, which is willing to export the Iranian revolution outside the borders, which aims mainly to tighten Iranian control over the region, because in its appearance it carries religious dimensions; however, Its truth stems from Air's geopolitical ambitions Anya related to her vision about the region.
And it worked to support a number of armed groups without the state, to serve as a striking hand in Iraq, and a strong buffer against American attempts to make Iraq a regional counterbalance to them, which is harmful to its project in the region, especially since it is Iraq - its path towards the White Sea. The Mediterranean, as well as the entire Arab region, as well as the African continent, and without it will be ineffective at the regional level, and all of its regional projects that it spun after 2003 will fail.
This is in contrast to what the Americans want about Iraq. How could a strategic project they wanted thus evaporate in front of them? This failure has several reasons, including:

  • First: They fail to read the Iraqi societal reality before taking the occupation step.
  • Second: They initially relied on a specific sect, which is the Shiite sect, in exchange for totally ignoring the Sunni community, which led to it being a stumbling block in front of the American project on Iraq, because it was the first to adopt the project of armed resistance against their forces, this variable was not in their mind, "They put - the Sunnis - in a position, there is nothing to lose in it, and they claim indiscriminate firing and IEDs," says John Friedman.
  •  Third: Their failure to help Iraq to build a respectable state based on patriotism and citizenship, and this failure led to Iraq being a hotbed of terrorism and transnational armed groups, at a time when the United States of America imagined that it had eliminated the most important supporter of terrorism (Saddam Hussein) ), While the opposite is the case. 

 That is, in the sense that it began to enhance its influence in the provinces with a Kurdish and Sunni majority, as the equation of the internal powers supporting it changed in the nature of their balances, for example, the equation was in (2003) and almost until the year (2014), based on (Shiites) In response, the Kurds support the American tendencies, while the Sunnis are opposed to the American presence, but after that they changed to (Kurds, Sunnis) supporters, and Shiites are opposed to this presence, and many Shiite factions have expressed this approach publicly, and even the Shiite blocs in Parliament voted on the necessity The departure of the American forces from Iraq, following the assassination of each of (Qasim Sliema) J, Abu Mahdi Eng), while this did not attend the meeting of the foundation blocks of the Kurdish and Sunni.
The internal divisions that Iraq is experiencing prevent it from determining its destination towards the outside, and with what camp and alliance it is

The Americans invested this by declaring the necessity of their continued presence in Iraq, because there are local parties who support this, and the danger of "ISIS" has not ended yet, and the most important thing is that its survival guarantees limiting Iranian influence in Iraq, hoping to end it in the future, whether near or medium. . But if the Shiite forces continue their positions rejecting their presence in Iraq, they may resort to the option of economic sanctions, which he explicitly threatened (Donald Trump), or perhaps rely on "a beneficial Iraq"
Also read:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The United States of America takes this vision, based on what John Mearsheimer assumes in his theory, in which he asserts that the United States of America, after imposing its absolute dominance in the Western Hemisphere, will work to prevent the emergence of any possible forces in other regions of the world that may threaten them. Its national security, or global influence, which applies to Iran, which aims to be a dominant force in the Arab Gulf region, the region that is at the heart of the American strategy, and we can imagine its dealings with (Saddam Hussein) when he invaded Kuwait, and we try to bring him down to Iran How will the results be? Certainly it will not differ from its dealings, perhaps only in the methods, which in the end will lead to the same results that preserve American hegemony in the Arab Gulf region.
The most important question remains, does Iraq realize or understand what the Americans want? Some professors of strategy in Iraq, including Dr. Ali Hamid Al-Issawi, are proposing what they call the thesis "One Ally and Multiple Partners", meaning that Iraq should rely on a strong international ally to maintain its security, as well as to be an influential regional player, and this ally is, as for A country the size of the United States of America, or an alliance such as NATO, that is, to be within the Western camp in any case, and there is nothing wrong with establishing many international partnerships with other countries, such as China, the Russian Federation, Iran ... etc., and personally I agree with this vision. Iraq is in its complicated and surrounded geographical situation Regional powers are looking for it to extend its influence, such as Iran and Turkey, can not restrain her; only under strong international ally of fear of these forces.
However, the internal divisions that Iraq is experiencing prevent it from determining its destination towards the outside, and with any camp and an alliance, the Shiites want to go toward the camp of the Russian Federation, China, the Kurds, and the Sunnis believe that the best option is the United States of America, and the center of the dispute between the two approaches It is Iran, as the Shiite party supports going to the camp I mentioned earlier because Iran has their natural ally, while the Kurds and Sunnis oppose this, because they believe that they will be at the mercy of absolute Iranian domination. Moreover, the doctrinal variable has an important role in shaping these trends, as the Kurds and Sunnis differed nationally, except that they are the same approach from a religious point of view, as they follow the Sunni doctrine, which does not want the Iranian role with the Shiite sectarian trends.
At a time when the United States wants Iraq to be a counterpart to Iran, given that peace, according to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   cannot be preserved, except in light of a stable balance of power between countries. This balance was disturbed in the region after the American occupation of Iraq, and the consequence of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, which was an important balance of power in the region, and which subsequently led to the Americans realizing the great error they committed. As they try to correct this geopolitical situation, the Shiites of Iraq stand as an obstacle to this, who see that they cannot stand against their political and religious ally, as well as their geographic neighbor, Iran, which is repeatedly emphasized by the leaders of the Shiite factions, both political and armed.
 The dominant powers have no choice but to make way for the new blood that the October Revolution wishes to inject into the sick Iraqi body.

In front of this internal division and external competition, Iraq stands on the edge of the abyss, and the solution is in the hands of the leaders of the dominant local parties (Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis), so they must decide where the country will be headed, and they must take into account the interests of the country, and the people above all else, Which was the last thing that interests them throughout the period that followed the year (2003) and therefore they have no choice but to make way for the new blood that the October Revolution desires to inject into the sick Iraqi body, in the hope that there will be a respectable country that knows what it wants.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

    Current date/time is Sun 24 Jan 2021, 4:05 am