Will Arming Iraq Be Another Big Mistake?
Will Arming Iraq Be Another Big Mistake?
original article written by Net Advisor™
FALLUJAH, Iraq. In 2013, President Obama said the “Global War on Terror” is over. In fact, the U.S. and other Western leaders tried to even avoid calling people ‘terrorists’ [Report]. U.S. State Department official said in 2012 that most of Al-Qaeda was killed and that there would be room now for “legitimate Islamism.”
“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida…now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”
In reality, there is an ongoing radical Islamic movement using war-tactics to achieve their religious goals. This religious war between the Sunni’s (Sunni Islam) and the Shiites (Shia Islam) has been going on for over a 1,000 years [Report, Point 6].
 Goal of Sunni Islam
The goal of the Sunni’s is to establish an Islamic state. This has been attempted in all the countries where President Obama has a hand in, such as Libya, Egypt, Syria, Africa in general and now Iraq.
The problem is when a group determines that they are willing to fight to the death against anyone who does not share their religious views – including other (Shia) Islamists, seems to go beyond rational thinking.
The Sunni Fundamentalists don’t want to just establish their own Islamic state and then live a life of religious worship. They (Orthodox Sunni under Sharia Law) believe their religious views are the only and correct views. Tolerance of other religious views is not part of the equation.
What this group is doing in effect is trying to force a Coup d’état – to overthrow the existing and multiple governments such as in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Sudan, Syria, – pretty much where ever they can get a foothold and enforce Sharia Law.
 Africa & Middle-East Instability
According to the Army Times, President Obama sent some 3,000 U.S. troops all over Africa in 2013 for training foreign militias. Well, the idea of training foreign militias hasn’t worked too well in Afghanistan.
U.S. Troops were recently attacked in December in Sudan. In September, 2013 some “39 people were killed and at least 150 others were injured” from a terrorist attack on a civilian upscale mall in Nairobi, Kenya.
I predict Afghanistan will be next in an internal struggle after the U.S. leaves. Issues will be tied to the expanding drug trade, which is how Al-Qaeda gets a chunk of their funding. There will likely be issues again with the Taliban (where Vice President Joe Biden said the Taliban are not our enemy per se). Then we have the U.S.-backed corrupt puppet government of Afghanistan and I doubt they will hold up two years.
- [Additional Report on Obama and the Taliban.]
Pakistan is questionable as Pakistan plays both sides of the conflict. Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, Jalil Abbas Jilani has denied the allegation, but Sunni terrorist leader Osama bin Laden who claimed responsibility for September 11, 2001 attacks was harbored in Pakistan. There also is a history of the Pakistan intelligence agency reportedly involved in terrorism.
All of these said countries are more unstable and more violent than before President Bush or President Obama got involved.
Set aside the question whether the U.S. should have been involved in the first place doesn’t matter. The U.S. got involved. President Bush did create a level of stability in Iraq, but that pretty much just kept opposing Islamic religious views somewhat apart until the U.S. checked out. If the U.S. thinks it can stop a thousand-year-old religious war, they’re nuts.
 Iraqi Liberation Agreement Signed Under Pres. Bill Clinton (1998)
Many people may not recall that the original premise for U.S. support of Iraqi opposition was signed in to law under Democrat President Bill Clinton.
“On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.”
Fifteen plus years later since Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Agreement, Iraq is more unstable now than ever. President Obama exited Iraq by December 2011. Anyone who has studied this region, especially Iraq would know that a civil war would break out between the Sunnis and the Shiites as soon as the U.S. left Iraq, and this has been the case.
Since 2005, the Bush and Obama Administrations have spent over $14 Billion in weapons and aid to Iraq.
“The United States has delivered more than $14 billion in equipment, services and training to the Iraqi military and security forces since 2005, according to Department of Defense statistics.
In the past year alone, the United States delivered six C-130J aircraft and a Rapid Avenger surface-to-air missile battery. Additionally, a total of 140 M1A1 tanks have been provided between 2010 and 2012.”
 Video: Obama “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept”
While doing research for this report, I came across this fantasy foreign policy video about how Obama ended the war in Iraq.
Not only did the war in Iraq not end, the U.S. is still funding it. The New York Times put it this way:
“Contrary to President Obama’s statement “I ended the war in Iraq,” a resurgence by Islamic insurgents has been a reminder that the war is anything but over.”
 Obama Sends Arms to Iraq
So like Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, the Obama Administration has decided to take sides and provide arms to Iraq too. What side did the Administration take and how do we know the arms and aid we are sending are going to the people we think are the “good guys?”
We really don’t have a 100% answer on that, we just think we have a good idea. The ‘Gun Control (Obama) Administration’ is sending, “several thousand” M-16 and M-4 rifles, plus ammunition to Iraq.
So Carney says, violence was already in Iraq. In other words, what’s the big deal if Iraq becomes more violent by sending in more guns and more ammo that the Administration really opposes (those having guns)? So, the 2009 Nobel Peace Price Winner is thus helping at least one religious group be able to kill the other?
President Obama has been the poster child to boost U.S. domestic and global arm sales to the Middle-east since this whole ‘reaching out’ to Islamic fundamentalists in his 2009 Cairo speech didn’t exactly work out.
 Bi-Polar Policy
The Obama Administration seems to have a serious disconnect about what is actually happening in the Middle-east. Granted the U.S. doesn’t need to repeat the same policies that don’t solve problems, but rather it creates new ones. Somehow, the Obama’s Administration has a bi-polar policy when it comes to weapons for self-defense.
President Obama promotes Gun Control policies in the U.S. with the intent to restrict, limit, or ultimately disarm law-biding American citizens at home [Report, Point 22]. At the same time President Obama freely promotes tens of billions of tax dollars in weapons sales to already unstable, war-torn, Middle-Eastern and African nations. Some of these weapons have reportedly been getting in the hands of terrorists [Report].
I tried to help the Obama Administration with some advice back in 2010:
“The Obama Administration needs to stop the funding of terrorism. If you cut off the drugs and money supply, you cut off their ability to pay people, buy weapons, fly on airplanes and hit buildings, etc.”
Looks like the Obama Administration has done the exact opposite of the forgoing policy suggestion. Has the Middle-East and North Africa become more stable or more unstable under Obama’s leadership?
original content copyright © 2014 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.