[Irak] passé, présent, avenir

[olivier lsb]

Il ne fait que peu de doute qu'il sera un jour balayé par une BGL. Contrairement au Pakistan, les marges de manœuvres et d'interventions sont plus importantes sur le "territoire" de l'EIIL. Mais finalement la personne importe peu. La véritable question c'est de savoir le califat survivrait à la disparation d'Al Baghdadi. Vu le peu de personnalisation de l'organisation et la discrétion de ce dernier, il y a fort à parier que oui malheureusement. Et alors la, le bordel ne fait que commencer....

Modifié le 5 juillet 2014 par olivier lsb

[alexWF]

Guerre de l’eau en Irak : la menace d’un nouveau Déluge

Il ne s’agit pas de faire du catastrophisme, mais les combats qui se déroulent en ce moment autour de deux barrages irakiens ont de quoi inquiéter.

Daash (ÉIIL devenu État Islamique – EI – depuis la proclamation du califat), qui s’est emparé de celui de Falloujah et du lac Tharthar, assiège maintenant le barrage hydroélectrique de Haditha sur l’Euphrate, deuxième plus grand barrage d’Irak. Des combats trop proches pourraient en détériorer les vannes ou ébranler sa structure. Si les djihadistes s’en emparent, ils disposeront de l’énorme lac de retenue Qadissiya – du nom de la bataille victorieuse des Arabes musulmans contre les Perses vers 636 – et pourront menacer d’inondation les régions chiites du sud ou les assoiffer. En arrêtant les turbines, ils provoqueraient de graves perturbations dans l’alimentation en électricité de Bagdad. La façon dont Daash gère les barrages en sa possession en Syrie – Tichrin et de Tabqa (ou Thawra) – est plutôt rassurante . Mais, qu’arrivera-t-il lorsque Bachar al-Assad ordonnera à ses troupes d’en reprendre le contrôle ?

Une vague de 10 à 20 mètres atteindrait Mossoul en 3 à 4 heures

Le point noir, c’est le barrage Saddam – rebaptisé Chambarakat (photo ci-dessus) – situé sur le Tigre à 40 km au nord de Mossoul. En 2006, il était considéré par le Corps des ingénieurs de l’armée américaine comme le « barrage le plus dangereux du monde ».

Construit sur du gypse dans les années 80, son fonctionnement nécessite le renforcement permanent de ses fondations. Des spécialistes disent que s’il cédait, suite à des combats ou à un entretien laissant trop à désirer, une vague de 10 à 20 mètres atteindrait Mossoul en 3 à 4 heures, à une vitesse d’environ 2 m/seconde. Une grande partie de la ville serait détruite. Les villages et les terrains agricoles bordant les rives du Tigre seraient ravagés et des quartiers de Bagdad se retrouveraient sous 3 à 5 m d’eau dans les trois jours. Selon des estimations, un demi-million d’Irakiens mourraient noyés .

En 2004, Athel al-Nujafi, gouverneur de Mossoul, avait ordonné à la garnison de peshmerga qui assurait la « protection » du barrage Saddam de quitter les lieux et demandé aux troupes américaines de la remplacer. En 2007, David Petraeus, commandant des forces américaines en Irak, avait conseillé à Nouri al-Maliki d’en faire consolider les fondations et les États-Unis avaient accordé 27 millions de dollars pour le réparer, une somme insignifiante vu l’état du barrage et qui, de plus, avait été en partie détournée. Un mur de béton, enfoncé jusqu’à 67 m dans le sol, a été construit depuis autour des fondations : mais pas sûr qu’il retienne les 12,5 milliards de mètres cubes d’eau accumulés dans le lac de retenue.

Depuis la prise de Mossoul par la résistance irakienne et Daash en juin dernier, le barrage Saddam (Chambarakat) est situé à la limite du territoire contrôlé par les nouveaux dirigeants de la province de Ninive. Que se passera-t-il si les Kurdes décident de s’en emparer ? On préfère ne pas y penser.

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2014/07/guerre-de-l-eau-en-irak-la-menace-d-un-nouveau-deluge.html

Modifié le 5 juillet 2014 par alexWF

[zx]

cela permettrait de répandre le chaos et la panique à moindre frais et ils savent en tirer avantage.

Modifié le 5 juillet 2014 par zx

[zx]

salut je suis wali

 

VIDÉO - Irak : première apparition du chef de l'État islamique

 

pas de sous titre, va falloir un traducteur

 

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2014/07/05/97001-20140705FILWWW00144-video-irak-premiere-apparition-du-chef-de-l-etat-islamique.php

 

"Je suis le Wali (leader) désigné pour vous diriger, mais je ne suis pas meilleur que vous; si vous pensez que j'ai raison, aidez-moi et si vous pensez que j'ai tort conseillez-moi et mettez-moi sur le droit chemin", a dit Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi, qui portait un turban noir et une longue robe traditionnelle. "Obéissez-moi tant que vous obéissez à Dieu en vous"

 

Modifié le 5 juillet 2014 par zx

[Tomcat]

salut je suis wali

 

VIDÉO - Irak : première apparition du chef de l'État islamique

 

pas de sous titre, va falloir un traducteur

 

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2014/07/05/97001-20140705FILWWW00144-video-irak-premiere-apparition-du-chef-de-l-etat-islamique.php

 

 

Une partie en anglais 

 

http://youtu.be/Fxawa6VnSTM

[thibaut]

J'attend avec une relative impatience le sentiment d'al zawahiri. C'est moche quand mème. Le caliphat  djihadiste commence a avoir un semblant d’existence et c'est mème pas des historiques qui vont en profiter (mème pas un petit mot?). Un peu comme droukdel et l'azawad. Les anciens sont tapis dans des caves ou des grottes tandis  que les autres la joue pimp mon djhad, hummer twinné ,prèche 5 étoiles ,quasiment en direct, dans un lieu connu,

 

le ventilateur derrière al bagdadi a plus de charisme que lui et je parie  que sa majesté ventripotente a repris sont souffle après être monté en haut du minbar.

 

sinon

ON en est ou des combat? je ne voit pas d'infos. j'en était resté a la chute de tal afar, résistance de la ville d'haditah a l'EI, chute des poste frontières les uns après les autres sans combats, et contre-attaque de l' armée irakienne sur tikrit  dons le sort restait incertain.

Modifié le 5 juillet 2014 par thibaut

[alexWF]

Irak : la poussée djihadiste s'accentue aux abords de Bagdad

 

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2014/06/12/01003-20140612ARTFIG00427-irak-la-poussee-djihadiste-s-accentue-aux-abords-de-bagdad.php

L'article date du 12 juin, Bagdad n'est plus menacé

[zx]

oops , désolé, je supprime

[Gravity]

Why we stuck with Maliki — and lost Iraq

 

By Ali Khedery July 3, 2014

 

Ali Khedery is chairman and chief executive of the Dubai-based Dragoman Partners. From 2003 to 2009, he was the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq, acting as a special assistant to five U.S. ambassadors and as a senior adviser to three heads of U.S. Central Command. In 2011, as an executive with Exxon Mobil, he negotiated the company’s entry into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

 

To understand why Iraq is imploding, you must understand Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — and why the United States has supported him since 2006.

 

I have known Maliki, or Abu Isra, as he is known to people close to him, for more than a decade. I have traveled across three continents with him. I know his family and his inner circle. When Maliki was an obscure member of parliament, I was among the very few Americans in Baghdad who took his phone calls. In 2006, I helped introduce him to the U.S. ambassador, recommending him as a promising option for prime minister. In 2008, I organized his medevac when he fell ill, and I accompanied him for treatment in London, spending 18 hours a day with him at Wellington Hospital. In 2009, I lobbied skeptical regional royals to support Maliki’s government.

 

By 2010, however, I was urging the vice president of the United States and the White House senior staff to withdraw their support for Maliki. I had come to realize that if he remained in office, he would create a divisive, despotic and sectarian government that would rip the country apart and devastate American interests.

 

America stuck by Maliki. As a result, we now face strategic defeat in Iraq and perhaps in the broader Middle East.

 

Finding a leader

 

Born in Tuwairij, a village outside the Iraqi holy city of Karbala, Abu Isra is the proud grandson of a tribal leader who helped end British colonial rule in the 1920s. Raised in a devout Shiite family, he grew to resent Sunni minority rule in Iraq, especially the secular but repressive Baath Party. Maliki joined the theocratic Dawa party as a young man, believing in its call to create a Shiite state in Iraq by any means necessary. After clashes between the secular Sunni, Shiite and Christian Baathists and Shiite Islamist groups, including Dawa, Saddam Hussein’s government banned the rival movements and made membership a capital offense.

 

Accused of being extensions of Iranian clerics and intelligence officers, thousands of Dawa party members were arrested, tortured and executed. Many of the mutilated bodies were never returned to their families. Among those killed were some of Maliki’s close relatives, forever shaping the psychology of the future premier.

 

Over a span of three decades, Maliki moved between Iran and Syria, where he organized covert operations against Hussein’s regime, eventually becoming chief of Iraq’s Dawa branch in Damascus. The party found a patron in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic of Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when Iraq used Western-supplied chemical weapons, Tehran retaliated by using Shiite Islamist proxies such as Dawa to punish Hussein’s supporters. With Iran’s assistance, Dawa operatives bombed the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut in 1981 in one of radical Islam’s first suicide attacks. They also bombed the American and French embassies in Kuwait and schemed to kill the emir. Dozens of assassination plots against senior members of Hussein’s government, including the dictator himself, failed miserably, resulting in mass arrests and executions.

 

During the tumultuous months following America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Maliki returned to his home country. He took a job advising future prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafari and later, as a member of parliament, chaired the committee supporting the De-Baathification Commission, an organization privately celebrated by Shiite Islamists as a means of retribution and publicly decried by Sunnis as a tool of repression.

 

I volunteered to serve in Iraq after watching the tragedy of 9/11 from the Texas governor’s conference room. The son of Iraqi immigrants, I was dispatched to Baghdad by the Office of the Secretary of Defense for a three-month assignment that ultimately lasted almost a decade. As special assistant to Ambassador Patrick Kennedy and the Coalition Provisional Authority’s liaison to the Iraqi Governing Council, and as one of the few American officials there who spoke Arabic, I became the Iraqi leaders’ go-to guy for just about everything — U.S.-furnished weapons, cars, houses or the much-coveted Green Zone access passes.

 

After the formal U.S. occupation ended in 2004, I stayed in Baghdad to facilitate the transition to a “normalized” American diplomatic presence, and I often shared tea and stale biscuits with my Iraqi friends at the transitional parliament. One of those friends was Maliki. He would quiz me about American designs for the Middle East and cajole me for more Green Zone passes. These early days were exhausting but satisfying as Iraqis and Americans worked together to help the country rise from Hussein’s ashes.

 

Then disaster struck. During Jafari’s short tenure, ethno-sectarian tensions spiked catastrophically. With Hussein’s criminal excesses still fresh in their minds, Iraq’s new Shiite Islamist leaders concocted retribution schemes against Sunnis, resulting in horrifying episodes of torture, rape and other abuses. Displaced Baath Party members launched a bloody insurgency, while al-Qaeda recruited young men to stage suicide and car bombings, kidnappings, and other terrorist attacks in a bid to foment chaos.

 

After the February 2006 bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra, a sacred shrine for Shiite Islam’s 200 million adherents, Shiite Islamist leaders launched a ferocious counterattack, sparking a civil war that left tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. Jafari initially refused American overtures to institute a curfew after al-Qaeda bombed Samarra, insisting that citizens needed to vent their frustrations — effectively sanctioning civil war and ethnic cleansing.

 

Washington decided that change at the top was essential. After the December 2005 parliamentary elections, U.S. Embassy officials combed the Iraqi elite for a leader who could crush the Iranian-backed Shiite militias, battle al-Qaeda, and unite Iraqis under the banner of nationalism and inclusive government. My colleague Jeffrey Beals and I were among the few Arabic-speaking Americans on good terms with the country’s leading figures. The only man we knew with any chance to win support from all Iraqi factions — and who seemed likely to be an effective leader — was Maliki. We argued that he would be acceptable to Iraq’s Shiite Islamists, around 50 percent of the population; that he was hard-working, decisive and largely free of corruption; and that he was politically weak and thus dependent on cooperating with other Iraqi leaders to hold together a coalition. Although Maliki’s history was known to be shadowy and violent, that was hardly unusual in the new Iraq.

 

With other colleagues, Beals and I hashed over the options with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who in turn encouraged Iraq’s skeptical but desperate national leaders to support Maliki. Leading a bloc with only a handful of parliamentarians, Maliki was initially surprised by the American entreaties, but he seized the opportunity, becoming prime minister on May 20, 2006.

 

He vowed to lead a strong, united Iraq.

 

‘There will be no Iraq’

 

Never having run anything beyond a violent, secretive Shiite Islamist political party, Maliki found his first years leading Iraq enormously challenging. He struggled with violence that killed thousands of Iraqis each month and displaced millions, a collapsing oil industry, and divided and corrupt political partners — as well as delegations from an increasingly impatient U.S. Congress. Maliki was the official ruler of Iraq, but with the surge of U.S. forces in 2007 and the arrival in Baghdad of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, there was little doubt about who was actually keeping the Iraqi state from collapse.

 

Crocker and Petraeus met with the prime minister several hours a day, virtually every day, for nearly two years. Unlike his rivals, Maliki traveled little outside the country and routinely worked 16-hour days. We coordinated political, economic and military policies, seeking to overcome legislative obstacles and promote economic growth while pursuing al-Qaeda, Baathist spoilers and Shiite Islamist militias. As Crocker’s special assistant, my role was to help prepare him for and accompany him to meetings with Iraqi leaders, and I often served as his proxy when the Iraqis squabbled among themselves. The United States was compelled to mediate among the Iraqis because we felt that the country would become stable only with united and cohesive Iraqi leadership, backed by the use of force against violent extremists.

 

One of the biggest breakthroughs of this era was the Awakening movement, in which, thanks to long negotiations, Sunni Arab tribal and Baathist insurgents turned their guns away from U.S. troops and pointed them toward al-Qaeda, thereby reintegrating into the Iraqi political process. Initially hostile to the idea of arming and funding Sunni fighters, Maliki eventually relented after intense lobbying from Crocker and Petraeus, but only on the condition that Washington foot the bill. He later agreed to hire and fund some of the tribal fighters, but many of his promises to them went unmet — leaving them unemployed, bitter and again susceptible to radicalization.

 

Settling into power by 2008, and with the northern half of the nation becoming pacified, Maliki was growing into his job. He had weekly videoconferences with President George W. Bush. During these intimate gatherings, in which a small group of us sat quietly off screen, Maliki often complained of not having enough constitutional powers and of a hostile parliament, while Bush urged patience and remarked that dealing with the U.S. Congress wasn’t easy, either.

 

Over time, Maliki helped forge compromises with his political rivals and signed multibillion-dollar contracts with multinational companies to help modernize Iraq. Few of us had hope in Iraq’s future during the depths of the civil war, but a year after the surge began, the country seemed to be back on track.

 

Maliki didn’t always make things easy, however. Prone to conspiracy theories after decades of being hunted by Hussein’s intelligence services, he was convinced that his Shiite Islamist rival Moqtada al-Sadr was seeking to undermine him. So in March 2008, Maliki hopped into his motorcade and led an Iraqi army charge against Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra. With no planning, logistics, intelligence, air cover or political support from Iraq’s other leaders, Maliki picked a fight with an Iranian-backed militia that had stymied the U.S. military since 2003.

 

Locked in the ambassador’s office for several hours, Crocker, Petraeus, the general’s aide and I pored over the political and military options and worked the phones with Maliki and his ministers in Basra. We feared that Maliki’s field headquarters would be overrun and he’d be killed, an Iraqi tradition for seizing power. I dialed up Iraq’s Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab and Kurdish leaders so Crocker could urge them to publicly stand behind Maliki. Petraeus ordered an admiral to Basra to lead U.S. Special Operations forces against the Mahdi Army. For days, I received calls from Maliki’s special assistant, Gatah al-Rikabi, urging American airstrikes to level entire city blocks in Basra; I had to remind him that the U.S. military is not as indiscriminate with force as Maliki’s army is.

 

Although it was a close call, Maliki’s “Charge of the Knights” succeeded. For the first time in Iraq’s history, a Shiite Islamist premier had defeated an Iranian-backed Shiite Islamist militia. Maliki was welcomed in Baghdad and around the world as a patriotic nationalist, and he was showered with praise as he sought to liberate Baghdad’s Sadr City slum from the Mahdi Army just weeks later. During a meeting of the Iraqi National Security Council, attended by Crocker and Petraeus, Maliki blasted his generals, who wanted to take six months to prepare for the attack. “There will be no Iraq in six months!” I recall him saying.

 

Buoyed by his win in Basra, and with massive U.S. military assistance, Maliki led the charge to retake Sadr City, directing Iraqi army divisions over his mobile phone. Through an unprecedented fusion of American and Iraqi military and intelligence assets, dozens of Iranian-backed Shiite Islamist militant cells were eliminated within weeks. This was the true surge: a masterful civil-military campaign to allow space for Iraqi politicians to reunite by obliterating the Sunni and Shiite armed groups that had nearly driven the country into the abyss.

 

Maliki ascendant

 

By the closing months of 2008, successfully negotiating the terms for America’s continued commitment to Iraq became a top White House imperative. But desperation to seal a deal before Bush left office, along with the collapse of the world economy, weakened our hand.

 

In an ascendant position, Maliki and his aides demanded everything in exchange for virtually nothing. They cajoled the United States into a bad deal that granted Iraq continued support while giving America little more than the privilege of pouring more resources into a bottomless pit. In retrospect, I imagine the sight of American officials pleading with him only fed Maliki’s ego further. After organizing Bush’s final trip to Iraq — where he was attacked with a pair of shoes at Maliki’s news conference celebrating the signing of the bilateral agreements — I left Baghdad with Crocker on Feb. 13, 2009. After more than 2,000 days of service, I was ill, depleted physically and mentally, but hopeful that America’s enormous sacrifices might have produced a positive outcome.

 

With the Obama administration vowing to end Bush’s “dumb war,” and the continued distraction of the global economic crisis, Maliki seized an opportunity. He began a systematic campaign to destroy the Iraqi state and replace it with his private office and his political party. He sacked professional generals and replaced them with those personally loyal to him. He coerced Iraq’s chief justice to bar some of his rivals from participating in the elections in March 2010. After the results were announced and Maliki lost to a moderate, pro-Western coalition encompassing all of Iraq’s major ethno-sectarian groups, the judge issued a ruling that awarded Maliki the first chance to form a government, ushering in more tensions and violence.

 

This was happening amid a leadership vacuum at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. After two months without an ambassador, Crocker’s replacement had arrived in April 2009 while I settled into a new assignment shuttling across Middle East capitals with Petraeus, the new head of U.S. Central Command. But reports from Iraqi and U.S. officials in Baghdad were worrisome. While American troops bled and the global economic crisis flared, the embassy undertook an expensive campaign to landscape the grounds and commission a bar and a soccer field, complementing the existing Olympic-size indoor swimming pool, basketball court, tennis courts and softball field at our billion-dollar embassy. I routinely received complaints from Iraqi and U.S. officials that morale at the embassy was plummeting and that relations between America’s diplomatic and military leadership — so strong in the Crocker-Petraeus era, and so crucial to curtailing Maliki’s worst tendencies and keeping the Iraqis moving forward — had collapsed. Maliki’s police state grew stronger by the day.

 

In a meeting in Baghdad with a Petraeus-hosted delegation of Council on Foreign Relations members shortly after the 2010 elections, Maliki insisted that the vote had been rigged by the United States, Britain, the United Nations and Saudi Arabia. As we shuffled out of the prime minister’s suite, one stunned executive, the father of an American Marine, turned to me and asked, “American troops are dying to keep that son of a b---- in power?”

 

With the political crisis dragging on for months, a new ambassador for whom I had worked previously, James Jeffrey, asked me to return to Baghdad to help mediate among the Iraqi factions. Even then, in August 2010, I was shocked that much of the surge’s success had been squandered by Maliki and other Iraqi leaders. Kurds asked how they could justify remaining part of a dysfunctional Iraq that had killed hundreds of thousands of their people since the 1980s. Sunni Arabs — who had overcome internal divisions to form the secular Iraqiya coalition with like-minded Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and Christians — were outraged at being asked to abdicate the premiership after pummeling al-Qaeda and winning the elections. Even Shiite Islamist leaders privately expressed discomfort with Iraq’s trajectory under Maliki, with Sadr openly calling him a “tyrant.” Worst of all, perhaps, the United States was no longer seen as an honest broker.

 

After helping to bring him to power in 2006, I argued in 2010 that Maliki had to go. I felt guilty lobbying against my friend Abu Isra, but this was not personal. Vital U.S. interests were on the line. Thousands of American and Iraqi lives had been lost and trillions of dollars had been spent to help advance our national security, not the ambitions of one man or one party. The constitutional process had to be safeguarded, and we needed a sophisticated, unifying, economics-minded leader to rebuild Iraq after the security-focused Maliki crushed the militias and al-Qaeda.

 

In conversations with visiting White House senior staff members, the ambassador, the generals and other colleagues, I suggested Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi as a successor. A former Baathist, moderate Shiite Islamist and French-educated economist who had served as finance minister, Abdul Mahdi maintained excellent relations with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds as well as with Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

 

On Sept. 1, 2010, Vice President Biden was in Baghdad for the change-of-command ceremony that would see the departure of Gen. Ray Odierno and the arrival of Gen. Lloyd Austin as commander of U.S. forces. That night, at a dinner at the ambassador’s residence that included Biden, his staff, the generals and senior embassy officials, I made a brief but impassioned argument against Maliki and for the need to respect the constitutional process. But the vice president said Maliki was the only option. Indeed, the following month he would tell top U.S. officials, “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” referring to the status-of-forces agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq past 2011.

 

I was not the only official who made a case against Abu Isra. Even before my return to Baghdad, officials including Deputy U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford, Odierno, British Ambassador Sir John Jenkins and Turkish Ambassador Murat Özçelik each lobbied strenuously against Maliki, locking horns with the White House, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill and Maliki’s most ardent supporter, future deputy assistant secretary of state Brett McGurk. Now, with Austin in the Maliki camp as well, we remained at an impasse, principally because the Iraqi leaders were divided, unable to agree on Maliki or, maddeningly, on an alternative.

 

Our debates mattered little, however, because the most powerful man in Iraq and the Middle East, Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, was about to resolve the crisis for us. Within days of Biden’s visit to Baghdad, Soleimani summoned Iraq’s leaders to Tehran. Beholden to him after decades of receiving Iran’s cash and support, the Iraqis recognized that U.S. influence in Iraq was waning as Iranian influence was surging. The Americans will leave you one day, but we will always remain your neighbors, Soleimani said, according to a former Iraqi official briefed on the meeting.

 

After admonishing the feuding Iraqis to work together, Soleimani dictated the outcome on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader: Maliki would remain premier; Jalal Talabani, a legendary Kurdish guerilla with decades-long ties to Iran, would remain president; and, most important, the American military would be made to leave at the end of 2011. Those Iraqi leaders who cooperated, Soleimani said, would continue to benefit from Iran’s political cover and cash payments, but those who defied the will of the Islamic Republic would suffer the most dire of consequences.

 

Washington’s choice

 

I was determined not to let an Iranian general who had murdered countless American troops dictate the endgame for the United States in Iraq. By October, I was pleading with Ambassador Jeffrey to take steps to avert this outcome. I said that Iran was intent on forcing the United States out of Iraq in humiliation and that a divisive, sectarian government in Baghdad headed by Maliki would almost certainly lead to another civil war and then an all-out regional conflict. This might be averted if we rebuffed Iran by forming a unity government around a nationalist alternative such as Abdul Mahdi. It would be extremely difficult, I acknowledged, but with 50,000 troops still on the ground, the United States remained a powerful player. The alternative was strategic defeat in Iraq and the Middle East writ large. To my surprise, the ambassador shared my concerns with the White House senior staff, asking that they be relayed to the president and vice president, as well as the administration’s top national security officials.

 

Desperate to avert calamity, I used every bit of my political capital to arrange a meeting for Jeffrey and Antony Blinken, Biden’s national security adviser and senior Iraq aide, with one of Iraq’s top grand ayatollahs. Using uncharacteristically blunt language, the Shiite cleric said he believed that Ayad Allawi, who had served as an interim prime minister in 2004-05, and Abdul Mahdi were the only Shiite leaders capable of uniting Iraq. Maliki, he said, was the prime minister of the Dawa party, not of Iraq, and would drive the country to ruin.

 

But all the lobbying was for naught. By November, the White House had settled on its disastrous Iraq strategy. The Iraqi constitutional process and election results would be ignored, and America would throw its full support behind Maliki. Washington would try to move Talabani aside and install Allawi as a consolation prize to the Iraqiya coalition.

 

The next day, I appealed again to Blinken, Jeffrey, Austin, my embassy colleagues and my bosses at Central Command, Gen. Jim Mattis and Gen. John Allen, and warned that we were making a mistake of historic proportions. I argued that Maliki would continue to consolidate power with political purges against his rivals; Talabani would never step aside after fighting Hussein for decades and taking his chair; and the Sunnis would revolt again if they saw that we betrayed our promises to stand by them after the Awakening’s defeat of al-Qaeda.

 

Mattis and Allen were sympathetic, but the Maliki supporters were unmoved. The ambassador dispatched me to Jordan to meet with a council of Iraq’s top Sunni leaders, with the message that they needed to join Maliki’s government. The response was as I expected. They would join the government in Baghdad, they said, but they would not allow Iraq to be ruled by Iran and its proxies. They would not live under a Shiite theocracy and accept continued marginalization under Maliki. After turning their arms against al-Qaeda during the Awakening, they now wanted their share in the new Iraq, not to be treated as second-class citizens. If that did not happen, they warned, they would take up arms again.

 

Catastrophe followed. Talabani rebuffed White House appeals to step down and instead turned to Iran for survival. With instructions from Tehran, Maliki began to form a cabinet around some of Iran’s favorite men in Iraq. Hadi al-Amiri, the notorious Badr Brigade commander, became transportation minister, controlling strategically sensitive sea, air and land ports. Khudair Khuzaie became vice president, later serving as acting president. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Dawa party mastermind behind the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait in 1983, became an adviser to Maliki and his neighbor in the Green Zone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Sadrist detainees were released. And Maliki purged the National Intelligence Service of its Iran division, gutting the Iraqi government’s ability to monitor and check its neighboring foe.

 

America’s Iraq policy was soon in tatters. Outraged by what it perceived as American betrayal, the Iraqiya bloc fractured along ethno-sectarian lines, with leaders scrambling for government positions, lest they be frozen out of Iraq’s lucrative patronage system. Rather than taking 30 days to try to form a government, per the Iraqi constitution, the Sunni Arab leaders settled for impressive-sounding posts with little authority. Within a short span, Maliki’s police state effectively purged most of them from politics, parking American-supplied M1A1 tanks outside the Sunni leaders’ homes before arresting them. Within hours of the withdrawal of U.S. forces in December 2011, Maliki sought the arrest of his longtime rival Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, eventually sentencing him to death in absentia. The purge of Finance Minister Rafea al-Essawi followed a year later.

 

Maliki never appointed a permanent, parliament-confirmed interior minister, nor a defense minister, nor an intelligence chief. Instead, he took the positions for himself. He also broke nearly every promise he made to share power with his political rivals after they voted him back into office through parliament in late 2010.

 

He also abrogated the pledges he made to the United States. Per Iran’s instructions, he did not move forcefully at the end of 2011 to renew the Security Agreement , which would have permitted American combat troops to remain in Iraq. He did not dissolve his Office of the Commander in Chief, the entity he has used to bypass the military chain of command by making all commanders report to him. He did not relinquish control of the U.S.-trained Iraqi counterterrorism and SWAT forces, wielding them as a praetorian guard. He did not dismantle the secret intelligence organizations, prisons and torture facilities with which he has bludgeoned his rivals. He did not abide by a law imposing term limits, again calling upon kangaroo courts to issue a favorable ruling. And he still has not issued a new and comprehensive amnesty that would have helped quell unrest from previously violent Shiite and Sunni Arab factions that were gradually integrating into politics.

 

In short, Maliki’s one-man, one-Dawa-party Iraq looks a lot like Hussein’s one-man, one-Baath Party Iraq. But at least Hussein helped contain a strategic American enemy: Iran. And Washington didn’t spend $1 trillion propping him up. There is not much “democracy” left if one man and one party with close links to Iran control the judiciary, police, army, intelligence services, oil revenue, treasury and the central bank. Under these circumstances, renewed ethno-sectarian civil war in Iraq was not a possibility. It was a certainty.

 

I resigned in protest on Dec. 31, 2010. And now, with the United States again becoming entangled in Iraq, I feel a civic and moral obligation to explain how we reached this predicament.

 

The crisis now gripping Iraq and the Middle East was not only predictable but predicted — and preventable. By looking the other way and unconditionally supporting and arming Maliki, President Obama has only lengthened and expanded the conflict that President Bush unwisely initiated. Iraq is now a failed state, and as countries across the Middle East fracture along ethno-sectarian lines, America is likely to emerge as one of the biggest losers of the new Sunni-Shiite holy war, with allies collapsing and radicals plotting another 9/11.

 

Maliki’s most ardent American supporters ignored the warning signs and stood by as an Iranian general decided Iraq’s fate in 2010. Ironically, these same officials are now scrambling to save Iraq, yet are refusing to publicly condemn Maliki’s abuses and are providing him with arms that he can use to wage war against his political rivals.

 

The Washington Post

Modifié le 7 juillet 2014 par Gravity

[Dino]

Huhuhu, le nouveau Calife se fait épingler sur internet au sujet de sa nouvelle montre bien bling bling très loin de l'image "humble et pieuse": http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/07/07/bling-bling-le-calife-de-letat-islamique-critique-pour-sa-montre/

[Drakene]

Huhuhu, le nouveau Calife se fait épingler sur internet au sujet de sa nouvelle montre bien bling bling très loin de l'image "humble et pieuse": http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/07/07/bling-bling-le-calife-de-letat-islamique-critique-pour-sa-montre/

 

Puis il a été vu dans une voiture quittant la mosquée, toujours selon le site du quotidien britannique The Telegraph, dont le modèle ressemble fortement à une Ferrari, à une Twigo ou à une Pelle-mécanique... :lol:

 

En gros on en sait absolument rien, ça se trouve c'est une copie chinoise achetée au souk...

Après dans les pays du golf les montres "de luxe" sont relativement commune et un modèle à 4.000€ franchement c'est rien dans ce coin du monde.

[metkow]

Puis il a été vu dans une voiture quittant la mosquée, toujours selon le site du quotidien britannique The Telegraph, dont le modèle ressemble fortement à une Ferrari, à une Twigo ou à une Pelle-mécanique... :lol:

 

En gros on en sait absolument rien, ça se trouve c'est une copie chinoise achetée au souk...

Après dans les pays du golf les montres "de luxe" sont relativement commune et un modèle à 4.000€ franchement c'est rien dans ce coin du monde.

 

vu qu'ils n'arrivent même pas a définir la marque, on peut se poser des questions effectivement

[Dino]

Tu blagues j'espère quand tu dis que 4000 euros c'est rien dans cette partie du monde... Tu crois que tout le monde est sultan d'Arabie ?

[zx]

07-07-2014

L’armée irakienne toujours à la peine face aux jihadistes de l’État islamique

 

http://www.opex360.com/2014/07/07/larmee-irakienne-toujours-la-peine-face-aux-jihadistes-de-letat-islamique/

[Ciders]

Tu blagues j'espère quand tu dis que 4000 euros c'est rien dans cette partie du monde... Tu crois que tout le monde est sultan d'Arabie ?

 

Si à 50 ans tu n'as pas de vraie Rolex, c'est que tu as raté ta vie. Même en Irak.

[zx]

moi j'ai une casio en plastique à 20 euros, :P elle est parfaite pour donner l'heure.

Modifié le 7 juillet 2014 par zx

[Gibbs le Cajun]

au moins si l'armée irakienne  arrive à lui , si il se fait flingué il y aura sûrement un mec pour faire de la récupération en se qui concerne sa montre parmi la troupe 

 

 

Si à 50 ans tu n'as pas de vraie Rolex, c'est que tu as raté ta vie. Même en Irak.

 

excellent 

[zx]

La Chine face à la crise irakienne

 

http://www.latribune.fr/blogs/pekin-business/20140702trib000838089/la-chine-face-a-la-crise-irakienne.html

[zx]

bon, voila qu'ils ont des trucs chimiques que les autres n'ont pas détruit, ils ont l'air bien.

 

 

Irak: les rebelles ont pillé des armes chimiques

 

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2014/07/08/97001-20140708FILWWW00434-irak-les-rebelles-ont-pille-des-armes-chimiques.php

[Divos]

dans les commentaires

 

Et moi qui pensait qu'il n'y avait jamais eu d'armes chimique en Irak.

 

en effet c'est un peu étrange, vous avez des explications ?

[Patrick]

A priori c'est du matériel, des vestiges de leur ancien programme. La question étant de savoir pourquoi les US n'y ont pas fait le ménage à l'époque.

[La Balafre]

"L'Irak s'inquiète de la prise de matériel nucléaire par les djihadistes"

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/07/10/l-irak-s-inquiete-de-la-prise-de-materiel-nucleaire-par-les-djihadistes_4455057_3218.html

 

"Selon l'ambassadeur, ces composants pourraient servir « à la fabrication d'armes de destruction massive ». Il appelle donc la communauté internationale à aider les autorités de Bagdad à « écarter la menace de l'utilisation [des composants nucléaires] par les terroristes en Irak et à l'étranger ».

De son côté, l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique (AIEA) — qui dit avoirété informée par l'Irak de la situation — s'est montrée rassurante. Il s'agissait de matériau de « faible qualité » qui « ne constituerait pas un risque majeur en termes de sécurité et de prolifération nucléaire », selon une porte-parole de l'agence, Gill Tudor."

[Divos]

Alors ils sont passé ou les 270 000 soldats de l'armée Irakienne ? Ils devraient avoir eu le temps de se mobiliser là ...

Modifié le 11 juillet 2014 par Divos

[Shorr kan]

"L'Irak s'inquiète de la prise de matériel nucléaire par les djihadistes"

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/07/10/l-irak-s-inquiete-de-la-prise-de-materiel-nucleaire-par-les-djihadistes_4455057_3218.html

 

"Selon l'ambassadeur, ces composants pourraient servir « à la fabrication d'armes de destruction massive ». Il appelle donc la communauté internationale à aider les autorités de Bagdad à « écarter la menace de l'utilisation [des composants nucléaires] par les terroristes en Irak et à l'étranger ».

De son côté, l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique (AIEA) — qui dit avoirété informée par l'Irak de la situation — s'est montrée rassurante. Il s'agissait de matériau de « faible qualité » qui « ne constituerait pas un risque majeur en termes de sécurité et de prolifération nucléaire », selon une porte-parole de l'agence, Gill Tudor."

 

 

 

Rohoho  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: encore les ADM

[alexWF]

La réunion du nouveau Parlement irakien censée lancer le processus de formation d'un gouvernement d'union a été encore une fois reportée dimanche, malgré les appels pressants à l'unité et la reprise par les insurgés sunnites de leur offensive.

Plusieurs capitales étrangères, mais aussi l'ONU ou encore le grand ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, plus important dignitaire chiite du pays, ont mis en garde contre le "chaos" qui menace si les députés ne parvenaient pas à dépasser leurs divisions.

Les jihadistes ont en effet relancé leurs attaques, s'emparant dimanche d'une grande partie de la ville de Dhoulouiyah, à 80 km au nord de Bagdad, et faisant même sauter un pont pour empêcher l'acheminement de renforts de l'armée.

Et au moins six personnes, dont un général de police, ont été tuées dans des bombardements dans la région de Bagdad et dans la province de Diyala, au nord-est de la capitale, où les insurgés se sont emparés samedi de deux villes.

 

http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/875936/les-deputes-irakiens-sous-pression-pour-avancer-vers-un-gouvernement.html

Modifié le 13 juillet 2014 par alexWF