In a move reminiscent of the Taliban’s shocking destruction of the two massive ancient statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, ISIS militants are destroying sacred temples and art in Iraq in the name of Allah. This picture was posted on an affiliated website of their destruction of the tomb of the Prophet Jonah in Mosul. It appears that Jonah may have survived the whale but could not escape the raw hatred of ISIS. In the meantime, sectarian atrocities have continued with the discovery of 50 blindfolded bodies south of Baghdad.
It appears that we have spent $4 trillion in both countries and lost thousands of soldiers only to have the the rise of the Taliban of Afghanistan and now an even worse group take control of much of Iraq (in addition to have Iran now openly intervening in the Iraq).
In an area where murderous religious fanatics are common, ISIS stands out as a particularly grotesque group that justified mass killings and destruction as the work of truly faithful Muslim. They are destroying tombstones and holy places as they move across the country. Jonah’;s tomb was gleefully destroyed by sledgehammers despite it being revered by Muslims and Christians alike.
The attack is the latest in the ISIS’s violent rampage across Iraq.
The Sunni group rejects the veneration of tombs and relics so they actively destroy the holy places of Shia, Christians and others. We have seen such atrocities committed by other Muslim extremist groups in other countries. Jonah is called the Prophet Younis by Muslims. They also reportedly destroyed the shrine of the Prophet Seth (Shayth). Dozens of shrines and Shia mosques in Mosul and the town of Tal Afar have been destroyed. They have also killed at least three Sunni clerics in Mosul who refused to leave the city. They are Khattab Hassan, 43, Riyadh al-Wandi, 39, and 48-year-old Abdul Ghafoor Salman.
Source: Daily Mail
mattcarmody1,
While doubtful in the sense I take you to mean it, it is however widely believed that US material support for anti-government efforts in Libya and Syria has been funneled to the terrorists.
Military historian T.R. Fehrenbach’s timeless observation is as true as ever, proven again by the stark difference between the positive development of Iraq while under American protection and the destruction of Iraq by invading forces because American protection was withdrawn:
http://www.army.mil/fm1/chapter1.html
To provide the vital security that is the necessary condition for building the peace, there is no substitute for American military boots on the ground – not in Europe and Asia following the WW2 regime changes, not in Iraq following the OIF regime change. ‘Ending the war’ via premature withdrawal of US troops is a euphemism for surrendering the peace to enemies and competitors who aspire to reify a fundamentally different world than the world we favor.
I’m sure the fingerprints of the CIA are all over the formation of this group and American dollars keep them funded and armed.
Karen S: “Gotta love Liberals supporting the late Saddam”
“Liberals” for Saddam aren’t real liberals in terms of moral principle.
Fix: Instead, the UN has been further marginalized in its enforcement with rogue actors like Saddam, which has only made the US more of an all or nothing liberal choice for “policemen of the world”.
Annie: “We aren’t the policemen of the world.”
Not always the world, but the US was the chief enforcer of the UNSC resolutions with Saddam and Iraq since 1990.
If Saddam had complied with UN demands to cease with Kuwait in 1990, let alone with his “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to satisfy the UNSC resolutions in 2002-2003, then we wouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq.
I agree we shouldn’t be the only liberal nation policing the international community, but some force needs to enforce order.
Keep in mind there are different kinds of world order. If our preferred kind of liberal world order is not enforced, then competing actors with incompatible, illiberal value systems will seize the opportunity to impose their preferred, incompatible kind of order.
The best way to avoid placing our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen at risk is to never give our competitors the opening to seize an opportunity in the first place.
Unfortunately, President Bush (the father) did exactly that by suspending the Gulf War via ceasefire, however strictly conditioned it was for Saddam.
Thereafter, the Iraq enforcement became the defining UN international enforcement mission of the post-Cold War. As such, with the global scope of the War on Terror apparent after 9/11, Bush tried his best to revitalize the UN’s effectiveness as enforcer via the defining Iraq enforcement so the US wouldn’t have to go it alone moving forward.
Unfortunately, corrupted by the Oil for Food scandal and their own geopolitical interests, Saddam’s supporters, especially Russia, led the UN to betray its basic enforcement purpose with Iraq. Instead, the UN followed the easier precedent of the Balkans template by picking up from the 1990-2002 UNSC Iraq resolutions with UN authorization for the post-war peace operations, while disclaiming the [Iraq, Serbia] regime change itself.
With the success of the COIN “Surge” in Iraq, President Obama was given a second opportunity to pick up President Bush’s post-9/11 attempt to revitalize UN enforcement, but Obama chose the wrong way (for which, ironically, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize). Instead, the UN has been further marginalized in its enforcement with rogue actors like Saddam, which has only made the US more of an all or nothing choice for “policemen of the world”.
Karen S,
Having the worst criminal and his gang in charge of the community is not normally considered a solution for crime. It’s incredible that people claim Saddam was the solution for the insurgency when Saddam and Saddamists were the original cause and major driver of the insurgency that attacked the Iraqi people much more than it attacked our soldiers. The logic escapes me for the claim that the way to solve abuse is handing over victims to their abusers.
We knew what Saddam was. UNSC resolutions required Saddam to reform his governance. The no-fly zones were the most visible, directly engaged, provocative, and invasive part of our broken ‘containment’ of Saddam. Yet the no-fly zones had nothing to do with weapons proscriptions. They were a humanitarian measure that was only a limited measure not designed to stop Saddam’s internal security forces.
In fact, if Hans Blix and UNMOVIC had given Saddam a clean bill of health on Iraq’s weapons obligations instead of reporting “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document) in March 2003, Saddam still needed to resolve the humanitarian crisis caused by his regime, among Iraq’s non-weapons ceasefire obligations, in order to prevent regime change.
We aren’t the policemen of the world. Want a dictator deposed anywhere in the world? Use taxpayer money in some added war tax and bring back the draft.
http://www.newser.com/story/164554/saudis-destroy-key-artifacts-in-meccas-grand-mosque.html
95% of Mecca’s thousand-year-old structures have been destroyed over the past 20 years in renovation projects. The demolition is led by a Wahabi cleric. Wahabis oppose historical preservation as “idol worship.”
Eric:
Gotta love Liberals supporting the late Saddam, who had the Red Room designed for torture, complete with meat hooks and power tools. He is estimated to have murdered 1 MILLION of his own people.
But, you know, there were those who opposed the US joining WWII, as well, even with the Holocaust going on. I suppose there will always be those enablers who allow sadistic serial killers to function.
It is true that many Muslims do not revere artifacts or relics. Although Mecca itself is holy, its artifacts are not. I’ve known Muslims who bemoaned renovations to Mecca and Medina that did not preserve artifacts.
So, of course, ISIS will not respect any artifacts from non-Muslim faiths.
How tragic about Jonah’s tomb. I hate to see any precious sites or artifacts defaced, whether they are of religious value or not.
Fix for italicization and other error at July 11, 2014 at 4:32 am:
Saddam acted with an ultimately fatal habit of irrational thinking in his foreign policy that made him too unstably dangerous to tolerate. Remember, the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions were purpose-designed to rehabilitate Saddam so he could be trusted with the peace. If Saddam failed to comply with the ceasefire, then he could not be trusted with the peace; in that case, we would have to complete the Gulf War.
Why was Saddam presumed (and established) guilty, the compliance standard strict, and the burden of proof
strictentirely on Saddam in 2002-2003? Because of, as you pointed out, Saddam’s whole history, including his record before the Gulf War.Recalling Saddam’s record, I’m impressed by the plastic morality of people who’ve radically revamped Saddam’s reputation in death into some sort of stabilizing force for peace within and outside of Iraq.
To govern Iraq, people like Annie actually advocate for Saddam’s terroristic SOP of rape, torture, show executions, etc – which is a remarkably inhumane position for a (presumable) liberal. Keep in mind that Saddamists adapted their governing SOP to the insurgency in post-war Iraq. These are not people who should hold authority over a civilized society.
Paul C. Schulte, John Oliver,
Regarding nickos, my guess is his source is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Tea Party’s support thereof.
Paul Schulte
There is no link i can give you…it’s on tv ..you watch it every day…24 hours a day. They (Fox News) continue to mess up your fanatic brain and still don not get it. They feed you religion everyday, all day long ….
A thoughtful judgement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, even in hindsight, requires understanding the policy context for the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement. Essential background reading for OIF must include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Saddam’s regime (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and excerpts from the 2003 State of the Union, the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document that triggered Bush’s final decision for OIF, and the Iraq Study Group’s Duelfer Report.
Links here: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#furtherreading .
Oops. I must have flipped a bracket on an italicize in the middle there.
TheSaucyMugwump,
Neoconservatives are essentially FDR/Truman/JFK liberals renamed.
President Clinton, 1998:
An ISIS Taliban-style invasion of Iraq isn’t the same thing as a popular consensus by the Iraqi people. If in the 1950s, we had left our protective custodies in Europe and Asia to the mercy of their particular area dangers, the consequences would have been similar. Despite your revisionist picture of Iraq at the point we pulled US security from Iraq, the actual condition of Iraq – as memorialized by President Obama – was a pluralistic, liberal trending success.
Our soldiers in Iraq at the time were describing their Counterinsurgency mission as stabilized, even normalizing into something like our present-day mission in Korea (cognizant of danger, but day to day routine). They were even reporting boredom with the growing routine. The Marines were agitating to trade Iraq for Afghanistan because they no longer viewed Iraq as a ‘combat mission’, and cycling a long-term strategic partnership, like Germany, Japan, and Korea, is the Army’s job.
You’re fixed on a picture of Iraq that simply wasn’t true with America protecting Iraq. What was true about Iraq’s progress under American protection?
“After a long and difficult conflict, we now have the opportunity to see Iraq emerge as a strategic partner in a tumultuous region. A sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq that can act as a force for moderation is profoundly in the national security interests of the United States and will ensure that Iraq can realize its full potential as a democratic society.” (State Dept)
You being right about Iraq required the radical, unprecedented step of Obama abandoning the rising post-Saddam Iraq to the forces whose interest in Iraq is diametrically opposed to the Iraq that is America’s “strategic partner … that can act as a force for moderation … in the national security interests of the United States”.
As far as a changing bilateral relationship before war, that’s normal. If anything, we were less friendly with and/or more worried about Saddam’s regime than in our changing relationships before our varied wars with England, the southern American states, Germany, Japan, China, and the Soviet Union, not to mention Mexico, Spain, the American Indian tribes, etc..
In 1979-1980, the then-revolutionary Iranian regime had become a bitter enemy, so we preferred Iraq, but only in the preponderance sense. Our relationship with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War hardly rose to even ‘quasi-ally’ status. At best, it was a cautiously favorable neutrality. The main US concern in the Iran-Iraq War was containment of the conflict from spreading per our regional security interests, particularly with Saudi Arabia (see the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine).
Saddam’s supporters/investors were other Arab states. That became problematic for the large debt Saddam accrued with his neighbors. They refused to forgive Iraq’s debt, despite Saddam’s insistence he fought the Iran-Iraq as a pan-Arab champion.
You are correct that the roots of Operation Iraqi Freedom are older than even the proximate 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement. While we were rooting against Iran, our engagement with Saddam for the Iran-Iraq War was cautious, which grew sharply into concern, then alarm at Saddam’s excesses. Again, the US had a regional security outlook, and it became apparent that Saddam posed a regional threat. Saddam hit the red line with the Iran-Iraq War, ignored our warnings to calm down, and then rushed across the red line with his post-war invasion of Kuwait and regional threats and attacks. It’s as though Saddam read proscriptive international law and custom as a guide for what to do, rather than what not to do.
Saddam acted with an ultimately fatal habit of irrational thinking in his foreign policy that made him too unstably dangerous to tolerate. Remember, the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions were purpose-designed to rehabilitate Saddam so he could be trusted with the peace. If Saddam failed to comply with the ceasefire, then he could not be trusted with the peace; in that case, we would have to complete the Gulf War.
Why was Saddam presumed (and established) guilty, the compliance standard strict, and the burden of proof strict entirely on Saddam in 2002-2003? Because of, as you pointed out, Saddam’s whole history, including his record before the Gulf War.
Recalling Saddam’s record, I’m impressed by the plastic morality of people who’ve radically revamped Saddam’s reputation in death into some sort of stabilizing force for peace within and outside of Iraq.
To govern Iraq, people like Annie actually advocate for Saddam’s terroristic SOP of rape, torture, show executions, etc – which is a remarkably inhumane position for a (presumable) liberal. Keep in mind that Saddamists adapted their governing SOP to the insurgency in post-war Iraq. These are not people who should hold authority over a civilized society.
IR realists like to claim US interests, including regional stability, were better served with Saddam countering Iran. Their thinking is stuck in 1980 with our ally, the Shah, only just replaced by our enemy, the Ayatollah, and Baathist Iraq, led by then-new President Saddam Hussein, thought to be the lesser of 2 evils. IR liberals recall that by the time of the Bush administration (either one works), the Iran-Iraq conflict was understood to be a source of the region’s problems, not a stabilizer.
The fundamentally flawed premise of IR realists is Saddam could be trusted. Yet Saddam acting out of control, destabilizing, and against US interests is the reason for the US intervention with Iraq in the first place, and he actually became worse during our 1991-2003 enforcement struggle.
Saddam defenders are effectively proposing an unreconstructed Hitler should have been propped up in Germany in order to serve as a regional counter to the Soviet Union. Hitler + USSR = the worst of World War 2, not peace in our time. The IR realist belief that after 9/11 we should have trusted and empowered a noncompliant Saddam to deal with Iran on our behalf is madness.
Even so, to the last, we tried to rehabilitate Saddam so he could stay in power. The fact is that Saddam was given opportunities throughout the Iraq enforcement to comply, disarm, and rehabilitate, yet refused. The Iraq Study Group describes Saddam as growing increasingly irrational in his thinking even as he consolidated power and reconstituted his WMD capabilities. Saddam was convinced he needed WMD to counter Iraq’s enemies, especially Israel, Iran, and America, and to pursue Saddam’s grand, irrational ambitions.
Iran’s WMD development is bad enough by itself. An irrational Saddam with dangerously poor judgement spurring an urgent Iran-Iraq WMD arms race was neither the way for the US to counter Iran nor a formula for regional stability.
Destroying relics is the least of our concerns.
John Oliver … my source for this is FOX news…
nickos – could you give us a link to your Fox News source?
$4 trillion spent, much going to the financial benefit of private individuals. The situation is less stabe and increasingly dangerous. Justifying future involvement of our military. Future sales of weapons to competing interests. Higher oil prices do to disrupted supplies. I think this is an outcome that pleases many powerful special interests that hold influence over many of our elected and appointed officials. For many war is a business that is profitable.
“You did not mention the main agenda about the TEA party, which is to take our country back to the middle ages when a government was religion and religion was the government. Basically a new, Iran like country in the western hemisphere. The TEA party’s soul is religion and not smaller government. All they want is to make religion mandatory in schools, government and the streets for that matter … because so many people do not believe in god or are not religious. The TEA party wants to straighten them up … in the 21st century.
Nickos, what is your source for this?