Newsrake
May 24, 2012, 05:51:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Just Kidding  Wink
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Login Register Google  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Red flags ahead of US weapons sales to Iraq  (Read 119 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
ivanm
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +36/-69
Online Online

Posts: 11549



View Profile
« on: December 29, 2011, 08:52:53 AM »

Red flags ahead of US weapons sales to Iraq

While US is eager to beef up Iraq's military, some fear that the move could backfire

 
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ERIC SCHMITT
 

updated 12/29/2011 2:50:53 AM ET

BAGHDAD — The Obama administration is moving ahead with the sale of nearly $11 billion worth of arms and training for the Iraqi military despite concerns that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is seeking to consolidate authority, create a one-party Shiite-dominated state and abandon the American-backed power-sharing government.

The military aid, including advanced fighter jets and battle tanks, is meant to help the Iraqi government protect its borders and rebuild a military that before the 1991 Persian Gulf war was one of the largest in the world; it was disbanded in 2003 after the United States invasion.

But the sales of the weapons — some of which have already been delivered — are moving ahead even though Mr. Maliki has failed to carry out an agreement that would have limited his ability to marginalize the Sunnis and turn the military into a sectarian force. While the United States is eager to beef up Iraq’s military, at least in part as a hedge against Iranian influence, there are also fears that the move could backfire if the Baghdad government ultimately aligns more closely with the Shiite theocracy in Tehran than with Washington.

United States diplomats, including Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, have expressed concern about the military relationship with Iraq. Some have even said it could have political ramifications for the Obama administration if not properly managed. There is also growing concern that Mr. Maliki’s apparent efforts to marginalize the country’s Sunni minority could set off a civil war.

“The optics of this are terrible,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert on national security issues at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a critic of the administration’s Iraq policy.
 
The program to arm the military is being led by the United States Embassy here, which through its Office of Security Cooperation serves as a broker between the Iraqi government and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Among the big-ticket items being sold to Iraq are F-16 fighter jets, M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, cannons and armored personnel carriers. The Iraqis have also received body armor, helmets, ammunition trailers and sport utility vehicles, which critics say can be used by domestic security services to help Mr. Maliki consolidate power.

“The purpose of these arrangements is to assist the Iraqis’ ability to defend their sovereignty against foreign security threats,” said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman in Washington.
  
But Iraqi politicians and analysts, while acknowledging that the American military withdrawal had left Iraq’s borders, and airspace, vulnerable, said there were many reasons for concern.
 
 Ex-Iraq leader says US left job undone
Despite pronouncements from American and Iraqi officials that the Iraqi military is a nonsectarian force, they said, it had evolved into a hodgepodge of Shiite militias more interested in marginalizing the Sunnis than in protecting the country’s sovereignty. Across the country, they said, Shiite flags — not Iraq’s national flag — fluttered from tanks and military vehicles, evidence, many said, of the troops’ sectarian allegiances.

“It is very risky to arm a sectarian army,” said Rafe al-Essawi, the country’s finance minister and a leading Sunni politician. “It is very risky with all the sacrifices we’ve made, with all the budget to be spent, with all the support of America — at the end of the day, the result will be a formal militia army.”

'Troubling'
Mr. Essawi said that he was concerned about how the weapons would be used if political tension led to a renewed tide of sectarian violence. Some Iraqis and analysts said they believed that the weapons could give Mr. Maliki a significant advantage in preventing several Sunni provinces from declaring autonomy from the central government.

“Washington took the decision to build up Iraq as a counterweight to Iran through close military cooperation and the sale of major weapon systems,” said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Group’s deputy program director for the Middle East. “Maliki has shown a troubling inclination toward enhancing his control over the country’s institutions without accepting any significant checks and balances.”
Video: In post-US Iraq, a growing Iranian threat (on this page)
Uncertainty over Mr. Maliki’s intentions, and with that the wisdom of the weapons sale, began to emerge even before the last American combat forces withdrew 11 days ago. Mr. Maliki moved against his Sunni rivals, arresting hundreds of former Baath Party members on charges that they were involved in a coup plot. Then security forces under Mr. Maliki’s control sought to arrest the country’s Sunni vice president, who fled to the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north. In addition, Mr. Maliki threatened to release damning information on other politicians.
 
With these actions plunging the country into a political crisis, a few days later, Mr. Maliki said the country would be turned into “rivers of blood” if the predominantly Sunni provinces sought more autonomy.
 
 This was not a completely unforeseen turn of events. Over the summer, the Americans told high-ranking Iraqi officials that the United States did not want an ongoing military relationship with a country that marginalized its minorities and ruled by force.

The Americans warned Iraqi officials that if they wanted to continue receiving military aid, Mr. Maliki had to fulfill an agreement from 2010 that required the Sunni bloc in Parliament to have a say in who ran the Defense and Interior Ministries. But despite a pledge to do so, the ministries remain under Mr. Maliki’s control, angering many Sunnis.

Corruption, too, continues to pervade the security forces. American military advisers have said that many low- and midlevel command positions in the armed forces and the police are sold, despite American efforts to emphasize training and merit, said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Security and International Studies in Washington.
Story: Dozens die as bombs explode across Baghdad
Pentagon and State Department officials say that weapons sales agreements have conditions built in to allow American inspectors to monitor how the arms are used, to ensure that the sales terms are not violated.


“Washington still has considerable leverage in Iraq by freezing or withdrawing its security assistance packages, issuing travel advisories in more stark terms that will have a direct impact on direct foreign investment, and reassessing diplomatic relations and trade agreements,” said Matthew Sherman, a former State Department official who spent more than three years in Iraq. “Now is the time to exercise some of that leverage by publicly putting Maliki on notice.”

Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the head of the American Embassy office that is selling the weapons, said he was optimistic that Mr. Maliki and the other Iraqi politicians would work together and that the United States would not end up selling weapons to an authoritarian government.

“If it was a doomsday scenario, at some point I’m sure there will be plenty of guidance coming my way,” he said in a recent interview.

A spokesman for the United States Embassy declined to comment, as did the National Security Council in Washington.
Video: Last US troops leave Iraq (on this page)
As the American economy continues to sputter, some analysts believe that Mr. Maliki and the Iraqis may hold the ultimate leverage over the Americans.

“I think he would like to get the weapons from the U.S.,” Mr. Pollack said. “But he believes that an economically challenged American administration cannot afford to jeopardize $10 billion worth of jobs.”

If the United States stops the sales, Mr. Pollack said, Mr. Maliki “would simply get his weapons elsewhere.”

Copyright © 2011 The New York Times

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../red-flags-ahead-us-weapons-sales-iraq/



Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on Print FriendlyShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 08:55:38 AM by ivanm » Logged
ivanm
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +36/-69
Online Online

Posts: 11549



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2011, 08:58:28 AM »

Deja vu.  We helped SH once before. 

I can see the need for Iraq to defend itself, but can she be trusted as a ally?  I think not with the sectarian strife in their govenrment like it is.

Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters?  How about some B-2s and a few drones?
Logged
Case_Closed
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +41/-44
Offline Offline

Posts: 5103


*Case Closed*


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2011, 09:01:56 AM »

can she be trusted as a ally? 

There is not an Irabian alive you can trust.

How long did it take Iran to flex its muscles after the Great Withdrawal from Iraq?  Two days?
Logged

*Case Closed*
ivanm
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +36/-69
Online Online

Posts: 11549



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2011, 09:17:06 AM »

The US says any blockage of traffic thru the Hormuz straits will not be tolerated. How do you see that playing out, particularly with China and Russia in Iran's corner?

I  can see where China would want the oil to keep on flowing, unless her tankers can fill up outside the straits, but what has Russia go to gain from the issue?  
 
The following article sheds some light on Russia's interest in Iran, particularly her development of nuclear power.

http://www.irantracker.org/foreign-relations/russia-iran-foreign-relations
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 09:20:26 AM by ivanm » Logged
Case_Closed
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +41/-44
Offline Offline

Posts: 5103


*Case Closed*


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 09:18:41 AM »

what has Russia go to gain from the issue? 

To cause us more financial problems?
Logged

*Case Closed*
ivanm
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +36/-69
Online Online

Posts: 11549



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2011, 09:21:09 AM »

To cause us more financial problems?
Could be.  I added a link to my previous post that you might want to read.

It is for sure, when the price of fuel goes up because of tensions in that part of the world we do suffer economically.  I once read what an additional dollar a gallon for fuel does to our economy, and it was big bucks.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 09:22:57 AM by ivanm » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal