What does it mean to ignore Washington Jalal Talabani?

What does it mean to ignore Washington Jalal Talabani?

Published 30/12/2012 09:30 AM

Babinaoz – Michael Young :
During the past two days, it was strange, though not Garmtoukaa, see the Obama administration, showing little public interest issue of the treatment of Jalal Talabani.
On Tuesday, Iraqi President died in a Baghdad hospital as was reported, although his heart began to beat again, leaving him in the case of clinical death. The rise of Iraq’s Talabani to the presidency of cosmetic moment in the post-2003 era in Iraq, and a victory for the United States. But it was not successful President Obama is particularly anxious to take it into consideration, a president who built his electoral victory in 2008 on the disappointments of President George W. Bush in the Iraq war. And recall how Obama acknowledged in his speech the most admired in Cairo in 2009 that Iraq was “the best outcome without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein,” Before you diagnose it by saying that the war has also shown why diplomacy is unpleasant and international consensus.

Talabani along with Massoud Barzani, the other main Kurdish leader knew that this is nonsense. If the United States waited international consensus on Iraq, Saddam Hussein was still in power, and Talabani was still maneuvering to stay alive. It was not to be submitted to the presidency in the work emphasizes the ambiguity of history. No one managed to failure, when he received Talabani office, that if there was one thing good about the Iraq war, is that the victims are the ones who occupy certain positions now. It seems, however, that it was his lack in the era of Obama, who sees Iraq as a subject should be better keep away from him. For head Almnkrt in regional conflict for influence with Iran, or forced to engage in that conflict, the indifference toward Iraq is incomprehensible. Iraq is the main battleground and a truism you can understand more Gulf states, compared with a country that toppled Saddam Hussein in the first place. Rather, the initial Obama’s war was with the Bush legacy, and the disparity is rare to any of the leaders most cool Obama seems more interested in depth.

But he did not stop at Bush, today, facing the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga army and face-to-face, particularly because of their differences on the disputed territories in the south of the province autonomous Kurdish, in areas around Kirkuk and Mosul. Among the reasons for this tension is oil, and the fact that Exxon Mobil U.S. multinational preparing for drilling in the region at the beginning of next summer, after it reached an agreement with the Kurds. And opposes the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has indicated that it would resort to war to prevent it. Barzani, in turn, had confirmed prominently that if attacked, the Kurds would defend themselves. The broker Talabani in the conflict., However it is out of the game now and only Washington (and possibly Iran) have the means to negotiate the solid solutions. But Obama is not interested in that dunks himself in Iraqi affairs, and that although the U.S. Exxon Mobil, which undoubtedly will listen to the White House. Obama has now immersed himself in this complex situation, if only to compensate for not doing little to prevent Exxon Mobil to reach an agreement with the Kurdish authorities. The U.S. officials also told the New York Times that the U.S. administration did not recommend the company to refrain from work in the year 2013, even with U.S. diplomats have tried to reconcile the conflicting parties, arrangements Tarahin refused by al-Maliki and Barzani.

Talabani did not gain American support for the deal, which was by him can be unrelenting Maliki and Barzani their rhetoric and agree to form a committee to bring security solutions on the disputed areas. However, this is a temporary measure to fill the gap, and would leave the state of hostility between Kurds and Arabs is not handled in the north of Iraq. In order to settle more than a continuation, it will have Obama to dirty his hands and put his personal prestige on the line. This is what only locally President, and even here with exaggerated warned. Obama extremism mentioned on Iraq has resulted in back-to-back to lost opportunities is very well known. But President attended the fact in order to let the situation deteriorate in Iraq and so he must soon that removes an armed conflict between the allies, albeit more ambiguous with regard to America compared to the others? Perhaps the trash Bush’s Iraq policy has deepened often wish Obama. What is the best way to prove that the former president is completely misleading?

For Talabani, these concerns may be now a thing of the past, and it is not likely that the president, who is ninth and seventy years of age will improve the situation experienced by them, at least without dire consequences if he stayed alive. For the Kurds who have gone their own affairs for a long time without outside help, they usually suffer the fact of their intervention is required, and the United States in isolation far from that path. Obama loses now an important message. The rise Talabani to the Iraqi presidency was one of those things, which everyone agrees that it was one of the wonderful things for the American campaign in Iraq. It was a reflection of the wealth of the kind that we see are today Amtdahaa, with Arab dictators who are replaced by people who were oppress. Multi Christopher Hzhins latter was thinking of, among other things, Btalibana when he gave a presentation in February 2009 at the American University in Beirut, asking, “Who are the real revolutionaries in the Middle East?”. At this stage in his life, may be the final phase, worth Talabani better than Barack Obama. And should praise the U.S. president embodiment of revolutions in the region and who kept to a large degree at a distance from them.