American foreign policy in Iraq prove failure

American foreign policy in Iraq prove failure

07-05-2016 03:54 PM

American foreign policy in Iraq prove failureNewspaper «Washington Post» pointed out in an editorial what it called «They are the White House on Iraq.»
She said that the foreign policy failures of the presidents Americans in Iraq stems from the dependence on the amounts individuals leaders usually fail to achieve US policy goals and a reluctance to acknowledge that the status quo will not last.
The paper believes that the Obama administration has committed these mistakes. Hamas Leaders to get out of Iraq in order to pave the way for the re-election of President Obama in 2012 aimed at making weight behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, which led to disastrous results.
And it opened the Maliki government divided and fragile sectarian way for the emergence of the organization of the Islamic state. In 2014, when the administration pushed toward the overthrow of Maliki bet on Haider al-Abadi is still sticking to it because they want to hand over power to the next administration in the White House has got rid of the organization of the Islamic state.
For this overlooked weaknesses afflicting the government Abadi. The latter has proved that he is unable to govern or to achieve reconciliation between the warring political factions within Iraq.
The opinion of the newspaper in the storming loyal to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr weekend evidence nettlesome. Despite the support of the protesters, apparently, some of the demands of the al-Abadi, a formation of a technocrat government to replace the corrupt political system replaced.
But Ebadi denounced the «invasion» that they have done to the parliament because it revealed the weakness of the political control of the rebels as well as the political parties that refused and continuously reforms.
The newspaper suggests that the explosion of the situation came in an uncomfortable time for the Obama administration, which stepped up its support of Ebadi. Joseph Biden, sent to Baghdad to reaffirm Washington’s support for Ebadi. The visit of the Vice President, also noted a report prepared by Greg Jeff to express the extent of «trust we have in Abadi» and Washington has expressed optimism the government’s ability to overcome the crisis. And suspend the newspaper «both survived Abadi mother did not survive the current crisis depends on the ability of the Shiite parties to Proboscis their differences and support Iranian».

However you see «The Washington Post» that al-Abadi showed a deficit in the face of major political crisis, namely to deal with and resolve the division between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Which leads to talk about Obama’s second error management: continuation of Washington’s refusal to recognize that the current political system can not remain what it is, any continuation of power, however, the central government in Baghdad.
The paper says «since the rise of state regulation in the Sunni areas, it has stuck to administration slogan« unified Iraq »with that this deprives the autonomous region of Kurdistan and the armed groups of the necessary resources to fight and delay the birth of the Sunni leadership may face the organization and management of the Sunni areas liberated».
The paper warns of the dangers of the current crisis, which could lead parties in the Iraqi equation to rethink the political system.
There Kurd leaders speak out that the post-2003 arrangements had collapsed. That is why the United States should work to strengthen links with the regional government. It should encourage the birth of a similar federal government in the Sunni areas.
The paper believes that the survival of Iraq as a country depends on the sharing of power and oil resources and a decentralized government.
The newspaper said that the continuation of inventory and Washington’s support for the leader of one Iraqi, whether Abadi or other is not only a new recipe for failure.


It seems that the administration is not concerned about the failure of the Iraqi regime, but as far as its impact on their efforts in the fight against the organization of the Islamic state but otherwise they are not only concerned with the management of the crisis.
Which it is manifested in Syria and the ongoing war for years. But Obama has expressed a desire to move away from the region’s problems because it does not solve according to his opinion, and must be kept burning until Tntefe herself.
And such a policy carry a lot of risk, according to Ray Takeyh, of the Council on Foreign Relations, who wrote in the magazine «Foreign Policy», saying that America’s decline of the Arab world have repercussions on US foreign policy and the region.
He discussed the writer site Arab world issues in the current election campaign. He commented that the electoral campaigns strange and surreal revealed is important, which is the gap between the foreign policy elite and the voters themselves and exposed the two parties and the progress and status of consensus between them on the suspension of the US role in the Middle East issues and shun him. And here it refers to statements made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who described the Iraq war, crime and denounced America’s traditional allies and praised dictators like Muammar Gaddafi.
The Iraq war and chased the Democratic Party. According to her rival Bernie Sanders was the war failed a test in which Hillary Clinton’s favorite candidate for the election.
And Sanders and his team of supporters want to push for confirmation of non-interference in the party’s policy and want to build an alliance with Russia and Iran on the traditional allies of the United States account.

He says the foreign policy of the United States since the Cold War have on the survival of containment in the Middle East.
Elite has teamed with the American voter on the need for the continuation of the cheap and protect Israel and prevent the arrival of the former Soviet Union and thwarting his attempts in the region and the Arab oil flow. It is believed that Takeyh this unit on the Middle East survived the national division that has developed between the ruling elite and public opinion on the war Vietnamese.
And it understood the Democratic and Republican administrations importance of the Middle East and hence the need for the US to succeed in it.
Middle East site has not changed in the American thinking even after the end of the Soviet Union has remained «Consensus area difficult.»
The work of the two parties to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the containment of Iran and Iraq and face the new threat of Islamic terrorism.
Although there are differences in styles, but the two parties have agreed on the overall goals. In 2003, the two parties to stop behind the military campaign to invade Iraq and the need to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that were the pretext of alleged occupation of the country and the overthrow of his regime dictatorial.
The author believes that the 9/11 attacks played a role in the payment support behind the invasion of Iraq, however, the case of consensus about the importance of the Middle East have not changed.
And it began changing attitudes toward the region in the post-Iraq war and troubled that shook the general consensus.
The author believes that the presidency of Barack Obama was a reaction to the charge of the operation carried out by the George W. Bush administration to implant democracy in Iraq.
But Obama himself deeply in the use of the lessons of the war and rushed to a hasty withdrawal of US troops that we know the results.
And he continued his mistakes when setting red lines for the Syrian regime’s reluctance to be applied when it was breached. And exacerbated problems waging war planes without a pilot before they understand the roots behind terrorism. Terrorism in the end is an expression of the violence of the institutions failed and lives.
Adding to the problem of Obama that he was not able to achieve foreign policy objectives in light of Republican lawmakers want to make points against him and Vice Democrats have expressed vague support for his policies. This has increased despised what he called the president’s position in an interview with «Atlantic» «rules of the game in Washington».
Hence Obama Years of which we saw many quarrels and hid behind the fact that the president’s reluctance to make decisions related to foreign intervention had enjoyed a measure of popular support.
Revealed preliminary campaigns of the two parties for public opinion not only confident in the ruling elite and its institutions, but the idea Shack carry the burden of the United States Middle East.

Do not want to admit
Takeyh adds that the parties do not want to recognize the desire to change the traditional view about the region. Potential Candidates find time in their electoral campaigns threatened to destroy the organization «state» and pledge to protect Israel and support for traditional alliances with the Gulf states, but they In the same speech expressing their rejection of the deployment of US forces to support or solve the region’s problems. And it ignores the fact that in this bloody Syrian civil war will not end, and can not defeat al state without ground troops and a military intervention widely.
The air incursions and war drones are not enough to stop the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. And help restore Iraq and large parts of it under the control of the organization «state». The author argues that the tragedy in nonchalant US position comes amid changes and is considered the most turbulent phase taking place in the Middle East.
The system of the Qatari state, which evolved throughout the twentieth century in a state of collapse. And be replaced by a transient-border terrorist groups based on the alleged spiritual authority.
Governments in the region living under the tyranny in Iran expands its tentacles. And writer at the end of his article that the United States has remained since he replaced Britain’s place a source of stability in the region.
Washington has worked to help the conservative Arab regimes faced radicals players who tried to sabotage.
Under the umbrella of American protection of Israel has evolved from a project to a state entity is able to protect himself as the flow of oil to the world market at a reasonable price. America has made achievements in the Middle East through bipartisan consensus. Today, America has become a country tired of war and the Middle East diseases. And forming another kind of consensus between the two parties.
The elite will be affected in the coming weeks to the positions of the public wishing to stay away from interfering in the affairs of the Arab region.
It is true that no American president will leave the region in the future, but that America no longer play a role in resolving disputes and ease. The pendulum has moved like «View Vietnam» Former forget people «Iraq offered» For the first time since the post of Independent States Middle East finds himself alone. Risk isolation and it will appear later.