Gulf Columnists: The U.S. Is To Blame For The Iraq Crisis

Recently, many columnists based in the Gulf have blamed the U.S. for the crisis in Iraq and the expansion of the Islamic State (IS, formerly the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) there. The articles alleged, inter alia, that:

- Since the George W. Bush era, the U.S. has deliberately fanned the flames of sectarian and tribal discord in Iraq, with the aim of dismantling it and rebuilding it in accordance with the idea of "creative chaos" attributed to then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

- The U.S.'s rapprochement with Iran and its years-long support for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki – who is himself stoking sectarian conflict in his country – have exacerbated the Iraq crisis.[1]

- The U.S. invaded Iraq and then left it without eradicating terrorism, thus weakening the country and leaving it torn and bloody – and creating fertile ground for the rise of terrorist elements.

- President Obama's isolationism and his tendency to avoid intervention in the region, as well as his hesitant and inconsistent policy in Iraq and Syria, leave both countries vulnerable to extremists and allow Iran to act freely there.

One particularly critical column warned that unsuccessful intervention in Iraq on the part of the U.S. could trigger more 9/11-style attacks against it.

Following are excerpts from the Gulf press on U.S. culpability for the current crisis in Iraq:

Accusing The U.S. Of Stoking Sectarian Conflict In Iraq

One of the main claims against the U.S. by the Gulf columnists is that what is taking place in Iraq today is a direct result of the American occupation that began in 2003, which was from the beginning, according to this theory, aimed at creating ethnic schism and tipping the political balance in favor of the Shi'ites and against the Sunnis.

UAE Columnist: U.S. Created Iraqi Sectarianism Instead Of Democracy

'Abdallah Al-Sweiji, columnist for the UAE daily Al-Khaleej, wrote: "Iraq has bled unceasingly for 11 years, and the car bombs and suicide bombers have not abated. The worst result of the American occupation was the struggle's transformation into a sectarian and factional struggle fed by elements both domestic and foreign... For 25 years, since its occupation of Kuwait and since its destruction, more than once, by U.S. forces and their allies, Iraq has stood apart from the Arab line...

"The U.S. and its allies left Iraq after taking Baghdad and ousting the Saddam Hussein regime, but they did not spread the false democracy and its false freedom. [Instead,] they left [the country] to fall prey to sectarianism and factionalism; now, they are absolutely unwilling to help, and are in no way willing to intervene either militarily or logistically to rescue it from the whirlpool of violence. They will go on watching [from the sidelines] as the sides fight each other, as they have been doing in Syria for the past four years..."[2]

Bahraini Columnist: U.S. Created Sectarian Regime In Iraq As Part Of Alliance With Shi'ites

In the official Bahraini daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej, columnist Sayyed Al-Zahra wrote that the events in Iraq were the direct result of the sectarian regime set up there by the U.S. when it entered it, with the aim of establishing an alliance with Iran and Shi'ite forces in the region against the Sunnis: "The events in Iraq today are first of all, without getting into the details, the direct consequence of the crime of the American occupation and the criminal sectarian regime that it installed [there]. The American occupation wrecked the Iraqi state and its institutions; it did not stop there, but went on to deliberately set up a criminal sectarian regime, leaving Iraq's fate in the hands of sectarian Shi'ite forces which Nouri Al-Maliki has been leading for years...

"The general picture, and the various declared positions of the U.S., Iran, and the sectarian forces in Iraq, attest to the fact that we are [now] facing a new grand terrorist operation that is targeting Iraq's Sunni regions and their inhabitants. Obviously, the purpose of this operation is to completely remove the Sunnis from Iraq's political equation and to prevent any future [Sunni] revival...

"Today's developments in Iraq are clearly aimed at establishing a new tripartite alliance – of the U.S., Iran, and the Shi'ite forces in the region – that will in the near future lead the entire region. This alliance will ultimately force a new reality on the Arab Gulf states – [a reality] in which the entire region is controlled by Iran, in its conspiracy with the U.S....

"Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Arab countries to remain silent in light of what is happening in Iraq..."[3]

The U.S. and Iran inflate "The Iranian Project" in "Iraq" and "Syria" (Source: Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, June 18, 2014)

Qatari Daily: U.S. Clings To Al-Maliki – Even Though It Knew That His Policies Lead To Schism And Violence In Iraq

In an editorial, the Qatari daily Al-Sharq argued: "The international community bears a great deal of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and the dangers that have begun to threaten it and the entire region. It is also responsible for the suffering resulting from the battles between the army and the gunmen fighting the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki.

"The major international powerbrokers, particularly the U.S., have ignored Al-Maliki's use of undemocratic suppression that has enabled him to retain his exclusive leadership of Iraq for over eight years; [he has done this] by marginalizing his Iraqi political opponents, both Sunni and Shi'ite. The U.S., which withdrew from Iraq in 2011, knew that Al-Maliki's continuing policy would lead Iraq to violence and schism, but nevertheless continued to support him, politically and militarily..."[4]

U.S. and Iran attempt to unify Iraq under Al-Maliki (Source: Al-Watan, Qatar, July 6, 2014)

Accusing The U.S. Of Abandoning Iraq To Terrorism

Another accusation columnists levelled against the U.S. is that IS's success in Iraq stems from the chaos that the U.S. left behind it when it withdrew and from the failure of its war on terror, which they said was not an honest war at all.

UAE Writer: ISIS Succeeded Because The U.S. Never Honestly Fought The War On Terror

In an article titled "Washington is Behind ISIS and its Sisters," Tajuddin Abdul Haqq, a journalist who is a member of the UAE's Ministry of Presidential Affairs, the former UAE editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, and Gulf editor for Elaph.com, wrote: "Could [ISIS] have grown and operated as openly as it has if the American war on terror had truly succeeded in uprooting what Washington called the terrorist nests – from which and because of which all subsequent organizations and movements emerged? Was terrorism the actual problem that motivated the American forces and pushed them to occupy some countries and destroy others on the pretext of combatting extremist movements?

"The developments since the U.S. declared its war on terror and occupied Afghanistan and then Iraq show clearly that [the declared] intentions and goals of this war were dishonest, and that its results were unsuccessful. The U.S., which is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of the year, is abandoning that country to the mercies of the same organization and same Mullah [meaning Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban] from which it [originally] came to rescue the Afghan people.

"It also withdrew from Iraq, which it entered and where it remained for an entire decade on the pretext of fighting dictatorship and spreading democracy. It left [that country] torn and rife with loathsome sectarianism, terrorism in all regions, and all kinds of violence and destruction.

"Just as the U.S. held us responsible for terrorism, today we must hold it responsible for the terrorism inflicted on our country by extremist movements the likes of which we never knew until after [the U.S.] failed in its so-called war on terror. The U.S. is responsible for the terrorism in our country, because its hasty intervention in a number of Arab and Islamic countries created an environment in which terrorism revives and its danger spreads.

"The terrorism that Washington led a global war to uproot has now become a plague from which scarcely anyone will be saved. Not only has Washington failed to uproot terrorism, but it has also failed to stop its expansion and growth..."[5]

Al-Quds Al-Arabi: With Its Invasion Of Iraq, The U.S. Created A Vacuum That Provided Fertile Ground For The Rise Of Terrorist Organizations

In an editorial, the Qatar-based London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi stated: "How can we demand of [Al-Maliki] that he remind the world that the U.S. remains the chief cause of this ongoing historic crime in Iraq? Can't he see that the U.S. can no longer fill the vacuum that it created in the regional [balance of] power – [a vacuum] in which the terrorist organizations of Al-Qaeda or ISIS emerged after [the U.S.] invaded Iraq and then left it to fall prey to a sectarian government?

"How can we explain to [Obama] that unilaterally invading Iraq was too costly on the domestic, regional, international, strategic, and economic levels, and that he cannot send even a single soldier [there] because he was elected primarily on the strength of his promise to the American people that he would remove them from the Iraqi quagmire[?]

"In other words, unconditional American intervention not backed by a political solution would be seen as support for sectarianism. Therefore, Obama might ultimately prefer to leave Iraq and the entire region to its 'ISIS fate'..."[6]

Criticizing The U.S.'s Hesitant And Inconsistent Policy In Iraq And Syria

A number of articles criticized the U.S. not only for creating the Iraqi crisis, but also for how it has handled it. The overwhelming sentiment expressed in the Gulf press was one of bitterness at the U.S.'s avoidance of intervening politically in Iraq and Syria by supporting the moderate opposition forces in those countries. Some articles stated that the U.S.'s Iraq and Syria policy was one of hesitance, procrastination, and inconsistency, and that it had failed in both countries.

Saudi Dailies: American Isolationism Damaged U.S.-Saudi Relations

In an editorial, the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh stated: "U.S.-Saudi ties have been harmed as a result of differing views, which both sides have agreed to call 'tactical differences.' Riyadh has taken a different tack in its relations with a Washington which seems [disconnected] from the historic events in the region, whether because of the Obama administration's isolationist policy vis-à-vis the Middle East, because of the American economic obligations prioritized by this White House, or because of [the U.S.'s] startling openness towards Tehran..."[7]

Similarly, the editorial of the official Saudi daily Al-Madina stated: "The American position regarding the current Iraqi crisis is no different from its position regarding the Syria crisis, in terms of its extreme hesitance and procrastination. But the danger here lies in the possibility that the U.S. would empower Iran as its proxy to intervene militarily in Iraq, in order to halt the ISIS rampage..."[8]

Above: The U.S. spends $4 trillion on the war in Iraq. Below: The U.S. now refuses to enter Iraq (Source: 'Okaz, Saudi Arabia, June 30, 2014)

The editorial of the official Saudi daily Al-Sharq criticized the silence of the international community, headed by the U.S., on ISIS's operations in Syria and Iraq, and for its failure to provide arms to the Syrian opposition while ISIS openly receives logistical support: "Weapons and logistical support are easily reaching ISIS, in clear view and earshot of Washington and its Western allies. ISIS declared its state on the ruins left by the Assad regime in Syria. [But] the embargo on sending weapons to the Syrian opposition is still in place..."[9]

Obama stalls as ISIS takes over Iraq (Source: Al-Ittihad, UAE, June 25, 2014)

Bahraini Columnist: U.S. Says One Thing And Does The Opposite – In Both Iraq And Syria

In his column in the Bahraini daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej, Tifla Al-Khalifa accused the U.S. of failing to take a stand regarding Syria, and of doing the same again regarding Iraq: "The U.S. continues with its ongoing lie, which has become its trademark; it still says one thing and does the opposite. Any normal person can see the huge contradiction between [the U.S.'s] words and its actions, even if he is not a political analyst, or [even] well-versed in politics...

"Just as [the U.S.] called its criminal plan to destroy and divide the Arab countries 'creative chaos' and 'the Arab Spring,' it now talks about the situation in Iraq as if Al-Maliki had caused it, saying that he removed his partners in the homeland from power so that they then rebelled against him. And it says all this while its planes are bombing oppositionist rebels.

"[American] lies are born and then proliferate; [the U.S.] did the same thing in Syria, talking about Assad's crimes while doing nothing to stop him or to protect his people from him. This enabled him to treat the Sunnis corruptly and to cause destruction and ruin – and [the U.S.] is now doing the same regarding Iraq.

"Had [the U.S.] truly wanted to solve the Iraqi problem, it would have stopped supporting Al-Maliki; then Al-Maliki would be ousted and a national salvation government, including all elements of the Iraqi people, would be established, that would provide the fair governance that they deserve.

"What [the U.S.] wants is to marginalize and destroy the Sunnis. That is what it did in Iraq via its allies, and that is what makes it unparalleled in history in its lies."[10]

Saudi Intellectual: Obama's Policy Failed In Syria And Is Destined To Fail In Iraq

In an article in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, Saudi intellectual Khalid Al-Dakhil harshly criticized Obama's response to the Syria and Iraq crises: "The recent events in Iraq confirm the obvious – that is, that [they] are closely linked to the events in Syria, and that Obama's policy in Iraq and Syria has been an abject failure, and even more of a failure than that of his predecessor George Bush. While [Bush's] failure in Iraq persuaded Obama that his Syria policy was correct, it was his own recent failure [in Syria] that deterred him from [intervening] in Iraq. This confirms that he has failed on both fronts...

"Obama supports Al-Maliki's struggle against ISIS in Iraq, but, seemingly, opposes Bashar Al-Assad's [struggle] against the very same ISIS in Syria! He agrees with Iran regarding Iraq, and disagrees with it regarding Syria. What is the difference between ISIS here and ISIS there? What is the difference between Iran with regards to Iraq and Iran with regards to Syria?

"The Iranian agenda is the same in both countries; it is explicitly based on the principle of allying with minorities in the region. This is the principle unifying the Syrian and Iraqi leaderships in their pact with Iran.

"Since the U.S. invaded Iraq [in 2003], Iraq and Syria have represented a single political issue. Despite this, the American president is apparently insisting on maintaining a different position regarding each of them.

"In Iraq, he turns a blind eye to the Al-Maliki government's sectarian policy and, together with Tehran, has supported [Al-Maliki's] remaining in power since 2006. [But] in Syria, Obama opposes Assad and his regime, but at the same time turns a blind eye to the substantial support Assad is receiving from Iran and Russia. He also ignores the Shi'ite militias in Iraq and Syria and only sees ISIS and its ilk.

"To this we must add that for more than three years, Obama has overlooked the ongoing crimes carried out by the Syrian regime against its people. Moreover, he refuses to support the opposition so that there will be some kind of balance against the Assad regime's military apparatus.

"In other words, Obama is on the same side as the Iranian leadership on both Iraq and Syria. Is this a double standard? A foolish game? Or a scatterbrained policy? Is this really two distinct policy lines – or is it a single one?

"Obama failed in Syria, and his failure is now spreading to Iraq. He called Bush's war in Iraq foolish – it was indeed – and after that, [Obama] won the presidency. Will Obama now dare to face the fact that his administration's policy regarding Iraq and Syria is no less foolish and destructive than that of his predecessor?..."[11]

Saudi Columnist: There Could Be 9/11-Style Attacks Because Of The U.S.'s Failed Policy In Iraq

In the official Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, Saudi columnist Dr. Ali Al-Khashiban claimed that the current crisis in Iraq was the result of failed American policy in the region: "As we know, [Condoleezza] Rice was one of the first to propose the idea of 'creative chaos,' a theory based on a broad and inaccurate analysis of results on the ground... U.S. policy has become unreliable, as far as its close and its historic friends are concerned. This may be because of the political methodology that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, which is based on the notion that strategic planning does not require full control of all possible outcomes. This policy is like spreading viruses whose results cannot be anticipated...

"From that time three or more decades ago until now, Iraq has remained a source of unexpected results and a source of the chaotic policy that the U.S. is implementing in the region... The current political crisis in Iraq is the result of the great failure of the American policy in the region; for the past three decades, and particularly [after] the Afghan war that brought down the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been making every effort to rebuild American power at the expense of the opposing ideological power in the Arab and Muslim world in particular.

"Therefore, it is easy to believe that the well-known September 11 attacks on the U.S. were a natural outcome, and that they could happen again – especially when the American policy today is focusing on an historic region that is more important than Afghanistan..."[12]

Endnotes: