No to imperialist intervention

  The speed with which large parts of Iraqi territory fell into the hands of a fundamentalist militia relatively small in numbers makes you wonder how this could happen.

The Iraqi army was numerically far superior to the armed groups that have conquered the northern regions of Iraq like Mosul. The army is basically dissolved. Everything can not be explained only in terms of the advance of Islamic fundamentalist groups. A deeper and more complex process is taking place.

The current situation in Iraq has its roots imperialist intervention in 2003, which was presented as a "just war" by Bush and Blair and aimed at removing "the hated dictator Saddam Hussein." At the time, explained that the task of overthrowing Saddam was up to the Iraqi people and no one else. And instead of assisting the construction of a stable, democratic and bourgeois (the purpose of Bush and Blair), we saw the risk of disintegration of Iraq on the basis of ethno-religious, and even the horizon of a bloody civil war .

The look - you might say - the most ironic thing is that before the war in Iraq were not present nor al-Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups. It is only after the devastation inflicted by imperialism to the country that these groups have found a way to penetrate the region. From the so-called war for the defense of "Western values​​", the 2003 invasion of Iraq has itself become a casus belli for the operations of groups like al-Qaeda.
The problem is that Maliki also enjoys the support of Iran, a power much stronger than American imperialism in the region. It is this strong Iranian involvement to push the Sunni Arab regimes led by Saudi Arabia to finance the rebels, just as they gave support to Islamic fundamentalist groups in Syria.

What is happening is in fact a digregrazione Iraq. The ISIS and other Sunni groups will not be able to penetrate the South, the densely populated Shiite dgli. Samarra, site of an important Shiite shrine, will remain on the front line. We observe in Baghdad and southern Iraq the growth of volunteer forces Shia; despite the eventual removal of Maliki from power, the sectarian political system on which he based his government will survive for sure.

In Shiite areas there is a general mobilization on the basis of religion, which inevitably will lead to open civil war and terrible massacres and ethnic cleansing. It will happen in Baghdad, where Sunni and Shia have lived segregated from each other after the civil war of 2006-07.

This is the end result imperialist invasion of Iraq in 2003 Rather than stabilize the situation, the imperialists have exacerbated the contradictions incredibly dormant in the region. Peoples who have lived together peacefully for decades are now almost in a state of civil war.

Even by greed point of view of the bourgeois class, they made a mistake after the other. In the past, have given support to the regime of Saddam to counterbalance the power of Iran. Then, under the Bush administration, they decided to show the world that the United States could only aspire to the role of world power and lay down the law in the world. With the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have tried to send a message to every non-aligned regime, intimidating opponents with the international power of the American military. Now American imperialism is shown naked and helpless in front of the rest of the world. He threatened to bomb Syria, and then withdraw. He made a lot of noise for Ukraine, but had to accept the annexation of Crimea by Putin.

Instead of a strong imperialism, what we have now is a giant with feet of clay. In this context, Iran has emerged as the strongest, and anything that will make Americans will be wrong. Bombing the Sunni areas iraqene, only worsen the divisions in the country. If you do not do anything, however, leave Iran even more strengthened.

In all of this, those who will pay the highest price will be the workers and the common people of Iraq, regardless of their ethnicity. The situation worsened more and more towards civil war, and the horizon stand out ethnic massacres and endless columns of refugees. The crushing takes place in Iraq right now, before our eyes, and this will have repercussions throughout the region, from Syria to Lebanon, Turkey, even to Jordan.

What is the solution to this mess? The first thing we need to understand and emphasize is that there is no possible solution on the basis of capitalism. Imperialism supports various decadent regimes in the region, given that this is in their own interest and strategic material.

The solution to this crisis lies in developing an economic development strategy that manages to bring benefit to the people living in the region. But this means there take the huge profits earned by corporations and tear to them and corruttissimi governments that administer these countries; rip these profits in these parasites and use them instead to develop a modern infrastructure, housing, health and education services, and especially well-paid job

The national question is basically a material issue; a matter of bread. The workers have no interest in oppressing the Kurds, Turkmen workers, the workers have no interest in oppressing Shia Sunni workers, and workers Iranians have no interest in supporting the greedy aspirations of their rulers in Tehran. The entire region workers have any interest in breaking all these corrupt regimes.

The so-called Arab Spring of 2011, and before that the revolutionary movement in Iran in 2009, have shown the way, the way out: a general revolution in the Middle East. This is still the task of the working classes of these pasi.

This in Iraq may seem a distant prospect, but Iraq has a modern working class concentrated in large urban centers. The working class is the force that can provide a decisive solution. All honest socialists in the region should unite under the banner of Marxism and explain to the workers of all parties to the conflict that only the socialist revolution can solve their problems.

They have become the historical memory of Iraqi workers. They must remember that the Shia imperialism is not their ally. In 1991, when the Shiites in Basra rebelled against Saddam, the Americans watched as the revolutionary movement was crushed by Saddam's Republican Guard. The imperialists preferred Saddam to the revolution!

None of the powers struggling for control over Iraq has at heart the interests of workers. What is needed is a general uprising of the population, not only for a true democracy and for the rights of the various ethnic and national groups, but in favor of the socialist revolution that puts in the hands of the workers the resources to be used to rebuild society, and put an end once and for all at the national conflicts that capitalism inevitably produces.



The Maliki government is based on sectarian divisions



In the case of Iraq, the imperialists are left behind civilian administration led by Nouri al-Maliki, who became prime minister in 2006 with the approval of the United States. Some results of the administration Maliki: Iraq in 2012 was ranked as the eighth country in the world to the extent of corruption, and its status with regard to the respect for human rights is defined by international organizations "low", because of indiscriminate arrests and even torture. Even the pro-government website American Human Rights Watch agrees with this gloomy picture.

This is light years away from the bourgeois democratic regime promised by Bush and Blair eleven years ago. The truth is that this invasion has never served to promote democracy. The fact that the "Western democracies" (the European and American imperialists) have no problems in doing business with despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and other shows that promote "Western-style democracies" is not their main interest. The sole purpose is to establish systems that can protect their interests; nothing else.

From the socioeconomic point of view, the situation is certainly not better. The imperialists have spent huge sums to bomb and occupy Iraq, but were more thrifty when it comes to improving the conditions of life for the mass of workers and the working areas. Mass unemployment and poverty affect most of the population. The official unemployment rate estimated for 2012 was 16%, but the official figure is probably much higher. According to Iraq Business News:

"Poverty and unemployment in Iraq is increasing year on year despite the government's efforts to implement programs that reduce them. The United Nations and other international organizations have published data showing that more than 23% of the Iraqi population lives below the poverty line. If 23% is the official figure, the real figure exceeds 35% (12 million people). The Iraqis have had to endure hardship and suffering almost indescribable in the last four decades of war, plus penalties able to stop the economy of a country (5 March 2014) "

It is easy to see how in these conditions is not possible to establish a stable bourgeois democratic regime; Iraqi capitalism can not solve these basic problems. In the context of this economic situation, ethnic-religious divisions within the country producing further instability, becoming a source of conflict. The ruling classes across the country are in these divisions scapegoats and decoys, using them to divert the attention of the masses from the real culprits - the people to the government - then blaming those who speak another language or practice a different variant of 'Islam.

Overall, the Iraqis are ethnically 75% -80% Arabs, 15% -20% Kurds, and 5% Turkmen, Assyrians and other ethnic groups. Further divisions are based on religious belief, given that 95% of the Muslim population is divided between Shiites (62%) and Sunni (35%). There is also a small Christian population. The Sunnis are divided almost equally between Arabs and Kurds.





Legacy of a colonial past



The source of these divisions dating back to colonial times, and more precisely the division of the decaying Ottoman Empire by the British and French imperialism. Looking at a map of the Middle East, you'll immediately notice of boundary lines as straight swords and long hundreds and hundreds of miles. This is because those boundaries were decided by the imperialists - sitting at a table with map, pencil and ruler - with no regard for the people who lived in those territories.

In fact, virtually all new "nations" were born after the end of the First World War were created by incorporating them in a permanent ethnic division, based on religion or language, so that the internal conflicts of these infants would allow the imperialist countries to continue its dominance even after the end of occupation and military physical. This method has been the source of many conflicts, such as those in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Cyprus and Northern Ireland.

General Jonathan Shaw, former commander of British forces in Basra, writing for The Telegraph (12 June 2014) admitted:

"Iraq is the creation of lines drawn on a map by the French and British after the First World War. From that moment on, the challenge was to combine the different interests and loyalties of a people divided by religion, ethnicity and place of residence. What is the Iraqi people then further divided into tribes, many of which restrict their movements and influences based on lines drawn on maps. "





Unresolved national question



This unresolved national question of Iraq is central to the understanding of recent events. The Maliki government's ability to provide solutions to the burning economic issues posed before the Iraqi population, he preferred to play the card of ethnicity, basing its support on the majority Shia population and playing the old game of "divide et impera". This has caused enormous resentment in the Sunni Arab minority, which is now supporting the uprising in the territories Sunnis. The Kurds govern what has already become a de facto independent of their region, as a nation.

In the recent period there has been a growing movement of protest, mainly in the Sunni areas, but also in other regions of the country. The protests began in December 2012 covered a range of topics, from corruption to unemployment, low wages to the lack of services. Some were protesting against the mistreatment of prisoners, many of whom have been arbitrarily detained by security forces iraqene, while others against the payroll too small or discrimination against Sunnis. The protests have involved Fallujah, Mosul, Kirkuk, Baiji, Tikrit, al-Daur, Ishaqi, Samarra, Jalawlah, Dhuluiyah, Baquba, Ramadi, some Baghdad neighborhoods, Albu Ajil, Nasiriyah and other cities and villages.

The government's response to these Maliki that in most cases were peaceful protests has been to unleash the repressive apparatus of the state, treating the protesters the same way as terrorists and stopping in several cases even killing them. Maliki has even bombed the population of the city of Fallujah. The people in the Sunni areas have become accustomed to perceive the armed forces and security iraqene as an occupying force rather than a force of maintainers of law and order; or, even less, of defenders of justice. They see this as a continuation of the occupation government sponsored by the United States, against which many have fought for. Quoting again the British General Jonathan Shaw, "Maliki's government was characterized by paranoia and sectarianism, which have de-legitimized in the eyes of the Kurds and the Sunnis."





Collapse of the Iraqi Army



It is in this context that you can capture the latest developments. The Iraqi army collapsed before fighting forces technically very weak. The main reason should be sought in the religious composition of the forces in the field. Most of the soldiers and policemen are Shiites; Maliki has consciously promoted the sciitizzazione army as a political factor in the terrorization and control of other social groups. Consequently, before the advancing forces of ISIS that claim to be fighting for free from the oppression of the Sunnis, the armed forces and security iraqene have realized that ISIS would be received favorably by the population, after the brutality and l 'inefficiency of Maliki.

The Western media initially pointed to the fact that half a million people had left Mosul during the advance of the fundamentalists. But the news the following days revealed that a significant number of people had started to return to Mosul. An interesting article of June 15, AP news agency reports the opinion of an octogenarian Iraq: "I hope that God will help them and make them victorious against the oppression of Al Maliki."

On the same article contains other examples of citizens of Mosul, explaining that after the city was conquered by the rebels, the services of water and electricity are improved and the prices have dropped. "The citizens of Mosul back to report that their parents have informed them that the rebels have lowered the prices of many basic commodities necesita. A liter of petrol or diesel for generators for cars are necessary because of the frequent cuts in the current is increased from 42 to 30 cents, according to the taxi driver Abu Mohammed. A canister of cooking gas costs 3:40 dollars while before 6.85 dollars. And fighters have forced retailers to halve the price of vegetables and many foods. "

The population that returns explained that the reason why he had abandoned the city was not so much the fear of the actions that they would take the fundamentalists as dellla brutality of the government's response to Maliki. And in fact the last time the government has often bombed areas which had lost control, killing indiscriminately both military and civilian.





It prepares the revolt among the Sunni population



What we had was a revolt brewing among the Sunni population against what was perceived by them as an oppressive regime. Workers are common in those areas, to have reached the limits of human endurance. Was emerging a power vacuum, in which the State was not sufficiently strong to keep the situation under control and at the same time the people had not provided an alternative ready. In this void have entered the fighting groups.

If there were mass organizations of the working class, capable of uniting the workers as an independent force, this gap could coincide with the beginning of a revolutionary movement. And if this is to be based on issues of class, an uprising of Sunnis could also involve the workers and the poor Shia: the end for al-Maliki. But there are no significant organizations of this type; and policy in a vacuum can not last long, something will eventually fill it. In this case, it was ISIS and other groups organized armed Sunnis, which has turned easily addressed in an ethnic-religious conflict, with all the consequences that this can have reactionary.

And in fact, in the article by AP previously mentioned we find that "only Sunni Arabs seem star returning to Mosul, suggesting the idea of a fundamental change in the demographics of the city." In this way we see how, despite the fundamentalists proclaim to want to apply a specific policy to gain the trust and respect of the local population by improving their living conditions, this applies only to Sunni Arabs.

It seems that the ISIS do not try to apply the Sharia everywhere at once; does not have enough strength to do it. As reported by AP, "it seems that the Islamic state has so far withheld impose its extremist version of Islamic law in the first place as it needs to pacify the other Sunni armed groups and tribal peoples, as well as the secular former Baathists loyal to Saddam, who together they have attempted to take the city "



The Turkmen



However, not only are the Shia Arabs fear groups such as ISIS, but also other smaller minorities, such as Turkmen (also divided between Shiites and Sunnis). Nazar Ali, Turkmen Shiite, said, "It is a sectarian war. We Turkmen and fear of becoming a target. "

Turkmen Shiites have been killed in clashes with Sunni militants. A group of villages in the region of Kirkuk has been attacked by Sunni militants and the local population has fled the verse areas controlled by Kurdish Peshmerga.

As a result of this situation, some Turkmen nationalists are taking up arms, creating their own militia. The Kurds hope to use the tool in the future of the referendum to annex Kirkuk to the rest of Kurdistan. But the Turkmen prefer a federally administered jointly controlled by Turkmen, Kurds and Arabs. Still others want an autonomous region Turkmen.

According to the website of Al-Monitor, there were even conflicts between Turkmen Shiites and Sunnis, with Shiites are oriented to the Iraqi army as Sunnis, for now, rely on the Kurds.

They also feel betrayed by Turkey, to which the Turkmen naturally turn for protection. Turkey, for its strategic and material interests, was moving closer to the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq.

The plight of Turkmen emphasizes the complexity of the national question in the contemporary world. Iraq is fragmenting according to its regional components, mainly Shiite parties, Sunni Arab and Kurdish. But within these areas there are further divisions and groups, such as the Turkmen, that although for now talk to the Kurdish Peshmerga for protection, it certainly does not rejoice at the prospect of a future minority within an independent Iraqi Kurdish state .

On the basis of capitalist there is no end to this dilemma, which can be solved only on a socialist basis with the creation of a socialist federal republic of Iraq, which recognizes full rights of autonomy to all the peoples of Iraq, in the context of a largest socialist federation of the Middle East. This is the task of the working class.



The forces



All media reports use the term "ISIS" to refer to all armed groups who took possession of large areas of Iraq, but several reports indicate that ISIS is just one of many armed groups that have conquered Mosul (also it is certainly the most numerous). Even the BBC admits that "most of the attention in relation to the ongoing rebellion has focused sull'ISIS - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant - but this is only one of the groups and militias who are now fighting" (June 14, 2014 ). The same article quotes former General Muzhir to Qaisi, spokesman for the "Revolutionary Military Council General of the Iraqis," who "took possession of Mosul along with ISIS." He explains that "Mosul is a city too large for the ISIS can conquer it alone" and describes the members of ISIS as "barbarians."

According to several sources, the ISIS extremist jihadist group does not count on more than 10-12000 armed members. Such a force can not conquer and control areas such extension. But, as we have seen, feelings of revolt was brewing for some time among Sunni Arabs. And it was preparing a general uprising, but the intervention and involvement of various armed groups and organized.

Do not forget that they were under Saddam Hussein's Sunni Arabs - or rather, the ruling class within this population - to be in a position of power, and it was the Shia majority together with the Kurds and other minorities to be oppressed. The Sunnis were put aside after the fall of Saddam. This explains why the Sunni tribal leaders - that certainly can not be called progressives - they were also organizing in areas falling against Maliki, for their own reasons. There are tribal leaders like Sheikh Hadith in Dari, president of the Ulema (Muslim giurisprudenti considered arbiters of Sharia Islamic law), in frontal opposition to the regime of the Shiite Maliki.

Some informed commentators had expected the situation. Already in March, the Washington Post published an article with the eloquent title "The Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders say that the battle for Fallujah is part of a revolution," which explains what they were preparing Iraqi tribal and religious leaders. According to the article, were preparing for a "revolution", ie the violent overthrow of the government of Maliki.

The article explains that "in recent months, the influential Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq, led by a group of Sunni clerics, has established close contacts with a military command surfaced in January after security forces tried to iraqene resume Fallujah, won in December by the Islamists. "

The same article describes this new command, the Revolutionary Military Council of General Iraqis, born as a unified leadership of a series of regional military advice: "The recommendations include tribal leaders and former rebel leaders, but they are led by former senior officers - among the thousands officers put aside when the United States disbanded the army after the removal of Saddam in 2003, the Association of Muslim Scholars claims not to be part of the military council, but to coordinate closely with it, and some representatives admit be in a temporary alliance with Al-Qaeda, which in February has repudiated the ISIS. "

Still, "after the American invasion of 2003, several tribes in the region of Anbar formed an alliance with al-Qaeda. The brutality of the group away many Iraqis and al-Qaeda for that enjoys a limited popular support, but the long repressed Sunni grievances against the government's actions Shiite - mass arrests, summary executions, unemployment and lack of services - help foment the current conflict in Anbar. "

The strengthening of the jihadist group ISIS is a side effect of the conflict in Syria and the militarization of the nationalist movement in Sunni Iraq. The United States initially provided support to Islamist groups fighting the Assad regime. The same groups have received arms and funding from the reactionary Arab states of the Persian Gulf. This allowed ISIS to move from Iraq to Syria and vice versa. He formed a hard core of fanatical elements and gave them the morale and determination to fight. But there are also other forces in the field. Among these groups, moderate Sunnis, Salafis, as well as veterans of the officer caste created by Saddam, removed in part imperialist invasion.





Inevitable opposition to the jihadist



In fact, the Maliki regime is interested in exaggerating the strength and influence of ISIS. He can not admit to being responsible for the present situation and the oppression of Sunni Arabs. He prefers to present the situation as an elaborate conspiracy by Islamic fundamentalists. And uses the nature of ISIS estrame to paint it as a threat to the Shiites and promote the creation of militias who "fight the ISIS." By doing this, he sets the stage for a bloody civil war, which is likely to result in the division of Iraq.

The truth, however, is that the Sunni Arabs have helped the ISIS only to the extent that this fight Maliki, perceived common enemy. The ISIS has imposed severe restrictions in their places coma Raqqa in northern Syria, an action that caused the uprising of the local population. Something similar will happen in Iraq where these extremists will try to impose their narrow vision of Sharia.

This means that at some point, if and when these groups consolidate their control of the Sunni Arab areas, riots erupt among the most extreme and the other, as already seem to emerge from some reports. According to the Washington Post, "... some Sunni tribal leaders seem to have entered into alliance with al-Qaeda purely for convenience, it considers to be a lesser evil compared to the Iraqi government - for now.

Sheik Mohammad Bashar Faidhi, key figure in the association of Muslim scholars, argued "Sometimes Al Qaeda joins the battle, and other times it does not fight - and just stands by and watches. We expect to see us fight this group, one day. "

The truth is that ordinary Iraqis are not Jihadists. Like all workers, they want to live in peace and with dignity. It is the concrete situation created before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and then by the Maliki government that has pushed people to give support to such groups.



The Kurds are taking the opportunity



The Kurdish area of northern Iraq was already a de facto independent statelet, formally part of Iraq, but has management autonomy and its own armed forces - the Peshmerga. This crisis gave the Kurds the opportunity to occupy the disputed areas, such as the oil center of Kirkuk; the latter is considered by Kurds as their capital, although the corresponding region is inhabited by both Kurds and Arabs, and there is a significant minority Turkmen. With the collapse of the Iraqi army in the area, the Peshmerga are the only force that can keep the situation under control, check that consequently the Kurdish regional government has no intention to sell.

Kirkuk is important because it hosts some of the biggest oil fields of Iraq; and control these important deposits is considered an important means in the attainment of an independent Kurdish state. Multinational oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Total have already signed agreements with the authorities in Iraqi Kurdistan for future exploitation of mineral deposits.

At the moment of escalation, Kurdish politicians were already negotiating with the leaders of neighboring Sunni Nineveh province (whose capital is Mosul), to discuss the fragmentation of Iraq and presenting it as fact the "federalization" of the country.





role of Iran



The regime in Tehran has not missed an opportunity to increase its presence and influence in the country. According to the BBC, "Qasem Soleimani, the commander of an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, would be in Baghdad, to assist military commanders and Shiite militias to coordinate their campaign against the rebels." Iran is in fact providing weapons and military advisers to the Iraqi government to help Maliki, on whom he had a heavy influence because of religious affiliation. Now, in saying he wants to "provide support" to his government, Iran is actually preparing to strengthen its grip on the country.

In fact, Iran is emerging stronger from this crisis. It is ironic that the war so much desired by GW Bush and Blair have done to strengthen Iran, rather than the position of American imperialism in the region. The regime in Tehran increasingly able to control Baghdad, Iraq as a result of internal conflicts in the meantime exploded. But the Americans will need Iran to stabilize Iraq, as has happened previously in Afghanistan.

This has many consequences on international relations, as the old "enemy" is now negotiating with the Obama administration with respect to a possible collaboration with the effort to stabilize the Iraqi situation. The relations between the USA and Iran have already gone through a phase of "thaw" in the last period, when Obama has understood that it is impossible to keep Iraq without the cooperation of Iran and at the same time, the Iranian regime has begun to try to overcome the sanctions that the encase and obtain the necessary investments to rebuild infrastructure and strengthen its economy stagnant.

It is comical in this situation to see how quickly the UK government has announced the reopening of its embassy in Tehran, only three years after the formal suspension of diplomatic relations between the two countries 2011. Now they have a common interest in countering the ISIS and attempt to strengthen the Maliki regime.



This means that they will collaborate in supporting the same regime that is actually responsible for the current chaos. And this will not convince Sunni Arabs of the good intentions of Iran, but instead reveal the true relationship between American imperialism, European governments and the Iranian regime. When we speak of the fundamental interests of the class, when it is threatened stability in the region, then the middle-class thieves on both sides unite. Iran is no longer a monstrous regime, but a force "responsible." But the intervention of Iran, despite this, it will only exacerbate the ethnic-religious tensions in the country.





Turkey



Turkey has always had ambitions in Iraq, in particular towards the northern oil-rich. With the weakening of the central authority in Baghdad, is developing closer ties with Iraqi Kurds, forging an informal alliance with the Kurdish Regional Government granting him the ability to export oil through the ports Kurds.

Consistent with the "softening" of the position with respect to the Iraqi Kurds, the Turkish authorities have often changed position relative to the Kurds living in Turkey, entering into negotiations with the PKK and then closing in according to the needs of the moment.

However, the "support" of the Kurds in Turkey is certainly not disinterested. Its purpose is certainly not defend the interests of the Kurds. The history of Turkey with local Kurds is a history of brutal oppression, and the last thing that the Turkish ruling class wants is a shift towards an independent Kurdistan, a move that severely destabilize Turkey itself.

The interest of Turkey is to exploit the oil reserves in northern iraqene, not strengthen Kurdish nationalism. But like all cynical imperialism, even the turkish will be able to agree with the Kurdish authorities until this will serve their material interests. At the time, a strengthening of the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq serves to counterbalance the influence of Iran, Turkey's main competitor in the region. For some time, about 1,500 Turkish soldiers stationed in the territory on Iraqi Kurd and this number can be expected to increase in the next period, if "offensive ISIS" will give them the excuse needed.

Rather than a "defense of the Kurds", the recent Turkish position is instrumental, a means by which they hope to be able to extend its influence in the oil-rich areas of Iraqi Kurdistan and Syria. Turkey has no intention of changing the boundaries and encourage Kurdish claims, nor the turkish government will oppose the United States, whose main concern at the moment is the stabilization of Iraq.

Even the Gulf states have pursued their own interests in the region by funding Islamic fundamentalist groups fighting in Syria and now Iraq. This is because the regime of Assad is an ally of Iran, with which the Saudis are fighting proxy wars not only in Syria but also in Balochistan (Pakistani province) and now in Iraq.



No to imperialist intervention



Without a massive foreign intervention Maliki will not be able to regain the territories Sunnis. He asked for military assistance to the United States, given that the Iraqi army has not proved an effective deterrent against the advance of the fundamentalists. Obama, however, has no plans to return to Iraq with ground troops and start a war already lost and ended in the past. Obama said that Washington will be able to provide air support, and even this only in a relatively limited attack by drones.

The drone attacks, however, are known to have alienated the common people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where such attacks have been killed mostly innocent civilians. Operations of this type in the Sunni areas, rather than strengthen the position of the government in Baghdad, only strengthen the determination and the will to fight the Sunni population.

This explains why Obama has said that Maliki must go, in favor of a national unity government between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. The American imperialists understand that in the current situation, with the predominantly Shiite government of Maliki in power, Iraq can not be kept compact. But it's too little, too late. The USA has been fundamental in the ascent to power of Maliki and allowed him to carry out his chauvinistic policy of oppression of the minority Sunnis.

Written by Fred Weston, from www.marxist.com