| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Malaki's caution is within reason |
| 2011-03-09 |
| The Muslim Brotherhood used the protests in Cairo as an avenue for weakening Hosni Mubarak and forcing his ouster. Likewise, Al Qaeda in Iraq, its affiliates, and even some Sadrists have a continuing interest in fomenting unrest and instability in Iraq to embarrass Malaki, the Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Police. Their goal remains to crack the government of Iraq to either introduce an Islamic dictatorship or to incite a civil war. Yet, rather than being concerned the exploitation of the Arab street by the Islamists, the mainstream media wrings their hands about the government's response to recent Iraqi protests. A front page headline in the Washington Post on Mar. 4 screamed, "Activists Under Attack in Iraq." The article describes unnamed witnesses who reported that Iraqi Security Forces "attacked protestors, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers," without providing any numbers or examples of who, what, where, or when said protestors were detained. Meanwhile, the New York Times bemoaned the, "growing concerns that Mr.Maliki's American-backed government is using force and other measures to stifle dissent." The Iraqi government is trying to protect the fragile stability it has earned. It is not as if we're talking about a jack-booted self-appointed thugocracy gassing and firing upon peaceful demonstrators. This is a democratically elected coalition government that is worried about insurgents using well-meaning demonstrations for reform as a vessel to deliver chaos. Therefore, the concern over heavy-handed tactics by Iraqi authorities is misplaced. Iraqi officials should be true to their word in allowing peaceful demonstrations, but it is within the government's purview to regulate the time and place of demonstrations. Restricting vehicle traffic, maintaining already existing curfews, and requiring permits are common sense steps. Riot control measures like using shields, blockades, batons, water cannons, and yes, even small arms fire, may become necessary in situations where protestors physically assault government officials and attempt to seize government buildings. The security measures are also about showing that the government of Iraq has the wherewithal to manage security. It is a positive signal that Iraqi Security Forces have been able to maintain public order during protests without the direct involvement of any U.S. Forces. It's a signal to future agitators that they are unlikely to succeed in toppling the government. Suppose that Malaki took no security precautions and let tens of thousands of demonstrators pour into the streets. In the best case scenario, the demonstration would remain peaceful and calm. However, a strong potential exists for 1) violence and damage to government facilities, 2) sectarian violence among the crowds, 3) the discrediting of the Iraqi government. The violence could spin out of control, which would make the government of Iraq look even weaker. The Washington Post and New York times would be off to the presses with the Iraqi government's obituary. The most logical course of action is for Malaki and his forces to stand firm. The sanctimonious jerks in the mainstream media should stand down. |
| Posted by:American Delight |