Iraqi Troops sent by Shiite PM al-Maliki arrest Sunni Parliamentarian, kill his Brother

(AFP reports)

Iraqi security forces on Saturday raided the home of a Sunni MP who backs anti-government protesters, arresting him and sparking clashes that killed his brother and five guards, police said. The raid threatens to inflame widespread discontent among…
Iraq forces arrest Sunni MP, kill brother and guards (via AFP)

Iraqi security forces on Saturday raided the home of a Sunni MP who backs anti-government protesters, arresting him and sparking clashes that killed his brother and five guards, police said. The raid threatens to inflame widespread discontent among…

——

Reuters reports on al-Alwani’s arrest and the protests and deaths that ensued:

4 Responses

  1. How much of the resurgence of violence in Iraq is due to Mr. Maliki’s crackdown on the Sunni minority? It makes no sense to tick off Sunnis who cooperated with the US to eliminate AQ elements hiding within them (Sunni Awakening).

    Or are Sunnis perpetrating attacks in Iraq to avenge the deaths of their co-religionists in Syria?

    • Probably both, combined with the fact that ISIS is getting lots more weapons, money and recruits due to the Syria crisis. The second I does stand for Iraq and al-Qaeda never did stop its murderous anti-Shiite terrorist campaign.

  2. This is what comes of “nation-building.” When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, it was an authoritarian government with Sunnis in charge, but at least it was secular in nature and everyone knew their place. When the United States invaded, deposed Saddam, and began forcing Western-style elections on them, the majority Shiites naturally won power. Having upset the old order, we midwifed an Iraq that is now unstable with sectarian violence at every turn.

    This is precisely why it was wise for President Clinton to stay out of the Rwanda mess in 1994, when Hutus slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsis. Clinton apologized for not intervening, and many on Obama’s foreign policy team today (including Samantha Power and Susan Rice) condemned the United States at the time for not intervening. They would have sent the US on another fool’s errand. We did not have a dog in that fight. And we rarely, if ever, have an interest in any of the “humanitarian” interventions that Power, Rice and others of their ilk are constantly flogging. There is simply no US national interest that is advanced by getting bogged down in other people’s inability to cooperate. Nations are built, and democracies emerge only when the people themselves reach a certain level of “critical mass.” We cannot do it for them, and it is not our job to see that various groups treat each other like ladies and gentlemen.

    We should intervene militarily (and with great force if necessary) only when vital United States national interests and security are threatened.

Comments are closed.