John Kerry in Iraq to Push Prime Minister to Get His Act Together, ISIS Still Making Gains

Nouri al-Maliki hasn't formed a government since winning a third term in April.


As promised in a statement on Iraq delivered by President Obama last week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Baghdad today to urge Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form a government that could "meet the needs and speak to the demands of all of their people." Al-Maliki, who has been prime minister since 2006 and whose party won the most recent parliamentary elections in April, has yet to successfully form a third-term government.

In 2010, al-Maliki's party, the State of Law Coalition, finished second. A deal with Ayal Allawi, the leader of the first place finishers, al-Iraqiyya, saw al-Maliki return as prime minister. In 2011, in the wake of Arab Spring protests in the region, al-Maliki promised not to run for a third term. "Eight years is enough for him, in order to not convert to a dictatorship," his media advisor told the Associated Press. "This is the principle and the concept of democracy." The advisor also claimed al-Maliki would support a constitutional amendment to prevent any future prime ministers from serving more than two terms. Instead, a law to term limit prime ministers was passed by al-Maliki's opponents and ultimately rejected by the Iraqi Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Al-Maliki was right in 2011 to draw from the Arab Spring unrest (including protests in Iraq itself) the conclusion that he ought to relinquish power after his second term and allow for a successor to emerge from a democratic election. By 2013, Western media was asking whether massive anti-government protests held by Sunnis signaled the beginning of an Arab Spring in Iraq.

Today, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a jihadist group composed of several pre-existing Sunni extremist groups, claims a large swath of territory in both Iraq and Syria as the home of its self-proclaimed state, and it is making almost daily gains. ISIS took root in the region after the outbreak of Syria's civil war, a war that came in the wake of Syria's own Arab Spring, which targeted longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad.

This weekend, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told NBC's Meet the Press that he didn't blame the situation in Iraq on President Obama but that he did "blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East." Indeed, it is unlikely ISIS would be able to develop and operate the way it has in the region absent the chaos created by the Iraq War—the Islamic State in Iraq, one of ISIS' major predecessor organizations, was formed in 2006 in the midst of the Iraq War. Jihadists from that conflict were able to use their gained experience to escalate anti-government protests in Syria into a full-blown sectarian civil war. The subsequent unrest in Syria created the space for ISIS to become a militant group able to lay claim on much of the frontier on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border.

Al-Maliki is to blame as well, despite appearing to understand that if he held on to power for too long, his country might face the kind of Arab Spring sentiments that led to civil wars in Libya and Syria and the deposition of a longtime dictator in Egypt. Nevertheless, he held on to power, and more. His government has been accused of a litany of human rights abuses, largely targeting the Sunni population, and those abuses have certainly provided the fodder for ISIS to build support among a portion of the population living in places now effectively under ISIS control.

NEXT: Just What Indebted Students Needed: Hideously Expensive Luxury Dorms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s see now. That great statesman and genius Rand Paul does not blame the mess in Iraq on Obama, but on “the chaos that is in the Middle East.” Brilliant! How could Obama be responsible for it anyway? Is Obama a magician that waves a wand and causes wars in Iraq and elsewhere?

    So Rand Paul blames it on the “chaos that is in the Middle East.” Is he talking about Mr. Chaos who goes around that area of the world creating bad situations? Is this the same Mr. Chaos who flies around the globe and causes trouble and problems not just in The Middle East, but everywhere?

    Rand Paul must think that if people don’t create bad situations that he can blame it on a word out of the dictionary. Brilliant! And this man is possibly going to run for President of The United States. This is scary. If he wins and things don’t go well here or overseas, he can blame it on that evil abstraction Mr. Chaos.

  2. We’ve been intervening in the ME for so long, no one is willing, or able, to go back far enough in their analysis to get to a true source of the “Chaos” and ISIS, and unrest and get a long-term, causal, meta-picture of the situation. Today’s situation is a function of prior “intervention”.

    One major selling point for non-internvention is that it is much easier to figure out your best interest as a nation, and to avoid being blamed for the problem, when your nation was not involved in the muddied creation of the problem.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.