Stability over Insanity in Iraq...Yeah, Right.
by Olivia Pierson
Before 2003, when Saddam Hussein tyrannized Iraq with his secret police, torture chambers and death squads, many, if not most in the West, claimed that he was still the best man for the job “because he kept stability in the region”.
In fact, he was the brutal dictator of a psychopathic regime left to dehumanize Iraqi citizens, systematically breaking their hearts and minds over a thirty year time-line. That is until the coalition forces led by America and Britain finally deposed him, resulting in his long-overdue execution. Iraq never was, and will not be in the near future, anything close to stable, unless your idea of stable is tormented and tyrannized.
In the wake of the burgeoning cruelty dished out by the new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, NZ Prime Minister John Key said that he wouldn’t want to put NZ troops into Iraq, “because this is a civil war between two groups, Sunni and Shi’ite”. He echoes the same sentiments as do his idols, David Cameron and Barack Obama.
The thing that John Key & the boys don’t get is that ISIS is a Sunni-led terrorist corporation, with 2 billion dollars at its disposal thanks to its backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and its looting of Iraqi banks. They are Sunni Muslims hell-bent on becoming a full-blown medieval Islamic Caliphate, who are butchering members of all other sects, including other Sunni Muslims. This is not a civil war between two Muslim enclaves; this is an attempt by jihadists to wipe out any form of Islam that doesn’t impose Sharia Law, along with all Jews and Christians worldwide.
ISIS seeks to remake the world in its own pathological image. Through clever branding, technological savvy, a single-minded purpose, overwhelming violence and the primal call for all true Muslims around the world to join their crusade of death, their numbers are swelling. They have already taken the North East of Syria and a third of Iraq, including the Mosul dam, which itself can be used as a terror-tool to drown hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqis, if they so choose. They have set up terror-training camps where they are teaching young Muslims who have responded to their call, from all parts of the world including Europe, America and Australia, how to kill, rape, maim, crucify and behead civilians, including children. These radicals will return to their home countries to inflict their “holy cause” on western civilian life, otherwise known as infidels. Welcome to the harsh reality that Islam is a political ideology, not merely a religion – and there is no Reformation in sight!
John Key has brought New Zealand back into NATO as a partner, and is seeking a seat on the UN Security Council. Former Prime Minister Helen Clark is in the running to hold the top UN position currently occupied by Ban Ki-Moon. That places NZ in an important position regarding the efficacy of its voice on geopolitical issues. John Key has stated that he supports the US air-strikes over Northern Iraq in order to aid the brutalized Yazidis and Kurdish forces on the frontline against ISIS. But this is not enough. As the Islamic State swells its ranks, they will be able to overwhelm resistance.
This is the moment jihadists have been anticipating for many years, if not decades. It is estimated that there are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, seven percent of whom are conservatively deemed “radical”; that’s 112 million. If only one percent of said radicals respond to the call of the new Caliphate, that is a fighting force of 1.12 million deadly terrorists.
With full knowledge of the idea being utterly unappealing, I submit that troops on the ground are inevitable – the alternative is the spreading of pure hell. Considering that all modern countries will be affected by the despicable tactics of the new Islamic State, it would be prudent, though not attractive, to step forward firmly on the offensive, in concert, to send a clear message to Islam around the world that their jihadist’s agenda will be vanquished.
John Key and Helen Clark ought to stay open to all options, no matter how unedifying, instead of making statements about not supporting intervention in the form of ground troops. The well-signposted withdrawal of American troops from Iraq helped bring about this alarmingly swift catastrophe. After an eleven year campaign and a very wobbly government, such an act was a betrayal of the Iraqi people, barely able to stand after the spirit-crushing abuses of Saddam. And now this.