As I was reading the newspaper today I was so happy and excited to see a lovely article about the recent World Economic Forum held in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt (you know I’m being sarcastic right?). The leaders who attended the summit ranted about many random issues which as usual included Iraq and Palestine. A suggestion was brough up in the meeting.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) should send troops under its leadership to help stabalize Iraq since “nobody” wants the US military there.
It’s a really positive thing seeing such constructive suggestions being brought up by the OIC… No seriously I’m not being sarcastic, it really is. However I have a serious problem with this whole suggestion thingy. You see, the same suggestion was brought up by the OIC three years ago and until now nothing has happened. A few days ago and three years later the suggestion was merely made again. A suggestion is only a suggestion until it is acted upon.
Aaaah come on… I mean hey, at least someone put the effort to make some sort of usefull suggestion right? Guess what though… that’s not the point I want to make on this post. My point is a different one and is not about “walking the talk”.
Can someone please tell me why does the OIC have time to make suggestions about sending Muslim troops under their leadership to Iraq but no time whatsoever to even mention Darfur? Why not suggest sending troops under their leadership to Darfur? WHY?!
That’s my point!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
“The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) should send troops under its leadership to help stabalize Iraq since “nobody” wants the US military there.”
There seems to be this weird perception of Iraq as a place where Iraqis fight Americans.
The media constantly report sightings of “insurgents”, but whenthey mention anything concrete it usually appears to be an attack by terrorists targeting a mosque or Iraqi civilians, rarely American or British troops.
The Iraqi government and the president of Iraq have often said that they want the coalition troops to remain.
So where does the perception come from?
And, in reality, how would Arab troops, change anything? Would more troops from Sunni dictatorships make the Shi’ites feel safer? Would more troops from Arab nationalist states make the Kurds feel better? Would Iran just watch the Sunnis getting stronger without increasing their support for Shi’ite extremists?
The conflict in Iraq appears to be one between Shia and Sunni Muslims. At least the Americans are neutral in that particular conflict. Most Arab states are definitely not.
But you are right. Sending them to Darfur would be smart. But the point of the proposal was not to help, the point was to pretend that the Arab dictatorships could handle Iraq better than the US.
“At least the Americans are neutral in that particular conflict. Most Arab states are definitely not.”
You make a good observation there. I have to admit that I didn’t see it that way.
With your observations on the potential problems of a UN mission in Darfur, I agree that OIC may be a more appropriate alternative for a peace keeping force. At least Al-Queda can’t argue that such a force is composed of infidels. Right? Right??
I mean despite my personal disbelief of the fighting ability of a peacekeeping force such as the UN, I believe that we really need some sort of military force in Darfur, at least to provide protection for some sort of aid force like the Red Cross or Red Crescent.
This situation need to be resolved politically, but it seems that people need help NOW.
“But the point of the proposal was not to help, the point was to pretend that the Arab dictatorships could handle Iraq better than the US.”
I agree with you andrew. On top religious differences, culture conflicts, want for money and power,oil, ’saving face’, add ‘pride’ to the bowl of soup and you’ll get the predicament Arab and American authorities are facing. Its not a matter of who can resolve the situation in Iraq better its a matter of actual resolution!
on one hand; the arab government can save their asses by making that statement because they have no reign of power over the situation in iraq. but on the other hand, what are they doing about it?
and as for darfur; i agree sending troops over would be a good move. but i worry about the organization of these troops. and plus; suggestions can be made left and right but once again..they are just mere suggestions. politics work in a pattern. OIC suggest troops go to darfur, but does dat necessarily mean troops will arive in Sudan?
.pinktoes.
“OIC suggest troops go to darfur, but does dat necessarily mean troops will arive in Sudan?”
No pinktoes, defintely not necessarily but at least it will be a step forward when they remember something called Darfur exists.
Leave a Comment