Birds of a Feather

A recent New York Times article titled "Iran Secretly Sending Drones and Supplies Into Iraq, U.S. Officials Say" by Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt outlines Iranian aid being provided to the Iraqi government in their fight against the Sunni Militants occupying the north western regions of Iraq. Iran has sent a few dozen paramilitary officers to advise Iraqi military commanders as well as to help mobilize over 2000 Shiite troops located in southern Iraq. Iranian transport planes have been making multiple fights a day to Baghdad each loaded with at least 70 tons of military arms and supplies per trip. The Iranian military has even stationed a small fleet of surveillance drones at Rasheed Air Base in Baghdad. Although large numbers of Iranian troops have not yet been sent into Iraq, upwards of 10 division of Iranian troops and paramilitary commandos have be amassed along the Iran-Iraq border. While Iran may suggest these troop are positioned for the security of Iran, it is an obvious contingency force should Baghdad become imperiled. 

The reasons for Iran supporting the Iraqi government are relatively clear, Iran is the seat of power of the Shiite world; to allow the Shiite controlled Iraqi government to fall is in contrary to Iran's interests. More importantly to Shiites in general however is the security of their holy shrines located mostly in southern Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, had made their intention clear to desecrate if not entirely decimate these holy sites to strike a blow to all of the Shiite population across the Middle East. While the Iraqi military claims to have these sites under heavy guard on high alert, it is apparent that the Iranians do not have the utmost faith in the Iraqi military's capabilities based on their inability to push back the tide of insurgency thus far. Should the need arise for armed intervention in either Baghdad or at any of these holy shrines, the Iranian military will likely move in to secure them with or perhaps even without the invitation of the government in Baghdad.

Another significant reason for Iran to support the Iraqi government is the national security of Iran itself. Should Baghdad fall under the control of the Sunni sect, it would put Iran in a dangerous position. Only a few decades ago Iran and Iraq fought a long bloody war fueled by this very sectarian rift. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 in attempts to exploit chaos caused by the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. Iranian forces repelled the Iraqi invasion within two years and then spent the next six years on the offensive, fighting with classical trench warfare within Iraq. With neither side emerging as a victor, the war ended on a fragile ceasefire brokered by the United Nations in 1988. For Iran to allow Iraq to once again become a Sunni controlled state it would set the stage for another bloody war between the two nations which would surely begin over control of the Shiite holy shrines presently located within Iraq. Iran would likely rather forcefully annex the southern Shiite dominated regions of Iraq then allow these holy sites to be defiled by Sunni militants.

Futile Efforts

A Recent New York Times article "Redrawn Lines Seen as No Cure in Iraq Conflict" by Robert F. Worth discusses the likely unsustainable outcome of sectarian divisions within Iraq and Syria. As The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, continues to gear up for more fighting with the Shite forces in Iraq there are growing tensions within each sect that threaten to erupt into bloodshed behind the battlefronts. There have already been claims of gun battles between different factions among the militants holding onto to control on the besieged city of Mosul. Within the Shiite forces there are also tensions between factions; the Mahdi Army commander has refused to fight under the banner of the Iraqi army which is a rift that has caused bloodshed in the past. The one faction pleased to see the infighting is the Kurds.

The violent insurgency of The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has weakened Baghdad's control on the country to an extent that may finally allow the formal succession of Iraqi Kurdistan. The main obstacle preventing a sovereign Kurdistan in the past had be the Shiite control of Kirkuk, an oil rich city in northern Iraq. With Baghdad's decreased influence in northern Iraq, Kurdish forces have seized control of Kirkuk with little resistance. The Kurdish president has since stated that there will be no withdraw of Kurdish forces from the Kirkuk, that they have no intention of relinquishing control of the city back to the Iraqi government. In the opinion of the Kurds, Kurdistan's succession has been formalized de facto.

While even the United States government seems all too complacent with the current separation of Iraq, analysts suggest it will not solve the social and political issues in the region. Many analysts of Iraq and Syria have stated that the regions could be divided multiple times, the sectarian power struggles would still commence. The issue lies with how power is utilized within these regions. Given the opportunity the powers that be within the regions, regardless of religious or political affiliation, will act to instill control of the region for their sect while persecuting the rival groups. This cycle had repeated in the Middle East for centuries, there is no signs it will stop with the de-evolution of a few national borders back to the regional provinces of old. ISIS has denounced the border between Syria and Iraq as colonialist imperial partitions that they do not recognize. While not entirely far from the truth, it seems these borders are only in name sake now as a line in the sand. Draw the lines on the map where you will, these sect will continue to fight over them regardless of their geographic position.

Sectarian Division

A recent New York Times article "Shiite Leader in Iraq Urges Quick Decision on New Government" by C. J. Chivers chronicles the recent developments in the violent insurgency in Iraq. With Iraq's newly elected parliament set to begin tenure on Monday, Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai, Iraq's highest ranked Shiite cleric has issued a statement for the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani calling for Iraqis to select a new prime minister before the new parliament sits earlier next week. While also calling for selections of a new parliamentary speaker and a new president, The Grand Ayatollah wants Iraqis to remain united not allowing sectarian division of the nation. While the powerful Ayatollah's words are noble in cause they may be falling on deaf ears. With Shiite military units securing their holy shrines in the southern regions of the country and hardening the battlefront against the Sunni militant groups, sectarian borders are being drawn again. And, while the Shiite and Sunni forces face off over the Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf; Kurds in the north have secured the city of Kirkuk with no intention of relinquishing it. 

The Kurdish people are the sect in Iraq that seems to have been forgotten during the recent skirmishes between Sunni and Shiite Forces. However, the Kurds have not forgotten the persecutions over history at the hands of the two more powerful sects that are now at each other's throats. While Shiites and Sunni fight with each other over the majority of the Iraqi territory, the Kurds are retaking ground of their own which they feel has always been theirs. The territories the Kurds are seizing are areas that Saddam Hussein pushed them out of by force via troops and chemical gas attacks in the late 1980s. The Kurdish people were forced to relocate to the mountainous regions farther north or into other countries such as Syria adding to sectarian tensions there. Now, while the Iraqi government is in no position to oppose them, the Kurds seeks to reclaim the lands the feel were stolen.  

Iraq is becoming more divided with each region taken by The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, along with other similarly aligned Sunni militant groups. There is a clear voice within each sect that wants to divide the nation up into segregated regions for each group. However, it does not take a doctorate in political science to see that this will only act to escalate the sectarian violence. To add an element of nationalism to the sectarian differences already causing bloodshed would be a supreme folly on the part of the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, the real question remains; does the Iraqi government still have enough influence over the nation to prevent such a course of action. Should this sectarian division boil over into a full-fledged civil war in Iraq, the decision may no longer be in the hands of the government in Baghdad.

News With a Side of Bias

In chapter twelve of "Mass Media and American Politics" by Doris A. Graber and Johanna Dunaway there is an in depth examination of biases in news media. The authors put forth that there are three main types of bias present in news media today. These three types of bias are partisan bias, informational bias, and affective bias. While partisan bias is the form of media bias that most Americans think of when discussing this subject, research shows that affective bias and informational bias have a greater negative effect on the public and the democratic process. Most audiences can perceive partisan bias in the news; they even expect it to a certain extent making it far less effective in terms of altering the public opinion.

Informational bias is mainly a byproduct of the news media's desire to present material that they know will boost rating rather than material that will better serve the public interest. When a news organization chooses to publish muckraking political news rather than a more informative variety of political news, this is an example of informational bias. While it seems counterintuitive that the news media would actively choose to be informational bias, to operate on this framework make news easy and cheap to present and also attracts larger audiences. It becomes in the best interest of the news organization to be informational biased. Until the public shows the news media that this framework is unacceptable, they will continue to operate this way. Unfortunately, it is hardwired into the human condition that negative information is more appealing than positive information; it is a winning formula that the news media will continue to embrace.

Affective bias is perhaps more damaging to the democratic process than either of the other two major types of bias. Affective bias in represented in the content presented as well as the emotional tone in which it is presented in political news today. Affective bias can included incivility, negativity, or cynicism on the part of the presenting media. The damaging aspect of affective bias on the democratic process is it causes the public to harbor disdain for politicians and leaders. Left unchecked affective bias can add to distrust in government and the political process in general leading to low political engagement by the public. Our political leaders do not need any help to add to the public disdain, they do the job well enough on their own.

A Cycle Renewed

In a recent New York Times Article "As Sunnis Die In Iraq, A Cycle Is Restarting" By Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland there is an account of the most recent skirmishes and killings in the violent turmoil in Iraq. With militant group known as The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS pressing further south through Iraq sectarian violence in Iraq is ramping up again. ISIS along with other Sunni militant groups of similar alignment laid siege to Baquba, a city only 44 mile from Baghdad. The militants took control of portions of the city before being repelled by Shiite militia after a three hour gun battle. The fact that the militants are willing to operate with such proximity to the capital city of Baghdad does not bode well for the Shiite government attempting to regain control of the country.

The people killed during the skirmish where not the only victims of the violence in Baquba however. During the battle militant forces attacked a local police station, the police officers inside responded by executing the 44 Sunni prisoners being held within the police station. The Sunni prisoners we reportedly being held for interrogation on suspicion of terrorism. The liberation of these men may have been the motive to attack the police station if not the city as well. The Shiite militia claims the Sunni Prisoners were mainly killed by grenades and mortar fire by the militant fighters. However, a source within the morgue says that most of the prisoners were killed by gunfire at close range. This paints a dark picture of bloody reprisal for the militant attacks, or perhaps the Shiite police officers were not interested in allowing the prisoners the opportunity of joining ranks with the militants.

Beyond the bloody skirmishes, people are dying in other parts of the country. 4 unidentified bodies were found in a Baghdad community; they had been tortured and shot repeatedly. It is suspected they were Sunni men killed in retaliation of a suicide bombing that killed 14 in a Shiite neighborhood the day before. As the violence in Iraq continues over control of the nation, there will certainly be more sectarian violence located away from the battlefield. Hopefully this wave of violence will not reach the staggering proportions of 2006 and 2007 when as many as 80 bodies a day were found in Baghdad communities. Unfortunately, hope is a luxury that Iraqis can ill afford in the current volatile climate.

Consolidation from the Archives

A New York Times article titled "Ideas & Trends; New Tactics in Ted Turner's Bid For CBS" By Richard Levine and Walter Goodman which was published on April 7, 1985 reports on Ted Turner's attempt to acquire CBS in 1985. Though Mr. Turner failed to add CBS to his portfolio of broadcasting networks, he went on to buy or establish a number of other television networks to form a giant entertainment firm that is a still a controlling influence on network television today. This news article from the New York Times archives shows that consolidation of media organization is not a new practice. Consolidation has been a driving force shaping the landscape of media in America of a long time, well before this specific acquisition attempt.

Mr. Turner at the time had taken numerous steps in his attempt for acquire CBS. He had reported met with a handful of New York investment firms in attempts to secure financing including Shearson Lehman Brothers. Shearson Lehman Brothers reportedly turned him down at first but then reversed their position possibly based in a decision by their parent company American Express to provided financing themselves. Mr. Turner also approached major CBS shareholders with propositions to get on board with the takeout in attempts to secure a controlling interest. In an attempt to control its own fate, CBS started talks with General Electric about a possible merger between the two firms.

This is just one event in a long history of media consolidation. Just like fish in the sea, small media firms tend to get gobbled up by larger ones. As the interests of the media are forcefully aligned with the interests of their parent companies, the views of the media organization become biased, slanted. As the current landscape of who owns who and where is the funding coming from changes, so does the reliability of the news media. If news organizations must be concerned with the agenda of their parent company they may lose sight of their purpose, the unbiased reporting of the news.

Balancing on the Edge, Editorial

A recent New York Times Editorial titled "A Balancing Act on Iraq" supports President Obama's stance on the militant insurgency sweeping across Iraq. The main group pressing across Iraq from the north calls themselves The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS. These Islamic militants are also fighting a war in Syria over control of regions within that state. The group is mainly of Sunni background which desires to overthrow the Shiite controlled Iraqi government. These two groups have been fighting for centuries; this is just the most recent skirmish. However, to allow Iraq to fall deeper into sectarian violence would be a serious folly on the part of the American government.

This editorial speaks to the fact that Mr. Obama is taking the correct approach to this situation. Engaging the region's states to take an active role in quelling the violent upheaval of the government controlling Iraq is the best course of action. Iran, which is also controlled by a mainly Shiite government, has a significant interest in maintaining Shiite control in Iraq regardless of how much Iran wants to downplay this fact. Diplomats from both Iran and the United States meet in Vienna this week to discuss possible cooperative actions. Should Iraq fall into Sunni control, it would represent a significant threat to the security of Iran. Hopefully the Obama administration does not lose sight of this fact when discussing what cooperative actions will be considered and what Iran will do to secure U. S. involvement. An illustration of the parallelism between supporting Iraq's Shiite government and securing Iran's national security is paramount during these discussions to ensure Iran is not bargained into cooperation with reprieve from economic sanctions or other bargaining chips.

Is it really not in the United States' interest to have a Sunni state with such proximity to Iran? The fighting that would ensue would surely only weaken Iran as well as Iraq. However, as much as an even more weakened Iran might be appealing to the U. S. and more so Israel, to destabilize the region more would be even more perilous to Israel and by association the United States. Mr. Obama has called on the Iraqi government to form a diverse representative government of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds as a condition of United States military action in the region. More likely than U. S. troops on the ground will be tactical drone attacks on the insurgent militants to support Iraqi armed force in retaking northern regions of the country which are under the control of ISIS. Unfortunately, there is a certain aspect of posturing to be considered in the United States' reaction to ISIS taking control of parts of Iraq. This situation cannot be allowed to show America as weak on the international stage. After the long military campaign in Iraq, for a militant insurgency to sweep control of the nation in a short period of time and hold it would not speak to the might of the American military and would only illustrate the massive mess we've made of the region.