Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[OUTLAW 09]

Do they desire control of all of Iraq? Seems like the best option for them is to sustain pressure on Bagdad to force a deal to divide Iraq into three states. They can then consolidate their gains. If they keep pushing they'll reach their culminating point.

Bill --they have reached that point---actually the ISF has been unable to retake Tikrit and has begun to build a defensive line along the Sunni/Shia regional divide lines and the Kurds are voicing even stronger the words "independent state" and the Turks are "non publicly" stating the same thing.

One really needs to step back and seriously relook the IS/Sunni coalition strategy---it has been massively well implemented vs the total lack of a US strategy.

[JMA]

... that certain parties that speak of splitting Iraq, are not aware of the consequences.

Just what would these consequences be that are worse than the current situation as it develops?

[OUTLAW 09]

Just what would these consequences be that are worse than the current situation as it develops?

JMA---you are right the consequences compared to now might seem to be minor in nature but it opens literally Pandora's box for all of Africa and still some areas in the ME and has a direct impact on the Ukrainian dispute.

If the world accepts the new borders then Putin's moves in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine are as well correct and no one can complain.

I am not against border changes in order to reflect a better understanding of what constitutes a country but there has got to be a method in place.

Meaning de facto yes now the regional ethnic borders of Iraq and Syria have been in fact redrawn---but not to a standard that eliminates futures disputes by the former country that is and or was impacted by the redraw---it opens up 50 years of turmoil into the future.

Not every country can pull off a split such as was done by the former Czechoslovakia by dividing ethnically into two new countries which by the way both are still economically struggling with.

That should be the model but no one suggests that for say Iraq and Syria.

As long as the Shia/Sunni thing is in play then nothing will in the end be settled.

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing---what is going on inside the Iraqi Army--appears that all border troops stationed on the KSA border as well as the Syrian border have been and or were ordered to pull completely back---the KSA spotted some 2500 parked somewhere in the desert and tried to contact them but nothing?

The KSA has moved 30,000 troops to the borders to plug the gap left by the Iraqi Army.

What the heck is going on---any idea?


http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-deploys-30-000-soldiers-border-iraq-070023046.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/10942680/Saudi-Arabia-sends-30000-troops-to-Iraq-border.html

[OUTLAW 09]

JMA--the de facto regional separation has occurred and the Kurds picked up on al Baghdadi's Caliphate statement which is all but a Sunni independence statement and now this today out of Erbil from the Kurds---and many assumed there was not linkage between the IS attacks and the former key member of the Islamic Army in Iraq Badash sitting in Erbil? By the way a large amount of the KSA 500M USD to help Sunni refugees in the Kurdish region will be to Erbil.

In Iraq everything plays between the lines and is never what it seems to be.

Erbil (IraqiNews.com) The President of Kurdistan Region, Masoud Barzani, arrived at the parliament building of Kurdistan Region to discuss conducting referendum for announcing independence of Kurdistan Region.

The reporter of Iraqi News (IraqiNews.com) stated “Barzani arrived at the parliament building to discuss setting a time limit to conduct referendum for announcing separation of Kurdistan Region from Iraq.”

Then this came via the Arab League---who is the last time I checked Arabic not Kurdish League---so now they are fearing the same regional breakups are actually ongoing.

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/arab-league-rejects-kurdistan-independence/

Seems like the ME has learned a thing or two about referendum's from the Crimea and eastern Ukraine---once done it is hard to reverse.

So do the Kurds and Sunni thank Putin?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Do they desire control of all of Iraq? Seems like the best option for them is to sustain pressure on Bagdad to force a deal to divide Iraq into three states. They can then consolidate their gains. If they keep pushing they'll reach their culminating point.

I agree. If they work to simply hold what they have, I think they can win. If they choose to hold what they have and fight a defensive campaign.

What I think they might do is the GEN Lee run to the capital with an ultimatum for Maliki to agree to the partition. That could lead to a fight they are not prepared for, a Gettysburg of sorts, where they expend a lot of resources in an unnecessary fight.

[Bob's World]

Well, as a casual observer, a few things seem logical/likely to me:

1. The Obama administration seems to have wisely determined that the artificial, temporary stability achieved in Iraq under the original plan was neither durable, nor anything we could hope to artificially sustain at reasonable costs. Besides, to what benefit?

2. Concern about the de facto shift in the Shia-Sunni line of competition; moving it from the Iraq-Iran border to the borders of Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; it made sense to back the Saudi scheme of pushing that line back up into Iraq.

3. By providing aid to any Sunni rebel group in Syria we essentially made that aid available to every Sunni rebel group in Syria and Iraq. I imagine the leadership in KSA and DC rationalize that providing aid that helps groups like AQ and ISIS today is ok while we share common interests and objectives - and that we will be able to deal with whatever consequences come from that later once those interests and objectives once more naturally diverge. I imagine that the hope is that once the dust settles, those that are too radical will be pushed aside by more moderate Sunnis who will ultimately form governments of new states that emerge. Could happen.

4. Lastly, while there are risks to this approach, it is way more feasible, acceptable, suitable and complete than any idea of simply roaring back into Iraq with a large American presence and forcing the old, infeasible, unacceptable, unsuitable, incomplete solution we tried before to finally work.

The bottom line is that one cannot attain any sort of natural stability within any system of governance until one can get to some reasonable degree of trust between the parties within that system. How does one get to trust in modern Iraq or Syria within the confines of those clumsy colonial borders? I don't think one can. A strong leader like Saddam could force an artificial stability (like exists within prisons...), but that is not anything we can create or facilitate. And frankly, even the Saddams, Titos, Stalins, Mubaraks, etc of the modern era find a much more difficult challenge that their preceding role models in the current strategic environment where people are so connected and informed.

I know this will be messy, but I for one, am optimistic that it might actually produce a reasonably durable result that is not overly branded with US ownership.

[Ray]

I was listening to a programme on Indian TV on Indian hostages in ISIS area.

An Arab journalist mentioned the Caliphate Project.

I googled and came up with this:


The Islamic State, the “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”

While the US State Department is accusing several countries of “harboring terrorists”, America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) –which operates in both Syria and Iraq– is covertly supported and financed by the US and its allies including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Moreover, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s Sunni caliphate project coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan, among others.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-caliphate-project-and-the-global-war-on-terrorism/5389530

What is the credibility of this?

US Senator McCain meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi today. Google indicates links that indicates that McCain has contacts with the AQ and Syrian rebels. This is the first time I heard of this and the Caliphate Project.

One wonders why McCain came to India.

Lots of speculation is rife out here.

Can anyone throw some light and clear the air?

[JWing]

Here's my latest article " Insurgent Offensive Wreaks Havoc Across Central Iraq In June 2014" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/insurgent-offensive-wreaks-havoc-across.html). Comprehensive province by province breakdown of violence in Iraq in June.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am beginning to believe that it is in the long term interests of the U.S. to NOT actively fight ISIL or the creation of the “Caliphate” but, instead, to work through KSA to ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control of the government of the Caliphate once things settle down.

It weakens Syria. It will weaken ISIL once the internal fights for actual control over the Caliphate begin (it could even destroy it). It weakens Iran’s “control” over the territory that is currently Iraq. It allows for the creation of a Kurdish state – one which I personally believe we can align with fairly easily. It creates states that will have populations who are more likely to trust each other. It corrects colonial era mistakes. Plus all those points COL Jones makes ... and if ISIL ends up in contrl of the Caliphate they are then a much easier target for a Saudi backed insurgency as well as a traditional military invasion.

Of course, as Outlaw notes, it can open the door to the idea that there is now a new International Norm, one that allow for any group to declare their independence and draw new borders, but that will probably happen anyway. We now have an opportunity to create mechanisms in the UN to allow this to happen in an orderly fashion … so … of course, that will never happen.

[JWing]

Outlaw

Still nothing definitive about how many fighters IS has or the wider insurgency in Iraq. One number that's been thrown around is that IS has 10,000 fighters in both Syria and Iraq, another is 3,000-5,000 fighters just in Iraq. Who knows what the real figure is. Plus no one has anything on other insurgent groups just where they operate.

[davidbfpo]

Cited in part:
:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isl...rorism/5389530 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-caliphate-project-and-the-global-war-on-terrorism/5389530)

What is the credibility of this? Can anyone throw some light and clear the air?

The cited source is to say the least odd. I recently came across an article regarding Africa and it was simply wrong, if not stupid. So I would disregard it.

[davidbfpo]

Bob's World referred in part to:
I imagine that the hope is that once the dust settles, those that are too radical will be pushed aside by more moderate Sunnis who will ultimately form governments of new states that emerge. Could happen.

TheCurmudgeon referred to:
...to work through KSA to ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control of the government of the Caliphate once things settle down.

The concept of moderation in Islam comes from wishful thinking within Western governments, I have yet to meet a Muslim who knows what a 'moderate' Muslim is. Indeed in the UK being called a 'moderate' Muslim can reduce your credibility.

Then there is the suggestion that the policy of the KSA will 'ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control'. For a very long time the KSA, both officially and privately, has sponsored one particular school of thought within Islam which is not known for making compromises. Let alone the funding of fundamental groups, which use violence to gain control, as we have seen in Syria.

[JMA]

Seems like the ME has learned a thing or two about referendum's from the Crimea and eastern Ukraine---once done it is hard to reverse.

No, no.

It is only because the US and the EU rolled over and spread their legs over Crimea. The referendum is meaningless but the annexation may be hard to reverse without a lot of pain (mainly on the side of the US and the EU).

The Syrian election was a farce yet it passed and continues to be quoted and referred to.

The joke is on the West...

[Maeda Toshiie]

On the topic of KSA. As far as I am aware, the ruling class are not true believers of Wahhabism; instead they use it as a means to placate the clergy and the masses (ie giving them more religion). While actual funding of jihadist groups do not necessarily originate from the al Sauds, they are complicit. I find a parallel to be drawn with respect to Pakistan's use of the Taliban in meddling the affairs of Afghanistan. The Taliban has shown itself to be capable of defying their "masters". I'm waiting to see the same happen in KSA.



@JMA

Reversing Crimea requires a lot of pain on the EU side, not the US. Boots on the ground was and is out of question, since it was clear that Russian troops was on the ground. The Ukrainian Army can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone Russian contract troops. The only possible leverage was economic, by implementing the entire spectrum of sanctions against the Russians. The Russians will invariably retaliate by turning off the gas supply to the EU, which is the great pain that EU will not endure.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bob's World referred in part to:

TheCurmudgeon referred to:

The concept of moderation in Islam comes from wishful thinking within Western governments, I have yet to meet a Muslim who knows what a 'moderate' Muslim is. Indeed in the UK being called a 'moderate' Muslim can reduce your credibility.

Then there is the suggestion that the policy of the KSA will 'ensure that a more moderate element ends up in control'. For a very long time the KSA, both officially and privately, has sponsored one particular school of thought within Islam which is not known for making compromises. Let alone the funding of fundamental groups, which use violence to gain control, as we have seen in Syria.

I guess I would define moderate as "a Muslim who does not feel the need to kill Westerners on sight.":wry:

I have met Muslims in both Iraq and Afghanistan who I would considerate moderate. They do not feel that Shiria law was unbending or that peaceful relations with others, even others who were not "people of the book" could be advantagous for both parties. They were pragmatists. So I believe they do exist.

We have managed to maintain relationships with KSA for quite some time, so I am fairly certain that such a relationship is possible. I can't say what would happen if the house of Saud were to fall, but I would like to think that it would spell the end of having a "moderate" government in the ME.

[OUTLAW 09]

The move Malaki is making towards the moderate Sunni will not be working as it is far to late and the Sunni will see the move as an attempt to retain his power.


BAGHDAD: Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki offered a general amnesty Wednesday in a rare conciliatory move to undercut support for militants whose offensive has overrun swathes of territory and threatens to tear Iraq apart.
The offer comes after a farcical opening to the new Parliament, despite international leaders urging Iraq’s fractious politicians to unite to help combat insurgents, as the military struggles to seize the initiative on the ground.
International leaders have warned Iraq’s politicians there was no time to waste, while the head of a powerful jihadi group that led the militant advance urged skilled professionals to flock to help its newly proclaimed pan-Islamic state.
Al-Maliki’s surprise move, made in his weekly televised address, appeared to be a bid to split the broad alliance of jihadis, loyalists of executed dictator Saddam Hussein and anti-government tribes that has captured large chunks of five provinces, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
“I announce the provision of amnesty for all tribes and all people who were involved in actions against the state” but who now “return to their senses,” excluding those involved in killings, Al-Maliki said.
It was not immediately clear how many people the amnesty could affect, but analysts have said some form of political reconciliation will be necessary to convince Sunni Arabs angry with the Shiite-led government to turn against their co-religionists and jihadis.
The vast majority of Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority do not actively support the Islamic State group spearheading the offensive, but analysts say anger over perceived mistreatment by the authorities means they are less likely to cooperate with the security forces.
Meanwhile, a BBC report based on strong evidence said that Iran has supplied Iraq with attack jets.
Russia supplied an initial delivery of the aircraft just a few days ago.
But analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said that a further delivery, on 1 July, originated from Iran.

[OUTLAW 09]

If one reads this article from WaPo today DoD is setting the stage to send US combat troops back into Iraq although the 750 already there have been defined as "advisors" another VN buzz word for combat troops so the WH/Obama has already violated the statement "no boots on the ground".

Iraqi security forces are probably incapable of retaking large swaths of territory seized by Sunni insurgents in recent weeks without outside help, the Pentagon’s top leaders said Thursday as they sketched a bleak assessment of turmoil in the country.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference that U.S. commanders are still considering what potential military courses of action they will recommend to the White House and that it remains unclear whether U.S. troops will take a more active role in the conflict. But they said any further U.S. involvement would hinge on Iraq’s ability to overcome deep-seated political and sectarian fissures and form a national-unity government.

Dempsey said the Iraqi army had “stiffened” its resistance to a fast-moving insurgency led by the Sunni fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which has renamed itself Islamic State and declared a caliphate on captured territory. He said government forces were “capable of defending Baghdad” but added that they would be challenged to go on the offensive without external support.

Dempsey said the U.S. government was contemplating the possibility of airstrikes, as well as providing help beyond what is being provided by about 750 U.S. military advisers and other troops that have deployed to Iraq in recent weeks “What will we be willing to contribute to that cause?” he said. “That’s not a question that we’re prepared to answer just yet.”

The answer, he added, would depend on political developments in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, has alienated Sunnis, Kurds and other groups, and it is unclear whether he can muster the votes in parliament to win a third term. If Iraq is unable to form a new government that can draw support from all factions, “then the future’s pretty bleak,” Dempsey said.

Hagel and Dempsey sidestepped questions about whether the Obama administration might send more troops to Iraq, what they will do and how long they might stay there.

The defense secretary said, “President Obama has been very clear that American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.” But when asked how that could be the case if Obama orders airstrikes in Iraq — which probably would be guided by U.S. forces on the ground — Hagel said he was referring only to the U.S. advisers and assessment teams now in the country and acknowledged that their mission could change.

“We have one mission today, and that’s assessments,” Hagel said. “I don’t know what the assessments are going to come back and say or what they would recommend.”

On June 18, during testimony before Congress, Hagel and Dempsey downplayed the possibility of a U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq to weaken the terrorist organization. They questioned the strategic objectives of airstrikes and said Sunni insurgents had blended into the local population, raising the likelihood of civilian casualties.

On Thursday, Dempsey said intensified surveillance flights and the deployment of U.S. advisers and liaison officers had improved the Pentagon’s grasp of the battlefield. But he added that it was still difficult to sort out hard-core Islamic State fighters from disaffected Sunnis opposed to Maliki’s rule.

“We have a much better intelligence picture than we did two weeks ago, and it continues to get better,” Dempsey said. “The complexity, though, is the intermingling of [Sunni] groups. . . . And that’s going to be a tough challenge to separate the two........

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing---this article is really worth reading

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/03/world/middleeast/syria-iraq-isis-rogue-state-along-two-rivers.html?

It is probably one of the best studies of the IS implementation of their overall strategy and their movement from Syria into Iraq and towards Baghdad. And based on their actual fighting on the ground in Syria and Iraq this article is highly accurate in it's assumptions.

This strategy is not that of Zarqawi as alluded to recently ---it militay in nature and well thought though and it reflects al Duri at it's heart.

What is also interesting is the simple fact that it is infrastructure focused---both the AQI and the IAI had at the heart of their campaigns during the fighting from 2003 to 2010 the control or damaging of critical infrastructure which is often overlooked in many discussions from that period.

There is I think a far closer thread between the IS and al Duri than has been previously assumed.

Many have forgotten the older AQI/IS name---QJBR---AQ in the Land of the Two Rivers. I had often wondered why the IS ditched the original name of QJBR.

[OUTLAW 09]

Iraq is now fully split based on this article as I see Malaki never giving in to the Kurdish demands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/world/middleeast/kurdish-officials-doubtful-of-a-new-iraqi-government-still-seek-autonomy.html?

[Ray]

Cited in part:

The cited source is to say the least odd. I recently came across an article regarding Africa and it was simply wrong, if not stupid. So I would disregard it.

I would believe what you say.

But the events confuse me.

You all are close to the event since you are in the US, some in contact with your think tanks and the Administration and many who have been in Iraq and aware of the ground situation.

I do not have that advantage.

What befuddles me is that

1. this article on the Caliphate.

2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?

3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.

And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/06/isis-brags-about-links-to-us-senator-john-mccain/

That said, it is worrisome when there is reports that McCain has met AQ in Syria and while we are influenced by western media, we also have to have a more non partisan views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVZ6B5HvGCo

The world is really going crazy!

Honestly what is going on?

[Ray]

You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.

But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.

You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.

They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.

Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.

It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.

I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.

Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!

Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.

The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!

Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.

[OUTLAW 09]

A really good article worth the read on how we came to saddle ourselves with Malaki by the US official that pushed Malaki and how he tried to get the US to distance itself from him in 2010.

why he is writing this now inside of once a year since 2011 I cannot understand ---after thoughts are our worst enemy these days--we the US simply do not do hindsight well.

Really worth it to read it and then go back and do some open source research on WH media comments over the same period 2006 to 2010 on their support to Malaki.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

You all may think you understand the Muslim mindset and you maybe theoretical whizzes.

But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them.

You make the greatest mistake playing to Muslim sentiments of thinking you can divide the Shias and the Sunnis.

They will work to defeat everyone else by using the stupidity of others.

Just an example - they talk of secularism and religious equality when in the western and non Muslim world, while they ensure that non Muslims obey their religious law or be killed or allow a religious genocide by throwing out others.

It is time to smell the coffee and quit all this silly meaningless Political Correctness that the West wears as a badge of courage and wants non Muslim countries to conform, when the Muslims couldn't care less in their lands.

I think the US has a very narrow short term view of this world.

Just see what is happening to Britain. They are emigrating to Canada and Australia under the influx. And they were the one who were the greatest white supremacists! Rudyard Kipling and others are the living monuments of such racial supremacy!

Now they have to pander to the non genuine British for their seat in Parliament.

The West and the US epitomises the saying - cutting the nose to spite the face!

Even those who have applauded the Western ideal and principles remain befuddle, and totally down by this poor insight to reality.

Ray,

My beliefs are not based on political correctness, they are based on personal experience and studying human nature.

Human nature is universal, at least among humans. Belief systems are conditional, a combination of resource availability and history.

Besides, history of the ME demonstrates the divisions exist and they can be manipulated, as long as you do not try to ultimately control the territory. Boots on the ground is a bad idea, but allying yourself with one subgroup or another can be advantageous for both parties. The problem is usually not them, it is our arrogance and feeling of superiority - that we are somehow genetically better than the Arabs or Persians. Again, not political correctness, just a realization of the faults in our own human nature and how they influence us to see threats when we should be looking for opportunities.

And as long as we are on the subject, lets examine this statement:

"But like the Chinese, the Muslim are a proud lot and they are clear that the world belongs to them."

Interesting, because if we are going to use pride and the propensity to think of the world as their playground then the biggest threat to world peace is ... Great Britain, which has invaded 9 out of every 10 countries on the planet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html. The United States, about 70. http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm. Compare that the the ominous threat of China. If you go back to the 12th century, you will see that they have a total of perhaps twenty five countries, only ten or so in recent times. http://www.quora.com/China/How-many-countries-has-China-invaded-in-its-history.

[davidbfpo]

Always interesting to read how Israeli intelligence, in this case Mossad, see their potential enemies. Hat tip to Bruce Hoffman on Twitter, citing an article in today's Haaretz by the Head of Mossad on IS/ISIS in:
This organization is here to stay. Hamas is a lightweight organization by comparison

The actual article is behind a paywall. Here is a little I assume he said on other threats:
The biggest threat to Israel’s security is the conflict with the Palestinians and not Iran’s nuclear program, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said Thursday at a meeting at a private home attended by 30 businesspeople.

Link:http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.603249

[davidbfpo]

Just as interesting as Mossad is the team in Norway who watch jihadists, so Thomas Hegghammer's article evaluating ISIS is a good read:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/07/the-foreign-policy-essay-calculated-caliphate/

It ends with:
The bottom line is that business in the jihadi world will largely continue as usual after the declaration. Over time, the new caliphate will come to be seen as just another militant group, albeit a very presumptuous one. In the meantime, it is probably wise for Western governments to let the internal jihadi debate run its course. Premature military intervention will give the caliphate a jump start it does not deserve.

[Bill Moore]

Just as interesting as Mossad is the team in Norway who watch jihadists, so Thomas Hegghammer's article evaluating ISIS is a good read:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/07/the-foreign-policy-essay-calculated-caliphate/

It ends with:

After reading this I reviewed some other papers, and listened to a talk, by Dr. Hegghammer. The general theme of his message is his increasing uncertainty, so at best he is sharing some random thoughts on potential directions that ISIS (or IS) could evolve in. I think it is a bit of pipedream to believe, or hope, it will remain a localized terrorist or jihadi movement. The number of foreign fighters and stated ambitions indicate they have wider aspirations. The question is do they have the capability? His recommendation of not intervening at this time is based on a logic bias of not acting without better information, which is usually good advice, but in this situation I'm not so sure that caution is the best answer. On the other hand, if there was an opportunity to prevent or reduce this situation in the first place it is long past, so holding off on intervention, if required, may be the best answer. In either case (intervention or not), we can only speculate on the possible outcomes. We won't know the result of taking or not taking action until we watch the situation unfold, and then we still risk attribution error (e.g. our intervention or lack there of is what caused X to happen).

Dr. Hegghammer certainly doesn't dismiss the potential of high rates of terrorists returning home and staying active after their adventure in Syria and Iraq ends. There is certainly a history of it after AQ and other jihadists left Afghanistan. JI in Indonesia, ASG in the Philippines, and others throughout Africa and the Middle East. It would be a mistake to confuse the percentage of foreign fighters that remain active combatants when they return home with the risk they pose to their home countries. Even if a paltry 2% remained active, that is enough to form terrorist cells, train new recruits, and conduct sophisticated attacks. In the West, at least in the forseeable future, we don't have to worry about large scale mobilization of Muslims into the Jihad (like we see in Syria and Iraq), we have to worry about London bus bombings, the Madrid train bombing, hijacking and/or blowing up civilian aircraft, individuals conducting small scale acts of terrorism. Any of these events will result in a media frenzy and force a reaction by our governments that is disproportionate to the scale of attack we suffer.

So whether a low or high number seek to conduct attacks outside the current Caliphate (notional), ISIS will not remain focused on just Iraq and Syria, they'll focus on the broader the Middle East, which does threaten our interests, and some will have aspirations to target the West. Did al-Qaeda or Lebanese Hezbollah restrict their attacks to the local area of jihad? Absolutely not, so why would we expect ISIS with their large number of foreign fighters to do the same?

I do think throwing a large number of Western troops into the fray would backfire on us in many ways, but active support of the Iraqi Army to get them back in the fight, and possibly providing fire support and precision targeting is an option worth implementing sooner rather than later. I'm very much undecided at this point, and I'm of the belief we have a choice of bad and less bad options at this point.

[Bill Moore]

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20130718/101155/HHRG-113-FA18-Wstate-HegghammerT-20130718.pdf

The Future of Anti-Western Jihadism


I have been doing academic research on al-Qaida since before 9/11, and never has the future of the jihadi movement seemed more unpredictable to my eyes than now. Still, for this testimony I have decided to look ahead and speculate about the long-term future of al-Qaida.


First, it is my assessment that we are past the peak of organized jihadi terrorism in the West. Al-Qaida Core is weak and most affiliates are not systematically targeting the US homeland.


My second and more pessimistic point is that the jihadi movement writ large is thriving and will be with us for another decade at least.


My third point, which is more of a guess, is that I expect a “second wave” of serious plots in the West some 4-6 years down the line.

[OUTLAW 09]

And the Sunni discourse begins now;

http://www.arabnews.com/news/597026

The core problem IS will have is that while they are Takfiri the Sunni Coalition to a large degree are Sunni secular--with say an influx of foreign fighters coming to the "caliphate" based on the "advertising by al Baghdadi and social media" --not so sure that will sit well with the Iraqi Sunni.

Remember a vast majority of AQI foreign fighters from 2005 thru to 2010 did not co-mingle with Iraqi's basically AQI did not allow the co-mingling---will be interesting to see how this works out-but am betting it is becoming a friction point in short fashion.

The US over the long haul would do well to truly understand the "moderate" Islamist as they will be around a lot longer than most anticipate in the ME and if one really looks at their stated goals, needs and wants they are a number of interesting mid and long term crossing points that both can talk about---but by defining all Islamists as enemies we defeat our own self interests in the region.

It is not the "moderate" Islamists that carried out the 9/11 strikes nor will they attack the US as they have been strictly focused on their own countries ie Syria and Iraq and have shown absolutely no interest in the US motherland.

[OUTLAW 09]

Jwing---

1. Looks like the IS/Sunni Coalition killed it's first ISF General (Commander 6th Division). Not surprised to see the 6th near Baghdad as it's Commander was always a hand picked Shia---it was originally designed to be near Mandali and responsible for Diyala Province.

A senior Iraqi general was killed today in fighting with islamists not far Baghdad. Major General Negm Abdullah Ali, commander of the army's sixth division, responsible for defending part of Baghdad, "met martyrdom on the battlefield as he was fighting ... terrorists", Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said in a statement.

Ali was killed "when mortar rounds fell" in the Ibrahim Bin Ali area, which is about 16 km northwest of Baghdad.

Government Security forces have been in a standoff with Sunni radicals in the area since the city of Fallujah that was taken earlier this year had fallen.

Insurgents led by a group called the Islamic State seized large areas in northern and western parts of the country last month and have threatened take the capital of Iraq soon.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_07_07/Senior-Iraqi-army-commander-killed-in-battle-with-terrorosts-Iraqi-PM-4834/

2. The Shia militia are fighting now in Tikrit---but apparently not well as over 50 were killed yesterday in and or near the University that the ISF claimed several days ago they cleared and "owned".

JWing--it appears that one of the major reasons for the lack of ISF success is that they are in fact copying our style of warfare which we the US military have not really thought about going back in history and relooking how we fought in Iraq---and COIN has nothing to do with how one fights.

From about 2004 through and after the surge a large number of the BCTs were deploying with between 63 and 74% fully manned and maneuvered
using 114s some of the HBCTs still used their Bradley's, but those were venerable to EFP IED strikes so they shifted as well to 114s.

The most a 114 can carry is four plus the top gunner and if say a 114 patrol is made up of 4-6 vehicles and they engage into a firefight how many of those patrol members can actually dismount and engage on foot an insurgent force---not many so a firefight becomes more or less a gun truck fire fight until normally the insurgent breaks contact because he feared Apaches were coming.

If one really thinks about it ---it is the same concept in AFG but there one is using the MRAP instead of 114s. The fight is one of using stand off weapons not dismounted infantry.

Yesterday there was a video coming out of Baghdad showing fighting around Baqubah in the typical palm groove small villages---must have been say 6-8 114s in a line patrol working their way through a mud and water area and at the same time fighting insurgents---they have been hung up in to village for going on five days and still they are not making head way and yet via their press releases they are beating IS.

Sometimes it takes straight foot infantry without all the snick snack to clear and hold insurgent villages---not run in via 114s shooting everywhere, then pulling out, and later "claiming" you have driven out IS/Sunni Coalition.

So the question becomes has our training the ISF in our image helped or hurt the ISF now in the fight with the IS/Sunni Coalition?

[JWing]

Here's my latest interview "Analysis Of Ayatollah Sistani’s Fatwa To Defend Iraq Interview With Tel Aviv Univ’s Rachel Kantz Feder" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/analysis-of-ayatollah-sistanis-fatwa-to.html). I talked with Tel Aviv Univ's Rachel Feder about Ayatollah Sistani's Fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country's shrines and states which was immediately seen both within and without Iraq as a sectarian move to mobilize the country's Shiites against militant Sunnis.

[JWing]

Outlaw

Since the fighting started insurgents have been able to kill a generals before. June 22 a police general was assassinated in Baghdad. Also June 11 a general from the 4th Division was killed in combat in Awja, Salahaddin.

As for the fighting the Iraqis are hindered by a number of factors.

1) Most commanders are political appointees who have proven to be incompetent

2) The ISF were flooded with volunteers after Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country. From reports these guys are getting anywhere from 3-7 days of training and then sent to the front. Some are just doing guard duty but others have been put into combat. These guys are obviously going to be a hindrance to combat effectiveness but strain an already bad supply system.

3) Iraqis can't shoot whether its regular ISF or the militias. I can't tell you how many videos I've seen of hip firing, putting guns around corners without looking or over a wall and blasting away a whole clip. I call this "going rambo". Again this is not only ineffective but wastes huge amounts of ammo on a poor logistics system.

4) The ISF can't hold any ground they take. ISF continues to go thorugh an area, clear it, and then leave allowing insurgents to move right back in. Ishaqi in Salahaddin for example has been cleared 2 times since fighting started. Yesterday there was fighting in Khalidiya, Anbar 2 days after the ISF claimed it had cleared it.

5) Disintegration. One report claims that up to half of the army's divisions are combat ineffective because of the loss of personnel & equipment from those first few days of fighting when the ISF collapsed across northern Iraq. Who knows how long that will take to rebuild all that.

6) Most importantly Baghdad has shown no strategy for who to counter the insurgents. Right now they're just trying to hold ground and kill their way out of the situation and doing a very poor job at that.

Overall I think the only way the government is going to be able to turn this situation around not only militarily but politically is if Baghdad finds Sunnis on the ground in local communities that it can ally with, and provide them with military and political support to fight insurgents otherwise the Sunnis areas will never be held and the larger complaints about Baghdad's discrimination against their community will never be overcome. That's not going to happen with Maliki and may not even happen if he's replaced. That's a major reason why I see this fighting going on for years.

[OUTLAW 09]

Here's my latest interview "Analysis Of Ayatollah Sistani’s Fatwa To Defend Iraq Interview With Tel Aviv Univ’s Rachel Kantz Feder" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/analysis-of-ayatollah-sistanis-fatwa-to.html). I talked with Tel Aviv Univ's Rachel Feder about Ayatollah Sistani's Fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country's shrines and states which was immediately seen both within and without Iraq as a sectarian move to mobilize the country's Shiites against militant Sunnis.

JWing---

1. this is a link to the German Der Spiegel German interview with the Sunni Sheikh al Hamdun (one of the major Sunni protest movement leaders and close ties to the IAI/al Duri) where he outright tells the current Iraqi government ---- a larger proportion of Kurds and Sunni's in the government and an three federation state under one flag with Baghdad as the capital ----if not the Sunni's will create their own government and state---a de facto split up of Iraq.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/irak-sunniten-drohen-maliki-mit-abspaltung-a-979714.html

2. Appears the Voice of Russia article on the killing of the ISF General was a tad off---seems that he was killed by a sniper instead of a mortar attack which indicates to me that the fighting in the area of the General was going the way of the IS.

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw

Since the fighting started insurgents have been able to kill a generals before. June 22 a police general was assassinated in Baghdad. Also June 11 a general from the 4th Division was killed in combat in Awja, Salahaddin.

As for the fighting the Iraqis are hindered by a number of factors.

1) Most commanders are political appointees who have proven to be incompetent

2) The ISF were flooded with volunteers after Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to defend the country. From reports these guys are getting anywhere from 3-7 days of training and then sent to the front. Some are just doing guard duty but others have been put into combat. These guys are obviously going to be a hindrance to combat effectiveness but strain an already bad supply system.

3) Iraqis can't shoot whether its regular ISF or the militias. I can't tell you how many videos I've seen of hip firing, putting guns around corners without looking or over a wall and blasting away a whole clip. I call this "going rambo". Again this is not only ineffective but wastes huge amounts of ammo on a poor logistics system.

4) The ISF can't hold any ground they take. ISF continues to go thorugh an area, clear it, and then leave allowing insurgents to move right back in. Ishaqi in Salahaddin for example has been cleared 2 times since fighting started. Yesterday there was fighting in Khalidiya, Anbar 2 days after the ISF claimed it had cleared it.

5) Disintegration. One report claims that up to half of the army's divisions are combat ineffective because of the loss of personnel & equipment from those first few days of fighting when the ISF collapsed across northern Iraq. Who knows how long that will take to rebuild all that.

6) Most importantly Baghdad has shown no strategy for who to counter the insurgents. Right now they're just trying to hold ground and kill their way out of the situation and doing a very poor job at that.

Overall I think the only way the government is going to be able to turn this situation around not only militarily but politically is if Baghdad finds Sunnis on the ground in local communities that it can ally with, and provide them with military and political support to fight insurgents otherwise the Sunnis areas will never be held and the larger complaints about Baghdad's discrimination against their community will never be overcome. That's not going to happen with Maliki and may not even happen if he's replaced. That's a major reason why I see this fighting going on for years.

JWing---it appears that the fighting has moved closer to actual Baghdad and now even in the south ie Basra area via car bombs and bombs in general---the Iraqi's are good at/for rumors--there is one going around that IS has in fact teams already inside Baghdad waiting for the go signal to launch strikes all over the city---anything on your info side to confirm or deny?

Think that yes the fighting will go on for years but politically the Sunni's as well as the Kurds are making moves rather rapidly towards separate states in the anticipation that Malaki is not going to cave and step down.

Which if one looks at the meetings today in Baghdad is where this is heading---Malaki lets everyone negotiate and when they are finished, tired, and have not reached any agreement he simply steps in and continues.

So I do not see him leaving anytime soon so the threat issued by al Humdan will occur.

[OUTLAW 09]

Seems the KSA has an interesting way to get Saudi foreign fighters back home from Syria.

Dozens of Saudis fighting in Syria have voluntarily surrendered to security authorities, said Sami Al-Saleh, Saudi ambassador to Jordan.
The statement comes in the wake of the recent surrender of 28-year-old Khalaf Al-Enezi, who approached the Saudi Embassy in Amman after fighting in Syria for over 18 months.
“Al-Enezi is not the first nor the last person to surrender at the Jordanian border,” said Saleh. “He is one of dozens of Saudi young men who were misled.”
The Interior Ministry previously said that the Royal Court had approved a 15-day grace period for former fighters to come forward and return to the Kingdom.
“Many young Saudis benefited from the grace period granted by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah in March,” he said. “Since that time, we have had individual cases of surrender."

[OUTLAW 09]

While we watch the activities of the IS in Iraq do not forget their activities in Syria--this is interesting oil article as it ties into a NYT article on the IS Syrian/Iraqi strategic strategy.

Currently the IS through the declaration of the Caliphate has created effectively a new Sunni State complete with oil reserves and revenue streams so the argument that the Sunni's in Iraq can not sustain themselves is actually false from the IS perspective---they are in fact right now in this time and space a viable state.

Then if you take the statement by al Hamdun that the Sunni's are ready to declared themselves independent of Baghdad if Malaki does not increase the number of Kurds and Sunni's in the government and allow a Sunni federated region.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/596796

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/03/world/middleeast/syria-iraq-isis-rogue-state-along-two-rivers.html?&_r=0

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/irak-sunniten-drohen-maliki-mit-abspaltung-a-979714.html

[Dayuhan]

complete with oil reserves and revenue streams

What's the actual extent and condition of those oil reserves and revenue streams?

Syrian oil production was unexceptional at its peak and has declined enormously. The production infrastructure has deteriorated. Turning oil into money is not all that simple: does ISIS have the money or the expertise to get even the limited reserves they may control onto the market? To bring in foreign expertise you have to be able to pay for it or convince investors that you are stable enough to let them take their cut from downstream earnings... can ISIS do either?

[Dayuhan]

2. why has the US directly/ indirectly been involved in destablising the ME, starting from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and now, this menace of ISIS, apart from Egypt and other parts of North Africa and Sudan, or on the flip side of the argument bring Freedom and Democracy? How does it affect the US as to how others govern unless it affects the US strategic and political aims/ Does it? if so how?

3. Why is Russia giving Shia Iraq warplanes when US does not want to even give Drones or do anything to stabilise the rot, which in any case, they started under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy.

The "banner of Freedom and Democracy" is not intended to stabilize the targets of intervention, it's intended to make intervention acceptable to the American domestic audience. This is one of the stronger reasons for the US to avoid "regime change" where possible: the requirements of the domestic audience are too restrictive too allow realistic post regime change action.

I don't know that drones or anything else the US can send are going to stabilize Iraq. The construct we call "Iraq" is inherently unstable; either it's held together by force under a dictator or it falls apart.


And then comes this bombshell from the ISIS

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/06/isis-brags-about-links-to-us-senator-john-mccain/

That's only a "bombshell" if it's corroborated by reliable sources. Lot of nonsense on the internet, have to be skeptical of everything we read.

[OUTLAW 09]

What's the actual extent and condition of those oil reserves and revenue streams?

Syrian oil production was unexceptional at its peak and has declined enormously. The production infrastructure has deteriorated. Turning oil into money is not all that simple: does ISIS have the money or the expertise to get even the limited reserves they may control onto the market? To bring in foreign expertise you have to be able to pay for it or convince investors that you are stable enough to let them take their cut from downstream earnings... can ISIS do either?

Dayuhan---following your logic then we do not need to understand that IS is sitting on a 2B USD war chest, they have effectively unified both the Syrian and Iraqi Sunni's and control all the production oil and gas fields in Syria/there have been oil deposits located in Iraq Sunni areas and are to a degree in partial control of the largest refinery in Iraq.

And if you read through the NYT article of the IS strategy-- they control a large amount of the water infrastructure in both countries and who controls water controls the farming economies of both countries.

Then on top of all that they are effectively blocking a 300K man ISF and another 50K Shia militia/Quds from retaking territory they control.

So why are you worried about how high the oil revenues are? There is a lot of other things that are more important.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan----


Robert Jones would say ---the current problem in Iraq is the lack of the rule of law and good governance.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/08/iraq-s-vice-president-this-is-a-full-on-sunni-revolt.html
Taken from the above link:
“I can assure you a widespread spectrum of groups participated in what happened in Mosul. The media is focusing on ISIS,” he said. “They are influential and empowered on the ground and they are participating in this armed revolution. But we shouldn’t be blamed for that.”

The Maliki government reneged on its promises to build an inclusive government with the Sunnis as soon as the American troops left Iraq, Hashimi said, and went after Sunni moderate leaders even though those leaders had led the Sunni awakening in 2008 that resulted in extremist groups leaving Iraq in the first place.

“We managed to clean up our territories, especially Anbar, and we put an end for a time to he extremists. But Nouri al-Maliki, instead of involving the Sunni moderates, he attacked them, starting with me,” said Hashimi. “There are two sides, the extremists and moderates. If you target the moderates, you intentionally create a vacuum that could be filled by the extremists and that’s exactly what happened.”

As former U.S. official in Iraq Ali Khedery wrote in The Washington Post, the U.S. policy during the crucial years following the 2008 Sunni awakening was to place faith in Maliki to build an inclusive system rather than use American influence to support other political actors.

WaPo link:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Hashimi said that the Obama administration was repeating that mistake again by sending U.S. advisers and equipment to shore up the Iraqi military and considering U.S. military force against Sunnis inside Iraq. He urged the U.S. to stay out of the conflict.

“It’s a really annoying development. The U.S. is in the process of committing itself into another set of grave mistakes. Definitely we consider all this military support to Nouri al-Maliki an alliance with Iran against the Arab Sunnis,” he said. “Try to avoid any use of military means, try to be fair, try to diffuse the bomb by asking Nouri al-Maliki to immediately to establish a caretaker government. Try to be neutral at least.”

And don’t expect another Anbar awakening this time around, Hashimi warned. The Sunni tribes still remember what happened last time and they are not going to make the same mistake of expelling the extremists and thereby leaving themselves vulnerable to Shiite forces.

“Nobody from the Arab Sunnis are ready to repeat the same experience of 2008, no way. But if we establish a real state in Baghdad, extremism will be over, I assure you.”

“The U.S. ethically is still in charge of our security, our stability and preventing interference from foreign countries, whether neighboring countries or far away countries, it is still the responsibility of the U.S.,” he said. “Transparency, human rights, no corruption, justice, no interference. All of these values have been talked about nicely but nobody has pressed the government on which have been achieved and which have failed. That is the role of the United States.”

[TheCurmudgeon]

Dayuhan----


Robert Jones would say ---the current problem in Iraq is the lack of the rule of law and good governance.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/08/iraq-s-vice-president-this-is-a-full-on-sunni-revolt.html
Taken from the above link:
“I can assure you a widespread spectrum of groups participated in what happened in Mosul. The media is focusing on ISIS,” he said. “They are influential and empowered on the ground and they are participating in this armed revolution. But we shouldn’t be blamed for that.”

The Maliki government reneged on its promises to build an inclusive government with the Sunnis as soon as the American troops left Iraq, Hashimi said, and went after Sunni moderate leaders even though those leaders had led the Sunni awakening in 2008 that resulted in extremist groups leaving Iraq in the first place.

“We managed to clean up our territories, especially Anbar, and we put an end for a time to he extremists. But Nouri al-Maliki, instead of involving the Sunni moderates, he attacked them, starting with me,” said Hashimi. “There are two sides, the extremists and moderates. If you target the moderates, you intentionally create a vacuum that could be filled by the extremists and that’s exactly what happened.”

As former U.S. official in Iraq Ali Khedery wrote in The Washington Post, the U.S. policy during the crucial years following the 2008 Sunni awakening was to place faith in Maliki to build an inclusive system rather than use American influence to support other political actors.

WaPo link:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Hashimi said that the Obama administration was repeating that mistake again by sending U.S. advisers and equipment to shore up the Iraqi military and considering U.S. military force against Sunnis inside Iraq. He urged the U.S. to stay out of the conflict.

“It’s a really annoying development. The U.S. is in the process of committing itself into another set of grave mistakes. Definitely we consider all this military support to Nouri al-Maliki an alliance with Iran against the Arab Sunnis,” he said. “Try to avoid any use of military means, try to be fair, try to diffuse the bomb by asking Nouri al-Maliki to immediately to establish a caretaker government. Try to be neutral at least.”

And don’t expect another Anbar awakening this time around, Hashimi warned. The Sunni tribes still remember what happened last time and they are not going to make the same mistake of expelling the extremists and thereby leaving themselves vulnerable to Shiite forces.

“Nobody from the Arab Sunnis are ready to repeat the same experience of 2008, no way. But if we establish a real state in Baghdad, extremism will be over, I assure you.”

“The U.S. ethically is still in charge of our security, our stability and preventing interference from foreign countries, whether neighboring countries or far away countries, it is still the responsibility of the U.S.,” he said. “Transparency, human rights, no corruption, justice, no interference. All of these values have been talked about nicely but nobody has pressed the government on which have been achieved and which have failed. That is the role of the United States.”

Outlaw,

I am not buying this. I read these articles. They sound like an attempt by Ali Khedery to extricate himself from any association with the “Bad Maliki”. He and Crocker supported the “Good Maliki” that existed before 2009. Maliki turned evil only after a change in President’s allowed “Bad Maliki” to be unleashed, and therefore events that have happened in Iraq since 2009 are all The U.S.’ fault. I am not buying it. For one thing I find it odd that he keeps referring to the Sunni Awakening as happening in 2008 instead of 2006, as if everything changed in that year.

The illusion was the possibility of maintaining an inclusive government without the American Leviathan coercing the political leadership into supporting it. I fail to believe that any intelligent person who had even a minimal understanding of the requirements for a successful democratic transition and consolidation had any realistically thought that an inclusive democracy was possible is such a factional place as Iraq with its recent history of Sunni control. The best we could hope for was a loose confederation. It should have been clear from the nature of the constitutional conventions that the Kurds wanted autonomy. Remember too that it was a Sunni Awakening conducted by local Sunni clan leaders that ousted AQ, not the actions of the central government. Holding Iraq together was only going to be achieved by a strong central dictator. That is what Maliki was trying to become.

We were not going to stay in Iraq for the 20+ years it was going to take to for a democracy to consolidate. Pretending that all Maliki needs to do now is include a few moderate Sunnis, who, by the way, are not in control of any part of the area controlled by ISIS, is delusion on the highest level.

This is just the ranting of a man who is now realizing that he backed the wrong horse.

The sad thing is that it took the actions of a group like ISIS to make us finally come to grips with the reality that Iraq needs to be divided.

[Bob's World]

Ali Khedery - now working for the oil industry and himself - clearly is attempting to protect his own legacy. Sorry bud, own it. You were just as tactically short-sighted, and overly focused on personalities and the Western agenda as everyone else.

And to clarify what I would say the main problem is, in a single word: Trust

The promises of the US designed system have fallen flat, the money the US gave to influential leaders to trust in those promise has been spent. The result is renewed conflict. People will not altruistically try to get to trust, like the US, they will try to get to what they think is best for them. That will rarely lead to trust by all.

I see four levels or degrees of state action to facilitate trust:

Getting to Trust - A strategic concept postulating the necessity of trust for any society to attain some degree of durable, natural stability. The degree of distrust resident between populations in any given place determines the degrees of action necessary to get to trust.
Level 4 Balkanization is the highest degree. Short of that, in descending order are:
Level 3, creating lesser, included regions, such as the current Kurdish region of Iraq, or FATA of Pakistan;
Level 2, changing laws to be more inclusive of the aggrieved population, such as the passing of civil rights laws by the US in the 1960s; and lastly,
Level 1, to simply enforce the rule of law against those working illegally to coerce change.

We have tried a mix of Level 1-3 in Iraq and failed. Assad is attempting a pure Level 1 approach in Syria and may temporarily succeed, but will ultimately fail. It is my belief that it is time for a self-determined Level 4 approach across Syria and Iraq as they currently exist. This may result in modern systems of governance with some chance of getting to trust.

[omarali50]

On the question of whether IS is a serious threat or not, one of our most intelligent bloggers had a post:

http://brownpundits.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-it-may-be-different-this-time.html

His conclusion:

The last group to try building an "Islamic State" as an example were the Taliban in pre-9/11 Afghanistan, but they were never going to succeed because: a) They were not Arab; b) They had limited resources; c) They failed to curb their violent instincts; and d) They had no sophisticated feel for history. Pakistan, of course, has been trying to make itself into an ideal "Islamic State" for decades, but the product doesn't sell because it is based entirely on fictions. Attempts in Algeria and Egypt were nipped in the bud, and Turkey's re-Islamization is still too modern - and too royalist - to attract transnational allegiance of fundamentalist Muslim populations. And, of course, both Pakistan and Turkey are non-Arab (though Turks can probably command allegiance in Arab societies based on the vestigial memories of Ottoman rule).

It is hard to say what the strategists of the Great Powers are thinking, but if their strategy involves allowing ISIS, even temporarily, to create an actual state in Mesopotamia, they will regret it sorely - and pay for it with blood and treasure for decades or longer.

[carl]

It is hard to say what the strategists of the Great Powers are thinking, but if their strategy involves allowing ISIS, even temporarily, to create an actual state in Mesopotamia, they will regret it sorely - and pay for it with blood and treasure for decades or longer.

That lot has already been cast. Nothing will be done about IS at least until Jan 2017 at least. That is two and a half years. That seems to be at least temporary or more. So we are looking at a country called IS being around for a while. You are entirely right that we are going to regret this.

[TheCurmudgeon]

On the question of whether IS is a serious threat or not, one of our most intelligent bloggers had a post:

http://brownpundits.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-it-may-be-different-this-time.html

His conclusion:

The last group to try building an "Islamic State" as an example were the Taliban in pre-9/11 Afghanistan, but they were never going to succeed because: a) They were not Arab; b) They had limited resources; c) They failed to curb their violent instincts; and d) They had no sophisticated feel for history. Pakistan, of course, has been trying to make itself into an ideal "Islamic State" for decades, but the product doesn't sell because it is based entirely on fictions. Attempts in Algeria and Egypt were nipped in the bud, and Turkey's re-Islamization is still too modern - and too royalist - to attract transnational allegiance of fundamentalist Muslim populations. And, of course, both Pakistan and Turkey are non-Arab (though Turks can probably command allegiance in Arab societies based on the vestigial memories of Ottoman rule).

It is hard to say what the strategists of the Great Powers are thinking, but if their strategy involves allowing ISIS, even temporarily, to create an actual state in Mesopotamia, they will regret it sorely - and pay for it with blood and treasure for decades or longer.

Omarali,

Unfortunately I cannot access that site at the moment, but his conclusion seems to be contradictory. The paragraph seems to indicate that ISIS must, at a minimum, “curb their violent instincts” if they are going to succeed. I would argue that, for them to truly become the Caliphate they must also control the “Two Holy Cities” now located in Saudi Arabia. But then in the last sentence he seems to advocate immediate action. What form should that action take?

Also the last sentence says that the great powers will pay in blood and treasure “for decades or longer.” We are already still involved in the ME and will certainly continue to expend blood and treasure. If we do act I don’t see that changing. If anything, it only justifies why more people in the ME will want to kill us.

What exactly is he advocating we do?

[JWing]

Just published another interview "Analyzing The Finances Of Al Qaeda In Iraq Interview With RAND’s Patrick Johnston" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/analyzing-finances-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq.html). I talked with Patrick Johnston of RAND who has been analyzing hundreds of captured Al Qaeda in Iraq documents at the CTC Harmony Program. Goes over how AQI became an Iraqi financed and highly bureaucratic & centralized organization.

[JWing]

What's the actual extent and condition of those oil reserves and revenue streams?

Syrian oil production was unexceptional at its peak and has declined enormously. The production infrastructure has deteriorated. Turning oil into money is not all that simple: does ISIS have the money or the expertise to get even the limited reserves they may control onto the market? To bring in foreign expertise you have to be able to pay for it or convince investors that you are stable enough to let them take their cut from downstream earnings... can ISIS do either?

Dayuhan

IS is trucking out the oil from Syria and selling it to Turkish and other companies. Ironically the Assad govt is buying some of this oil as well. It now has control of several oil fields and infrastructure in Iraq as well where it has been smuggling oil for years as well. As for running the infrastructure they're not going to do that themselves but rely upon the workers already there. When it took over most of the Baiji refinery for a short period in Salahaddin for example it told all the workers to stay on cite and continue with their work. They have the money to pay them as well.

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw,

I am not buying this. I read these articles. They sound like an attempt by Ali Khedery to extricate himself from any association with the “Bad Maliki”. He and Crocker supported the “Good Maliki” that existed before 2009. Maliki turned evil only after a change in President’s allowed “Bad Maliki” to be unleashed, and therefore events that have happened in Iraq since 2009 are all The U.S.’ fault. I am not buying it. For one thing I find it odd that he keeps referring to the Sunni Awakening as happening in 2008 instead of 2006, as if everything changed in that year.

The illusion was the possibility of maintaining an inclusive government without the American Leviathan coercing the political leadership into supporting it. I fail to believe that any intelligent person who had even a minimal understanding of the requirements for a successful democratic transition and consolidation had any realistically thought that an inclusive democracy was possible is such a factional place as Iraq with its recent history of Sunni control. The best we could hope for was a loose confederation. It should have been clear from the nature of the constitutional conventions that the Kurds wanted autonomy. Remember too that it was a Sunni Awakening conducted by local Sunni clan leaders that ousted AQ, not the actions of the central government. Holding Iraq together was only going to be achieved by a strong central dictator. That is what Maliki was trying to become.

We were not going to stay in Iraq for the 20+ years it was going to take to for a democracy to consolidate. Pretending that all Maliki needs to do now is include a few moderate Sunnis, who, by the way, are not in control of any part of the area controlled by ISIS, is delusion on the highest level.

This is just the ranting of a man who is now realizing that he backed the wrong horse.

The sad thing is that it took the actions of a group like ISIS to make us finally come to grips with the reality that Iraq needs to be divided.

TC---I would flip this around and state and many might not like it that we via the national level IC did not vet Chalabi or Malaki for their Iranian connections and there were a few out of the DoS that in 2003 were saying it openly but they were shut down as secondly opinions were not wanted nor asked for.

Which if one looks closer --the current problems for the US goes back to the core reasons presented to both the UNSC and the American population that led us straight into eight long years of losses in blood and money. Which again no one seemed to vet thoroughly.

This lack of vetting of the entire Iraq adventure was at the heart of the failures we are now seeing.

We can take as a single example of this lack of understanding on the IC side ---most of the young interrogators assigned to BCTs and Divisions up through 2008 were seriously under trained for the jobs they were suppose to be doing--gaining intelligence. This problem really did not smooth out until we left as the Army never did achieve it's goal of training enough interrogators so there were always shortages in Iraq.

How can you send young American interrogators into an Arab country not understanding the tribal ties, the religious differences between Sunni/Shia or better yet lacking deep experience using translators and far more important having actual years of experience in a highly challenging job not just someone with a MOS and no experience.

We were asking from these young interrogators to be the judge, jury, defense lawyer and prosecutor all in one person and one wonders why so many AQ and Sunni fighters while actually captured walked out of Abu Ghraib with us never knowing they were AQ or a Sunni insurgent?

Then when suggestions were presented to the Army Intel school for improving that deficiency---the response was---we cannot train them strictly for Iraq as they must have a broad MOS training since they are Army interrogators and will not be serving all the time in Iraq---thus many experienced civilian interrogators who were also Arab linguists who had great track records in Iraq got fed up----left and went back to Iraq.

So up to about 2009 vast amounts of intelligence that could have been gained was lost not because of honest efforts but because the system as a whole did not "understand" what it was "seeing".

Next the HUMINT efforts were at the BCT and Division levels just as hampered--again Americans sent into Iraq with little or knowledge of reality on the ground and definitely through 2009 with limited HUMINT training for an UW/IW war.

Next the Corp level Abu Ghraib collection effort ---also hampered by the lack of focus at the national level-example from 2006 assigning a Korean strategic debriefing unit with Korean linguists into an Arabic language environment with absolutely no understanding of 1) the ME, 2) the Sunni/Shia divide, 3) tribe relations, 4) AQ, and 5) the history of Iraq.

There was an Abu G standing joke in 2006---never send out a national level request for information as it will never get answered.

This was the interrogation side---it was even worse on the intelligence analyst side with again young analysts and little experience.

This also does not address that single fact that boots on the ground up through 2010 especially with the surge BCTs were running manning wise a 63 to 72% strength level---in one BCT we pushed out of the NTC-we had to deploy the entire Ops Group to it in order to get it out the door---over 120 personnel who were on serious health profiles were also deployed just to get the numbers up.

So yes while the numbers went up manning wise it still was to little to cover the sheer amount of ground---example in Diyala one BCT covered Diyala and half of Saladdin with four BNs---and we wondered why the ethnic cleansing got out of control.

Our solutions say in Baghdad---T barriers and a high number of checkpoints---so really all we did was "dampen" down the problems---not "solve" them as we should have done.

So really all we did from 2003 until we left was "manage" the problem--we never addressed and "solved" the problems--we just took the route of the easiest solutions over and over and called them "successes".

The first article is interesting as Robert is correct it is a CYA---but again it reflects the failure of national IC to vet Malaki and now we are engaging via the DoS with Chalabi again evidently not wanting to accept his Iranian past.

The second article is from more important as it is a leading Sunni stating what I believe to be a valid Sunni opinion shared by the Sunni tribal leaders--question is will in the face of our past IC failures read this article "accurately" or declare the messenger a "terrorist"?

[JWing]

Curmudgeon,

The problems with Iraq were two fold. First there was a lack of strong institutions, which is true for most developing countries. Also like most developing countries that left the military as one strong force that people turned to to control and run the country. Later the Baath Party became more than just the ruling party but took on the form of a state within a state as it institutionalized itself throughout Iraqi society. When the U.S. came in it took down those two ruling institutions and never built up anything to replace them. U.S. planning was all about getting out as quickly as possible, which was then reversed by Bremer, but he got undercut by U.S. political domestic concerns over elections there that made the White House push for a return to sovereignty and an Iraqi constitution to show progress for the American electorate. The Iraqi constitution was a rushed job that has so many holes in it all the political elites claim they are following it while working against each other. That means today there is no rule of law, no due process, no independent courts, etc. Secondly Iraq suffered from failed state building. The elite that took over Iraq after the British didn't do a good job in uniting the people around the new idea of the Iraqi nation. They followed top down policies that ended up alienating large sectors of the population. Then when Saddam fully took power he destroyed any competing centers of power. That left sect and ethnicity as two of the only issues to organize around. Hence the Iraqi opposition ended up creating ethnosectarian quota systems in their meetings before 2003. When they came into Iraq they wanted the same system, which the U.S. immediately institutionalized with things like the Iraqi Governing Council that had a set amount of seats for Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, etc. The ethnosectarian identity politics that then took over Iraq immediately split the nation because each group saw itself as a victim of the others in the country, which is a sure way to lead to political deadlock and worse insurgency and militias. That's also why there is no rule of law, etc. in Iraq because each political party runs its own ministries, government offices, etc. Those parts of the government are run for the elite's benefits and to increase their patronage networks so that they can stay in power with very little thinking about what's best for the country as a whole. That in a nutshell is why Iraq is so screwed up right now.

[OUTLAW 09]

Just published another interview "Analyzing The Finances Of Al Qaeda In Iraq Interview With RAND’s Patrick Johnston" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/analyzing-finances-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq.html). I talked with Patrick Johnston of RAND who has been analyzing hundreds of captured Al Qaeda in Iraq documents at the CTC Harmony Program. Goes over how AQI became an Iraqi financed and highly bureaucratic & centralized organization.

JWing---we logged an amazing number of Iraqi captured documents into Harmony and only about 20% had any translation work done on them---due to the serious lack of translators. Up through 2008 thousands of documents were never picked up as the BCTs were never trained on how to collect evidence from their raids and most of the documents collected were on a per chance basis.

Now they just sit there for the historians ---we will never ever get around to them--but there is a large amount of intelligence buried there that would unlock the true secrets of the Sunni insurgency but I am afraid we as a government do not want those secrets "aired" as it would challenge the reasons given to the UNSC and what the American population was told by the former President Bush and his DoS.

Harmony is therefore a Catch 22 problem---there is another database that is far deeper and goes into the true "physic" of the worldwide jihadi ---the Dark Web project of the University of Arizona in Tucson who has sucked up literally thousands of videos, documents, training manuals etc which are limited to a few researchers.

[OUTLAW 09]

Ali Khedery - now working for the oil industry and himself - clearly is attempting to protect his own legacy. Sorry bud, own it. You were just as tactically short-sighted, and overly focused on personalities and the Western agenda as everyone else.

And to clarify what I would say the main problem is, in a single word: Trust

The promises of the US designed system have fallen flat, the money the US gave to influential leaders to trust in those promise has been spent. The result is renewed conflict. People will not altruistically try to get to trust, like the US, they will try to get to what they think is best for them. That will rarely lead to trust by all.

I see four levels or degrees of state action to facilitate trust:

Getting to Trust - A strategic concept postulating the necessity of trust for any society to attain some degree of durable, natural stability. The degree of distrust resident between populations in any given place determines the degrees of action necessary to get to trust.
Level 4 Balkanization is the highest degree. Short of that, in descending order are:
Level 3, creating lesser, included regions, such as the current Kurdish region of Iraq, or FATA of Pakistan;
Level 2, changing laws to be more inclusive of the aggrieved population, such as the passing of civil rights laws by the US in the 1960s; and lastly,
Level 1, to simply enforce the rule of law against those working illegally to coerce change.

We have tried a mix of Level 1-3 in Iraq and failed. Assad is attempting a pure Level 1 approach in Syria and may temporarily succeed, but will ultimately fail. It is my belief that it is time for a self-determined Level 4 approach across Syria and Iraq as they currently exist. This may result in modern systems of governance with some chance of getting to trust.

Robert---level four is what the Sunni leader al Hamdun is talking about in his German article.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/irak-sunniten-drohen-maliki-mit-abspaltung-a-979714.html

The same is being voiced as well by the Iraqi VP Sunni al Hashimi in this article as well.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/08/iraq-s-vice-president-this-is-a-full-on-sunni-revolt.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

Curmudgeon,

The problems with Iraq were two fold. First there was a lack of strong institutions, which is true for most developing countries. Also like most developing countries that left the military as one strong force that people turned to to control and run the country. Later the Baath Party became more than just the ruling party but took on the form of a state within a state as it institutionalized itself throughout Iraqi society. When the U.S. came in it took down those two ruling institutions and never built up anything to replace them. U.S. planning was all about getting out as quickly as possible, which was then reversed by Bremer, but he got undercut by U.S. political domestic concerns over elections there that made the White House push for a return to sovereignty and an Iraqi constitution to show progress for the American electorate. The Iraqi constitution was a rushed job that has so many holes in it all the political elites claim they are following it while working against each other. That means today there is no rule of law, no due process, no independent courts, etc. Secondly Iraq suffered from failed state building. The elite that took over Iraq after the British didn't do a good job in uniting the people around the new idea of the Iraqi nation. They followed top down policies that ended up alienating large sectors of the population. Then when Saddam fully took power he destroyed any competing centers of power. That left sect and ethnicity as two of the only issues to organize around. Hence the Iraqi opposition ended up creating ethnosectarian quota systems in their meetings before 2003. When they came into Iraq they wanted the same system, which the U.S. immediately institutionalized with things like the Iraqi Governing Council that had a set amount of seats for Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, etc. The ethnosectarian identity politics that then took over Iraq immediately split the nation because each group saw itself as a victim of the others in the country, which is a sure way to lead to political deadlock and worse insurgency and militias. That's also why there is no rule of law, etc. in Iraq because each political party runs its own ministries, government offices, etc. Those parts of the government are run for the elite's benefits and to increase their patronage networks so that they can stay in power with very little thinking about what's best for the country as a whole. That in a nutshell is why Iraq is so screwed up right now.

Jwing,

The problem is that you and I are seeing the same events but we are interpreting via significantly different political frames of reference. You, like most people, see events as fights between political elites who subjugate and control groups of people using identity politics to create cleavages that allow them to maintain their spheres of influence. I see pods of people who naturally band together based on a shared identity and have a give-take relationship with their leaders. They will give the leader support as long as the leader can provide security and patronage. If the leader no longer delivers the goods, the group will become disgruntled and replace the current leader or align themselves with another group.

Take Maliki. Most people think he has turned on the democracy the U.S. established. I see him as doing the only think he can to survive in a politically factious country. There is no coalition of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ites. The best he could do with the Kurds was keep them from openly leaving. He could offer them little. The Sunnis never trusted him. Moderates in this political atmosphere have no power. People who are willing trust others, to engage in give and take, to share what little they can bring back to their tribes as patronage are seen as weak and will be replaced by someone more aggressive. Maliki’s problem was not that he was consolidating power in his tribe, it was that he did not do it fast enough to survive.

[omarali50]

Omarali,

Unfortunately I cannot access that site at the moment, but his conclusion seems to be contradictory. The paragraph seems to indicate that ISIS must, at a minimum, “curb their violent instincts” if they are going to succeed. I would argue that, for them to truly become the Caliphate they must also control the “Two Holy Cities” now located in Saudi Arabia. But then in the last sentence he seems to advocate immediate action. What form should that action take?

Also the last sentence says that the great powers will pay in blood and treasure “for decades or longer.” We are already still involved in the ME and will certainly continue to expend blood and treasure. If we do act I don’t see that changing. If anything, it only justifies why more people in the ME will want to kill us.

What exactly is he advocating we do?

I am sorry, I hastily posted his piece without any comments of my own. Now I have a few minutes, so here goes:
1. My main agreement with the piece is with the notion that an Arab Islamic state has a certain draw and legitimacy that Afghans, Pakistanis and even Turks cannot easily match and that IS therefore does have the potential to be a more serious threat because it can awaken dormant millenarian dreams in a larger proportion of the world's Muslims.
2. I dont think its there yet though. They have made more progress than most, but consolidating their position will not be easy.
3. I DON'T think the US should openly intervene against them. First of all, the US has a terrible record of handling such interventions and will likely muck things up further or spend trillions of dollars where a Chinese businessman from Canton could get more done with millions. So I dont know what Ali Minai may want the US to do, but I dont think the US should go all in. From watching movies and reading books one gets the impression that great powers do have less obvious ways of intervening, and if so, I guess those will be used. What they are and how much they will help or hinder, I have no clue.
If the caliphate is unable to capture either Iraq or Syria (not just their deserts and Sunni areas, but the business end of things) then I dont they will be able to stabilize as a state. And I dont think they will capture either of them, but then again, I have very little knowledge beyond what I read in blogs and newspapers. Allah ul alam, as the Arabs like to say http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Now that i have had a chance to think about it, I think my main motivation was to say "look, my friend sort of predicted that these people are likely to be more dangerous than the usual non-Arab jihadi fantasist".

[OUTLAW 09]

Jwing,

The problem is that you and I are seeing the same events but we are interpreting via significantly different political frames of reference. You, like most people, see events as fights between political elites who subjugate and control groups of people using identity politics to create cleavages that allow them to maintain their spheres of influence. I see pods of people who naturally band together based on a shared identity and have a give-take relationship with their leaders. They will give the leader support as long as the leader can provide security and patronage. If the leader no longer delivers the goods, the group will become disgruntled and replace the current leader or align themselves with another group.

Take Maliki. Most people think he has turned on the democracy the U.S. established. I see him as doing the only think he can to survive in a politically factious country. There is no coalition of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ites. The best he could do with the Kurds was keep them from openly leaving. He could offer them little. The Sunnis never trusted him. Moderates in this political atmosphere have no power. People who are willing trust others, to engage in give and take, to share what little they can bring back to their tribes as patronage are seen as weak and will be replaced by someone more aggressive. Maliki’s problem was not that he was consolidating power in his tribe, it was that he did not do it fast enough to survive.

TC---in the article link concerning Malaki this stood out and many have overlooked it.

It goes to the heart of why Malaki will not compromise with any Sunni regardless of any pressure placed on him just ask al Hashimi.

My question is why was this not seen by national IC.

Over a span of three decades, Maliki moved between Iran and Syria, where he organized covert operations against Hussein’s regime, eventually becoming chief of Iraq’s Dawa branch in Damascus. The party found a patron in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic of Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when Iraq used Western-supplied chemical weapons, Tehran retaliated by using Shiite Islamist proxies such as Dawa to punish Hussein’s supporters. With Iran’s assistance, Dawa operatives bombed the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut in 1981 in one of radical Islam’s first suicide attacks. They also bombed the American and French embassies in Kuwait and schemed to kill the emir. Dozens of assassination plots against senior members of Hussein’s government, including the dictator himself, failed miserably, resulting in mass arrests and executions.

During the tumultuous months following America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Maliki returned to his home country. He took a job advising future prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafari and later, as a member of parliament, chaired the committee supporting the De-Baathification Commission, an organization privately celebrated by Shiite Islamists as a means of retribution and publicly decried by Sunnis as a tool of repression

[davidbfpo]

An unusually detailed report, written as Iraq joined the CWC and still had the contents of the sealed bunker(s):http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm

[JWing]

My latest article "Iraq’s Southern Front Babil Province Where The Islamic State Has Free Reign" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/iraqs-southern-front-babil-province.html). IS was never driven out of northern Babil even during the Surge. It now has been building up its network there for over a year. In response Baghdad has launched 6 security operations there so far this year. After each one the government claims success and then starts another one. In fact IS has been able to destroy a huge amount of ISF equipment and is using northwest Babil as a base to infiltrate into southern Baghdad as well as launch car bombs into southern Iraq. Despite official claims IS is as entrenched in northern Babil today as ever showing the failures of the security forces.

[AmericanPride]

Just a note about U.S. track record in interventions: I count 12 U.S. interventions (of various size in duration and level of committment) since 1991. Of these, four are on-going conflicts, and two had mixed results (War in Iraq, Somali Civil War 2006 - 2009; though I'd argue Iraq should be classified as a defeat). So of the 8 completed conflicts, 6 were completed with favorable terms for a 75% victory percentage; that's comparable to Russia's performance over the same time period (63-71% depending on typology). From 1901 to 1991, the U.S. participated in 10 conflicts, with 3 not ending in fully favorable conditions: Russian Civil War, Korea, and Vietnam. That's about the same track record as the post Cold War period. And in the 19th century, the U.S. participated in 47 wars, with only 4 ending in unfavorable terms. So if it's the case that the U.S. is a poor performer in interventions, this raises questions about the character of the wars themselves or of U.S. strategy in those war. And if it's a question of strategy, then it becomes one of analyzing intergovernmental politics to determine how strategy was formulated and implemented. That means that, potentially, the U.S. can in fact be successful in such interventions, provided that an effective strategy is created, properly resourced, and diligently pursued.

[JWing]

I call this reporting crap. According to the U.N. inspectors and WMD experts the mustard gas was the only agent of those listed that had a shelf life that could keep it useful by 2003. It's now 2014 and it has probably degraded even more. Agents like sarin probably expired far before 03. In fact the WMD facility at Muthanna was known to have taken short cuts in the production of agents which made them have an even shorter life than usual.

[davidbfpo]

Good to know you can conclude so succinctly.

Understandably chemical weapons are so 'orrible to think about, few have expertise.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon has just Tweeted:
Regarding the old Iraqi CW depot in Muthanna - If the public domain info is right, the best ISIS could do would be a nuisance device

[JWing]

Reidar Visser gives a critique of the Khedery piece in the Washington Post about how the U.S. backed Maliki

http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/what-went-wrong-in-iraq-the-khedery-version/

[JWing]

Iraq's sarin stock was made with high imperfections and only had a shelf life of 2 years. It was made in the 1980s so was long dead by 2003. Mustard gas and VX had much longer life. Michael Knights said that insurgents got into Muthanna site before back in 04 and used unfilled shells from there to make IEDs "causing mild nerve gas effects on US troops".

[OUTLAW 09]

Iraq's sarin stock was made with high imperfections and only had a shelf life of 2 years. It was made in the 1980s so was long dead by 2003. Mustard gas and VX had much longer life. Michael Knights said that insurgents got into Muthanna site before back in 04 and used unfilled shells from there to make IEDs "causing mild nerve gas effects on US troops".

JWing---occasionally there were up through 2010 IEDs found that had buried artillery shells as the explosives--on occasions chemical shells would be found that were worn and battered---it was assumed that the insurgent bomb makers just assumed that it was just another artillery shell thus into the hole with the others.

Some EOD teams did disarm some of these mixtures and the chemical shells were detonated along with the other shells in disposal pits.

There was also the assumption based on the worn condition that the shells were duds found along the Iraq/Iranian border in and or near to Mandali from the 8 years war.

[davidbfpo]

Within a longer comment by Bruce Hoffman on the current worldwide jihadist scene is this paragraph, which I cite in full, with my emphasis on the ISIS activity:
There are also already indications that Syria’s ongoing civil war, coupled with the focus on the use of chemical weapons by both government and opposition forces, have sharpened both groups’ interests and ambitions to obtain nerve agents, poison gas, and other harmful toxins for use as weapons. For example, in May 2013 Turkish authorities reportedly seized two kilos of sarin nerve gas—the same weapon used in the 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway system—and arrested twelve men linked to al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al Nusra. Only days later, another set of sarin-related arrests was made in Iraq of ISIS operatives overseeing the production at two factories of both sarin and mustard blistering agents. And, in November 2013, Israel reported that for the previous three years it has been holding a senior al-Qaeda operative with expertise in biological warfare.

Link:http://news.siteintelgroup.com/blog/index.php/entry/203-perfect-storm-the-arab-spring-and-the-syrian-civil-war

I will post the comment on another wider themed thread and finish reading it too.

[OUTLAW 09]

My latest article "Iraq’s Southern Front Babil Province Where The Islamic State Has Free Reign" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/iraqs-southern-front-babil-province.html). IS was never driven out of northern Babil even during the Surge. It now has been building up its network there for over a year. In response Baghdad has launched 6 security operations there so far this year. After each one the government claims success and then starts another one. In fact IS has been able to destroy a huge amount of ISF equipment and is using northwest Babil as a base to infiltrate into southern Baghdad as well as launch car bombs into southern Iraq. Despite official claims IS is as entrenched in northern Babil today as ever showing the failures of the security forces.

JWing---the villages around Abu Ghraib were never fully cleared by the Army thus I am willing to bet their old rat runs are the same today.

It was those villages along the main highway from the back side of Victory that ran through Abu G up to Fulluja that in 2004 had a major Army convoy ambushed that led to the longest MIA until his body was recovered I believe in late 2009.

There was a planned insurgent attack against the Abu Ghraib prison in mid 2006 to free prisoners that consisted of the 1920/ASA/IAI and AQI that totaled over three hundred fighters that was side tracked by early attacks by the 10th Mountain. The threat was serious enough to bring in additional manpower ie the 11ACR inside the prison to beef up the MP security units.

This was a repeat of the attack in April 2005 by the same insurgent groups that had over 150 fighters in the attack that came actually close to succeeding.

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing---looks like you were right --the fighting has moved south of Baghdad now.

BAGHDAD: Iraqi officials say 50 bodies have been discovered outside a city south of Baghdad, many of them blindfolded and with their hands bound.
Military spokesman Brig. Gen. Saad Maan Ibrahim says the bodies were discovered Wednesday in an agricultural area outside the city of Hillah.
Hillah is a predominantly Shiite city about 95 kilometers (60 miles) south of Baghdad.
Ibrahim says an investigation is underway to determine the identities of the dead as well as the circumstances of the killings.
The discovery of bullet-riddled bodies was common during the worst days of Iraq’s sectarian bloodletting in 2006 and 2007.

[TheCurmudgeon]

An interesting view (http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/now-a-caliphate-has-been-declared-the-debate-begins#ixzz36ymCUgYZ) from inside the Muslim world:


If there is one positive that has come out of the announcement of a caliphate by the Islamic State (the group formerly known as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant or ISIL), it is the debate it has triggered in Arabic media. “ISIL’s actions are but an epitome of what we’ve studied in our school curriculum,” tweeted Saudi commentator Ibrahim Al Shaalan. “If the curriculum is sound, then ISIL is right, and if it is wrong, then who bears responsibility?”

It is significant that such remarks come as part of a collective soul-searching from intellectuals, religious scholars and ordinary people from within the region.

Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi columnist, published a piece in Al Hayat on Saturday under the title “What went wrong for us to reach this situation?” He referred to a sentence attributed to the vicious Mongolian conqueror Hulagu Khan when addressing Muslims in Baghdad: “I am your sins befalling you.” Khashoggi wrote: “Perhaps it is time to ponder that sentence and work to rectify the mistakes of our ancestors as we live a similar situation, seeing angry young men with a backward thinking and understanding of life and religion eradicating the heritage of centuries.

“As for those who look for a foreign conspiracy, they are escaping the truth, which is that there is something wrong with us. What is it? No one wants to admit that something wrong has happened, and the only things that are moving dynamically forward are the flood [of extremism] and history.”

A second dissection has come from Dr Mohammed Habash, a religious scholar and a former member of the Syrian parliament, in an article titled “Where did ISIL really come from?” Dr Habash argues that extremism is born out of a dangerous mix: the systematic repression carried out by tyrannical regimes along with a “desperate religious discourse” that preaches a “just world” that can only materialise through the caliphate.

Placing blame on preachers, not excluding himself, he wrote: “We did not speak about the caliphate as a political system that is fallible. No, we spoke about it as a sacred symbol of unity and that anything – even values and principles – has to be subordinate to the realisation of it … ISIL did not arrive from Mars; it is a natural product of our retrograde discourse. Talk about the caliphate has always provided a way to justify our defeats, failure, losses and inability to catch up with the rest of the world.”

Dr Habash concludes with a counsel: “What we need is a revolution within the Muslim mindset that takes it back to the true Islamic values of freedom, justice, human dignity; away from the sacredness of the caliphate … to a political system that simply governs the affairs of people.”


Looked at from this perspective, Al Baghdadi, or Caliph Ibrahim, is playing out what Christians would recognize as "the second coming", the restoration of God's glory on earth via the resurrection of a religious symbol of perfection. In Christianity it is the second coming of Christ. In Islam, it is the return of the Caliphate. Apparently this is something that many children were taught as part of their Islamic education. That someday Muslim pride would be restored in the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Now that it has occured, there is some soul searching to be done.

But that is secondary. If Al Baghdadi is using this widely taught religious myth his actions will have repercussions in places that he does not control. It will be interesting to see how the intersection of myth and reality play out in Saudi Arabia or Libya. I would really like to hear from a Muslim about what they were taught about the return of the Caliphate.

If accurate, it also means that what is occurring has a greater significance to the larger Muslim community than mere politics. Westerners, as outsiders, should tread cautiously when deciding what to do about ISIS.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---following your logic then we do not need to understand that IS is sitting on a 2B USD war chest, they have effectively unified both the Syrian and Iraqi Sunni's and control all the production oil and gas fields in Syria/there have been oil deposits located in Iraq Sunni areas and are to a degree in partial control of the largest refinery in Iraq.

And if you read through the NYT article of the IS strategy-- they control a large amount of the water infrastructure in both countries and who controls water controls the farming economies of both countries.

Then on top of all that they are effectively blocking a 300K man ISF and another 50K Shia militia/Quds from retaking territory they control.

So why are you worried about how high the oil revenues are? There is a lot of other things that are more important.

Actually you're the one who cited oil and associated revenues as key elements of a viable State:

Currently the IS through the declaration of the Caliphate has created effectively a new Sunni State complete with oil reserves and revenue streams so the argument that the Sunni's in Iraq can not sustain themselves is actually false from the IS perspective---they are in fact right now in this time and space a viable state.

I have no doubt that, a JWing says, they are trucking some oil out, and that this gives them enough money to pay their fighters and run their insurgency. That's not the same thing as running a viable state. I see no evidence to suggest that they have the capacity to do that, certainly not on the basis of oil production.

Of course they have the capacity to make a mess and cause all kinds of trouble; that's already established. Saying that they have a viable State or the capacity to manage a viable State seems a substantial overreach



Dayuhan----

Robert Jones would say ---the current problem in Iraq is the lack of the rule of law and good governance.

If Robert Jones wants to say something, he will. Tell us what you want to say, not what he would say. He'll speak for himself.


As former U.S. official in Iraq Ali Khedery wrote in The Washington Post, the U.S. policy during the crucial years following the 2008 Sunni awakening was to place faith in Maliki to build an inclusive system rather than use American influence to support other political actors.

Did the US ever really have the option of imposing an "inclusive" system? The US cannot reshape Iraqi political culture by executive fiat, short of running Iraq as an effective colony for a generation or two, which was never an option.


“Nobody from the Arab Sunnis are ready to repeat the same experience of 2008, no way. But if we establish a real state in Baghdad, extremism will be over, I assure you.”

Have to wonder who the "we" in that sentence is meant to be.


“The U.S. ethically is still in charge of our security, our stability and preventing interference from foreign countries, whether neighboring countries or far away countries, it is still the responsibility of the U.S.,” he said. “Transparency, human rights, no corruption, justice, no interference. All of these values have been talked about nicely but nobody has pressed the government on which have been achieved and which have failed. That is the role of the United States.”

The role of the United States is determined by the United States.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan


I have no doubt that, a JWing says, they are trucking some oil out, and that this gives them enough money to pay their fighters and run their insurgency. That's not the same thing as running a viable state. I see no evidence to suggest that they have the capacity to do that, certainly not on the basis of oil production.

Of course they have the capacity to make a mess and cause all kinds of trouble; that's already established. Saying that they have a viable State or the capacity to manage a viable State seems a substantial overreach

There is a difference between establishing governance and a government according to one source I recall reading. A state run by a government is recognized by the international community and it develops institutions. Governance means controlling the area without international recognition. Whether we accept the definition or not is somewhat irrelevant, but was is relevant is that IS and other non-state groups can govern an area without being a viable state in our eyes. We're so indoctrinated with Western models we are almost incapable of perceiving other models of government and governance. We'll see how things play out in Iraq, but I think it is a mistake to pass judgment based on what we think a viable state is, since that concept may not be relevant in this situation.

[Dayuhan]

There is a difference between establishing governance and a government according to one source I recall reading. A state run by a government is recognized by the international community and it develops institutions. Governance means controlling the area without international recognition.

Certainly true, but with or without recognition, those who control must sooner or later begin to govern, and when that happens money makes a difference. I was just responding to Outlaw's claim that the ingredients for a viable State were already in place, which seemed to me exaggerated.

[OUTLAW 09]

Actually you're the one who cited oil and associated revenues as key elements of a viable State:


I have no doubt that, a JWing says, they are trucking some oil out, and that this gives them enough money to pay their fighters and run their insurgency. That's not the same thing as running a viable state. I see no evidence to suggest that they have the capacity to do that, certainly not on the basis of oil production.

Of course they have the capacity to make a mess and cause all kinds of trouble; that's already established. Saying that they have a viable State or the capacity to manage a viable State seems a substantial overreach

If Robert Jones wants to say something, he will. Tell us what you want to say, not what he would say. He'll speak for himself.

Did the US ever really have the option of imposing an "inclusive" system? The US cannot reshape Iraqi political culture by executive fiat, short of running Iraq as an effective colony for a generation or two, which was never an option.



Have to wonder who the "we" in that sentence is meant to be.



The role of the United States is determined by the United States.

Dayuhan---

Dayuhan---I will paraphrase something JMA told you recently--it is far easier as you do to tear something about-but then that is what your and mirhond both tend to do calling it debate.

Finally say something that means anything, finally have your own opinion---unless you can counter the Robert concept of rule of law and good governance then not say anything. If you noticed which you did not I was paraphrasing Robert not putting words in his mouth which you tend to do.

I could go back on anything you have written and tear apart sentence for sentence by why---it usually is a waste of time as nothing is really every sound.

Dayuhan---by the way ask yourself the following question?

Do I as a superpower having invested say at the least 1 tillion USDs with a big T, having lost 4.4 KIA over 200K WIA and had one MIA until 2009---have I actually "pressure" power to get an inclusive government if I play my game correctly. This "pressure" is also not counting at least 160K troops inside your country and oh by the way the corruption money you are making off of me in the millions of USDs counts as well as "pressure" does it not?

The actual question should be if you read carefully my comments---just why did not "we" play the "game?

Now answer it in a couple of paragraphs so we can actually understand your thinking---stop tearing apart ---contribute something, anything.

[OUTLAW 09]

Certainly true, but with or without recognition, those who control must sooner or later begin to govern, and when that happens money makes a difference. I was just responding to Outlaw's claim that the ingredients for a viable State were already in place, which seemed to me exaggerated.

See Dayuhan part of the problem is your thinking---it does not reflect actual Iraq ie Arab thinking both on the ground and throughout the ME.

The actual parts are now in place for a separate creation of a Sunni and Kurdish state---that is what needs to be understood---it is not your ideas of a state nor mine--it is what a targeted population feels that state should reflect.

That is why we have gotten this so wrong---we went in assuming that we could change things based on our western assumptions but forgot along the way the actual population that was being affected has a big say in events on the ground.

We ignored starting in mid 2005 the Shia revenge killings which were really ethnic cleansing because we in the west could not fathom "ethnic cleansing ever occurring in front of our noses"---when we did wake up in 2007 what did we have to do--surge and then we "celebrated" the surge as what "a victory"?

If victory is defined as finally waking up and realizing we made a mistake then I guess it was a "victory of sorts".

By the way did you finally get the symbolism of the Green Crescent paralleling the old Silk Road---that goes to the heart today of the regional hegemony fight between Iran and the KSA but we hide it in the Sunni/Shia divide debate.

[OUTLAW 09]

TC----we are light years behind in understanding exactly what currently is occurring inside both Iraq and Syria since we tend to approach it from our "western" thinking.

I have said a number of times we are seeing the redrawing of Sykes-Picot and we must let al Baghdadi's Caliphate play itself out---note the link I posted of a leading Sunni theologian and his remarks---as well as the remarks from a few days ago from the former AQ religious Emir sitting by the way in Jordan.

That internal Sunni debate has stated and it must play out in the Sunni world---the question will be will the Shia follow the conversation and truly listen as it impacts them as well and it directly if one reads between the lines of al Baghdadi's announcement---AND the provided map is really important for us to fully understand as he envisions the Caliphate back to the glory days when it was in Spain and eastern Europe.

In some aspects he represents many Sunni who feel the west has downtrodden the Islamic world (and globalization has heaped on problems for them as well) and that is reflected in the map he provided depicting the Caliphate.

It attacked directly as well the current Iranian theocratic government to it's core.

Notice al Sistani has not said a word ---yet---watch when he does.


"If accurate, it also means that what is occurring has a greater significance to the larger Muslim community than mere politics. Westerners, as outsiders, should tread cautiously when deciding what to do about ISIS."

[davidbfpo]

A very thin BBC report:
Iraq has warned the UN that Sunni militants have seized nuclear materials used for scientific research at a university in the city of Mosul....nearly 40kg (88lb) of uranium compounds were seized...US officials reportedly played down the threat, saying the materials were not believed to be enriched uranium....it would be difficult for the rebels to use the materials to make weapons.


Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28240140


Many universities across the world have radioactive materials for research, training and public health provision. Just whether the University of Mosul has such an amount of material we have to rely on the Iraqi government; I think I'll leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.;)

[TheCurmudgeon]

A little more background (http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/03/islamic-caliphate-the-ultimate-muslim-dream/)


What exactly is a Caliphate?


A caliphate is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state (Caliph) has a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad’s political authority. It is a dream that has never been realized by Muslims and it will never be.

There will always be Muslims who dream about this empire and on the other hand the power-hungry leaders will prevent any movement that could dissolve their nation-state. Therefore, Muslims are stuck in an eternal conflict between Islamists and nationalists.

What are the goals of this Caliphate?

Besides uniting the Muslims, the goal is to arrange a massive army and call for Jihad against infidel states for the expansion of the Caliphate. Various caliphates have used this strategy to expand their states. The rapid Islamic expansion during the reign of the Caliphs is nothing but staggering.

The reason behind that is millions of eager men willingly joining the fight with the Infidels bacause they believe that Allah will reward them heftily if they die. There has never been a shortage of recruits in the army. This is the same reason there is no shortage of suicide bombers today.

The ultimate goal of the Caliphate would be to bring every square inch of this planet under Islam and convert/subdue all remaining Infidels.

two western reactions I could find. Comments by two "Western" Muslims who think that the dream of the Caliphate is not as important to modern Muslims as it was to the older generations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10943404/Most-Muslims-dont-care-about-the-Isis-Caliphate.html

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-06-25/just-what-caliphate-and-why-are-some-muslims-keen-reestablish-one

[OUTLAW 09]

A little more background (http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/03/islamic-caliphate-the-ultimate-muslim-dream/)



two western reactions I could find. Comments by two "Western" Muslims who think that the dream of the Caliphate is not as important to modern Muslims as it was to the older generations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10943404/Most-Muslims-dont-care-about-the-Isis-Caliphate.html

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-06-25/just-what-caliphate-and-why-are-some-muslims-keen-reestablish-one

TC---the series of speeches by al Baghdadi over say the last year that have appeared on the social media side are targeting young male Muslims---alone here in Germany the German Federal Defense of the Constitution (BfV) estimates the number of Islamists ie their term for Salafists at approximately 43,000---then take country for country inside the EU and one comes to numbers in the 100s of thousand "interested" disaffected Muslim males of war fighting age who want to prove themselves as "warriors".

The core question then becomes why are they disaffected in their various European countries?---my answer is for some reason the Muslim communities much as say the Hispanic communities in the US tend to not want to fully integrate into the standard society out of fear of losing their identities and language.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan--you were interested in oil revenues that IS earning daily---taken from a German article today in an interview with a IS jihadi fighter who deserted IS.

By the way Iraqi ISF "claims" they found an USB stick on a raid indicating that IS had before Mosul a wealth of 875M USD and together with the estimated 1.5B USD they got in taking Mosul and other areas.

Er sagt, Isis finanziere sich mithilfe zweier groer lfelder um Hama, mitten in Syrien, und ber 150 kleine lfelder an der Grenze zum Irak. l ist das Haupteinkommen. "Sie frdern 13.000 Barrel tglich und verkaufen ein Barrel fr 20 Dollar."

So 13,000 barrels per day times 20 USD and that daily. The buyer has a great profit margin.

[OUTLAW 09]

It seems Malaki is now blaming the Kurds for the IS successes---he is never at fault---especially since it appears that he is trying massively to hold onto his position as he views himself not as the problem thus the lack of any new government---a trick he has always used in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/world/middleeast/in-apparent-mass-killing-bodies-found-in-region-south-of-baghdad.html?_r=1

[TheCurmudgeon]

The core question then becomes why are they disaffected in their various European countries?---my answer is for some reason the Muslim communities much as say the Hispanic communities in the US tend to not want to fully integrate into the standard society out of fear of losing their identities and language.

I have my own theories on why this is. My guess is that you will find a relationship between two factors, the income/wealth and time spent in a secular country of the Muslim (or Hispanic) individuals, and their attachement to the idea of nation-state political legitimacy versus religious political legitimacy.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The idea of the restored Caliphate has a powerful impact on Muslims across the Islamic world:



The point can be argued, and has been,4 that the caliph was not only the temporal and spiritual (meaning able to head worship services and conduct religious ceremonies and rites) ruler, he was also God’s Deputy on Earth and thus was qualified to comment on, or more importantly, reinterpret Sura, Hadith and Sunna. Therefore, the caliph also had scholarly authority, could exercise religious authority and revise or establish religious doctrine. If the caliphate is restored, the potential struggle to define these differing interpretations would be critical not only to the US but to all Muslims.

...

Yet there are those today who seek to re-establish a caliphate, say that they want a caliphate or point out that a caliphate is the goal of Islamism. Also, there remains an undeniable ‘longing’ by many Muslims for a caliphate, based on views of a not necessarily ‘Golden Age’ of Islam. In a 2007 poll conducted by the University of Maryland of 4,384 Muslims in four nations (Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia), over 65 per cent interviewed answered positively to the question: ‘To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate.’9 Further, 65.5 per cent of the respondents said yes when asked if: ‘To require a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.’10 In fact, an electronic ‘Caliphate OnLine’ site has been established in Great Britain which seeks to raise awareness about a new
caliphate and has even drawn up a tentative organizational chart of how a modern caliphate would be organized politically.11

Unfortunatley, there is not an open link to the article. Here is the cite:
Vernie Liebl (2009) The Caliphate, Middle Eastern Studies, 45:3, 373-391, DOI:
10.1080/00263200902853355

[OUTLAW 09]

Further prove the US has no strategy for both Syria and Iraq other than lets just wait for it to somehow improve.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/10/u-s-ignored-warnings-before-isis-takeover-of-a-key-city.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

As I tend to do, I went back to find the source documents of the poll referenced in the article. It can be found here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf

Now, the poll was really aimed at determining how much support there was in the Muslim world for AQ and its aims. Threrefore, there will be a slight skew in the results based on a psychological bias created by "priming" - inserting an idea in the head of the person who is asked the question. With that in mind, here is the paragraph from the report citing the results:


The two remaining goals [of AQ] represent potential threats to governments in the Islamic world. The first is “to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate.” Majorities in all countries polled perceived correctly that al Qaeda wanted to achieve this: 67 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Indonesia, 60 percent in Egypt and 52 percent in Pakistan. Majorities in three countries also agreed with this objective themselves: Pakistan (74%), Morocco (71%), and Egypt (67%). Indonesia was the exception: only 49 percent agreed that Islamic countries should be united into a caliphate.

It is worth noting that, except for Indonesia, the percentage of people who believed that restoring the Caliphate is or should be an objective of Islam is higher than the percentage of muslims who felt that restoring the Caliphate was a goal of AQ.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---I will paraphrase something JMA told you recently--it is far easier as you do to tear something about-but then that is what your and mirhond both tend to do calling it debate.

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.


Finally say something that means anything, finally have your own opinion---unless you can counter the Robert concept of rule of law and good governance then not say anything. If you noticed which you did not I was paraphrasing Robert not putting words in his mouth which you tend to do.

My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.


Do I as a superpower having invested say at the least 1 tillion USDs with a big T, having lost 4.4 KIA over 200K WIA and had one MIA until 2009---have I actually "pressure" power to get an inclusive government if I play my game correctly. This "pressure" is also not counting at least 160K troops inside your country and oh by the way the corruption money you are making off of me in the millions of USDs counts as well as "pressure" does it not?

Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.


The actual question should be if you read carefully my comments---just why did not "we" play the "game?

We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.

[OUTLAW 09]

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.



My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.



Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.



We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.

Dayuhan---we can debate all day long slicing and dicing each paragraph--core issues are;

1. why not go back to the decision making group of individuals and hold them responsible for the deaths of 4.4K killed, 200K wounded and a waste of 1T USDs---really question the lies, deceit and manipulations of the American public
2. why not go back a openly and seriously question the entire US intelligence community for the initial failures and the continued failures while we were in Iraq at not understanding what was going on
3. why do openly and seriously question the senior military leadership that served in the MNF-I for not calling a spade a spade

Then when that is finished question the American public for not wanting to know anything about anything and asking serious questions of their politicians and military.

Because right now we are seeing the results of that lack of an open and serious conversation in the current events in Syria and Iraq all over again.

Then once we can get off the stupid discussions centered around declaring everything a "terrorist" then maybe we can get onto the discussion that some are in fact freedom fighters for a specific cause and not a threat against the "homeland".

Then when we can separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter without panicking and hiding in a closet from that discussion then we can incorporate what Robert has been saying for a long while here in the SWJ.

Are we at that point and will we ever get to that point---not in my life time nor yours.

So stop the slicing and dicing and have an opinion and state it so we can slice and dice your thoughts to death.

BUT again no we do not know how to play the "game" that in the Cold War days would have been reserved for a "superpower" or did you think with the efforts, time, money, and loss of life did not "give" the US at least a "voice" in the game.

If so then why did we not use it?

So explain that piece to us in order that we might understand your thinking so we can dissect it.

[JMA]

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.

Easier than you stating what you believe in some detail rather than just picking holes in what others post. You are not contributing to the discussion at all... just a distraction.

Came across a number of people in my time who waited for others to contribute then criticised them for all it was worth. Where I was able I posted them out of my command/unit and kicked them off the officers courses I ran. Nasty people, bad for morale.
(I have come to learn that this problem is likely to be caused by a neurological chemical imbalance which is easy to fix)

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---will nudge you to think about this.

1. QJBR (AQ in the Land of Two Rivers (2004) which formed out of the 90s Tahwid group) then AQI (2005) then ISIL/ISIS and now IS---if one strictly looks at the group---outside of claiming they were initially part of AQ and now no longer part of AQ and if one accepts the fact that they were assisting Iraqi Sunnis resisting an illegal invasion by the US and if we see them fighting Assad which the US has stated it wants removed from Syria--and the organization has not declared the US it's avowed enemy nor the Great Satan and from their messaging seems to not be interested in striking the "homeland"-------

1. Then how can we the US declare it a "terrorist organization" when it is no longer a member of AQ and has formally rejected AQ?---the US laws passed in the post 9/11 period state Taliban and AQ not the now IS? Especially if they have in the past and now not declared the US their enemy---yes the US was an enemy within the confines of Iraq but not outwardly because it had invaded Iraq.

As a thinking refresher exercise just go back and read the press articles about the GWOT and the AQ/Taliban from the 9/11 to 2005 periods.

As a thinking refresher go back and reread the many us vs. them articles during the same period.

2. Then how do we engage with an organization with approximately the same stated long term goals---creation of a Sunni state ie Caliphate and the overthrow of Assad?

3. Then how do we fine tune our thinking to assist in the redrawing of the colonial Sykes-Picot boundaries which goes to the heart of most of the ME issues if we do not even talk with even yes "moderate Islamists".

Here is the crack point because we the US have gotten ourselves so tangled up in the view of the US vs. them "the terrorists" we cannot see the trees any longer and at the same we were fighting the GWOT we gave up our inherent personal freedoms so we can no longer even complain without being defined as the "enemy" if one is using the legal software "Tor" in order to maintain privacy on the Net.

When was the last time you read a report of AQ attacking a water tower in the middle of Des Moines, Iowa?

I will change directions and look at the Israeli/Palestinian problem as another example of our not fully understanding the role of a "superpower".

The US provides a massive financial aid package to both the Israeli's and the Palestinians especially in the last five years---and especially on the PLO side which is getting virtually nothing more from other Arab donors.

On the Israeli side we provide advanced weapons and R&D funding for their military research and weapons production or who do you think paid for the Iron Dome missile system which to this day the Israeli's have not provided the technical details on regardless of funding requirements.

So using your thinking we must not have a "voice" in the game ---right?---I would state we must have and should have a "voice" even if both sides do not like it and or even the the rest of the world does not like it.

But where do we find that "voice" in the currently stated Obama foreign policy?---nowhere would be my answer. By the way I would argue that since 9/11 American foreign policy displays a tad bit of we do not really care what the rest of the world thinks attitude.

Look how far that got the CIAs Chief of Station here in Berlin yesterday when the US government was asked for some direct answers to alleged CIA spy recruitments---they tap danced and provided nothing and the COS is being diplomatically "sent" home after getting a great career boost by coming to Berlin.

[jcustis]

From the CENTCOM homepage. Mentions the minimal concern over the materials stored at the site.

http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/articles/hagel-all-assessments-needed-for-full-picture-in-iraq


NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE KINGS BAY, Ga. – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey are seeing initial assessments submitted daily from teams in Iraq, but only the full range of assessments seen as a whole will tell the story in Iraq, Hagel said July 9.

The secretary spoke with local and traveling media at this southeast Georgia installation.

Reporters asked Hagel about U.S. military efforts in Iraq that are focused on two missions: securing the American Embassy and personnel in Baghdad and assessing the situation in the country and advising Iraqi security forces. The strategy involves supporting Iraqi forces and helping Iraq's leaders resolve the political crisis that enabled the advance of the armed militant extremist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, also known as ISIS.

On July 1, the United Nations reported that Iraq’s violent insurgency had claimed 2,400 lives, half of them civilians, during June. The U.N. added that June was the deadliest month in the country since 2007.

The secretary said he and Dempsey are receiving updates from Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command and the person in charge of overseeing U.S. military security and assessment efforts in Iraq, based on each 24-hour report he gets.

These glimpses, Hagel said, “are starting to form and shape a picture of what our guys are picking up. But they're not complete.”

The full context of the different assessments will include information on such topics as the strength of ISIL and strength and depth of tribal integration into ISIL, he said. Another assessment topic might include learning the strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces as they have pushed further outside Baghdad, Hagel added.

About 640 troops are divided between the two missions, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said at a July 8 news conference. The assessment mission includes six teams, based mostly in and around Baghdad, and two joint operations centers, one in Baghdad and one in Irbil, the admiral said.

Manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights have increased sharply since the assessment first started, he said, from an initial 30 to 35 daily sorties to about 50 now.

The assessments are nearing the end of their initial phase, which was expected to take two to three weeks, Kirby said.

Responding to a question about media reports of ISIL taking control last month of a former Iraqi chemical weapons plant, Hagel said the United States has known about the facility for years. The chemicals inside the facility “are not chemical weapons munitions, they are not weaponized,” he said. “They are old chemicals from many years ago,” he added. “We know where they are, we've known about them, we're keeping our eye on them.”

In 2004, the CIA published the 1,000-page Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The portion that covers Iraq’s chemical warfare program describes the complex’s history.

“The entire Al Muthanna mega-facility was the bastion of Iraqi’s chemical weapons development program,” the report says. “During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, it amassed mega-bunkers full of chemical munitions, and provided Iraq with a force multiplier sufficient to counteract Iran’s superior military numbers. Two wars, sanctions and [United Nations Special Commission] oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities.”

Hagel said the United States is assisting in every way it can “to help the Iraqi people defeat the brutal fundamentalists that are attempting not just to destabilize Iraq, but essentially take control of Iraq.”

The assessments will be completed in the next few days, he added, “and we'll have a further context of what recommendations they'll make.”

“In the meantime,” he said, “we're doing everything we can … in those two general areas: protect our people and assist the Iraqi security forces in their efforts to defeat ISIL.”

The secretary said the American people and Congress should not make the mistake of thinking ISIL is not a threat to the United States.

“This is a force that is sophisticated, it's dynamic, it's strong, it's organized, it's well financed [and] it's competent,” Hagel said. “It is a threat to our allies all over the Middle East. It's a threat to Europe. It's a threat to every stabilized country on Earth, and it's a threat to us.”

Though ISIL may not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, the secretary said, it is a threat to the United States and poses a clear and imminent threat to U.S. partners in the area.

Hagel noted current events in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Gaza Strip, Libya and Egypt.

“There is hardly a stable country in that area of the Middle East, and that's very dangerous for all of us,” he said

[Bill Moore]

Nightwatch reports today that:


Iraqi Sunni rebel factions have agreed that "each group should operate in its zone of influence," and that "the issue of unifying them under one command is currently not on the table." They also agreed that Sunni rebel groups would seek to conclude a truce with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in order to halt infighting and to give up the ISIL demand for a pledge of allegiance.


Ba'athist militants have started "a systematic assassination campaign" against ISIL commanders in areas under their joint control in Diyala Governorate. Some smaller tribes near Mosul also said they killed several ISIL commanders today.

Other reports indicate IS are conducting their own purge of Ba'athists in Mosul and other areas.

This attempt to consolidate power is normal in most revolutions/insurgencies. Ho ruthlessly consolidated power in N. Vietnam by killing off his political rivals, the LTTE did the same in Sri Lanka, and in El Salvador there were several factions within the insurgent movement which frustrated the Cubans who wanted them to unite so they could provide effective assistance to them. This is obviously an opportunity to keep them relatively weak if we can prolong the divisions in the ranks between the ISIL, Ba'athists, and Sunni Tribes.

Further reports of oppression in Mosul by IS may indicate that waiting for the IS to show their true colors to the people may be a useful strategy. If the IS turns the population against them, it will make a subsequent military operation much easier. The missing step that both the Iraqi government, our occupation, and ISIL share is the inability to effectively consolidate tactical victory into an enduring strategic gain.

[davidbfpo]

A short article by an Israeli academic 'A call to arms: what lies beneath Sistani’s potent fatwa?':
Ayatollah Sistani’s fatwa, urging collective responsibility for Iraq’s religious sites, has been variously construed as a Shi’i mobilization campaign or a nationalist call to arms. But beneath the fatwa’s surface lie deeper roots: the very ruptures and fissures that plague Iraq’s Shi’is.

(It ends with) Sistani’s potent fatwa might have been misconstrued as an attempt to mobilize Iraqi Shi’is against ISIS and the Sunni insurgency, instead of a call for all Iraqis to defend their homeland and its various religious sites as intended by its author. But its real significance lies less in the gravity of ISIS’s threat to Iraq and more in its reflection of the profound divisions that plague Iraq’s Shi’is.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening/rachel-kantz-feder/call-to-arms-what-lies-beneath-sistani%E2%80%99s-potent-fatwa

[OUTLAW 09]

Malaki has fired his Foreign Minister a Kurd and the Kurds are talking about independence almost every day---appears more every day that by Malaki hanging on he has lost the Sunni and Kurdish regions even if his Army regains their footing.

He definitely is losing his oil fields.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0711/As-Kurds-seize-Iraq-oil-fields-independence-push-exposes-divisions

[OUTLAW 09]

IS is still grinding it out on the ground with a new move on Ramadi---evidently they still hold portions of Ramadi---is an attempt to relieve pressure on Fulluja.

Malaki seems to be losing his mental state with his latest round of uncontrolled tirades/reactions (throwing out the Kurdish FM) against the Kurds who with those comments appears to really want to lose the Kurdish regions. Two more oil fields in the north are taken over by the Kurds.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-kurdish-forces-seize-oil-refineries-oil-fields-kirkuk-bai-hassan/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/tensions-mount-between-baghdad-and-iraqs-kurds/2014/07/11/7baeea5e-2bfe-4d07-942b-1653af3d60a3_story.html?hpid=z10

If in fact Ramadi goes over to the IS---IS has successfully begun to implement an encirclement of Baghdad. They simply need to blockade it not take control of it in order to prove to the Sunni global community their victories over the Shia thus the legitimacy of the Caliphate.

The JCoS Dempesy virtually said that last week when he indicated they could only defend the city but not recover lost terrority.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/600431

[Dayuhan]

Malaki has fired his Foreign Minister a Kurd and the Kurds are talking about independence almost every day---appears more every day that by Malaki hanging on he has lost the Sunni and Kurdish regions even if his Army regains their footing.

He definitely is losing his oil fields.

I expect the Kurds will go their own way and take the northern fields with them. The larger reserves in the south remain firmly in Shi'a territory and don't appear to be going anywhere. If Iraq dissolves along sectarian lines, the Shi'a portion will still have plenty of oil.

If (when?) full dissolution occurs it will be interesting to see whether the Kurds will try to take Mosul and the Baiji refinery complex, which apparently is still contested. If ISIS can gain control of some of the northern Iraqi fields they will have more oil than they can get from Syria.

This prior post is so chaotic that it's difficult to figure out what the point is or how to reasonably respond, but to try to address specific questions...


1. Then how can we the US declare it a "terrorist organization" when it is no longer a member of AQ and has formally rejected AQ?---the US laws passed in the post 9/11 period state Taliban and AQ not the now IS? Especially if they have in the past and now not declared the US their enemy---yes the US was an enemy within the confines of Iraq but not outwardly because it had invaded Iraq.

Direct connection to AQ is not a prerequisite for "terrorist" designation... though I'd certainly agree that the official "terrorist" designation has been widely abused and misused.


2. Then how do we engage with an organization with approximately the same stated long term goals---creation of a Sunni state ie Caliphate and the overthrow of Assad?

Are you assuming that we must engage with them at all? If so, why?


3. Then how do we fine tune our thinking to assist in the redrawing of the colonial Sykes-Picot boundaries which goes to the heart of most of the ME issues if we do not even talk with even yes "moderate Islamists".

Why should we be involved in redrawing the boundaries of Iraq? How well have our previous attempts to shape the pattern of Iraqi governance worked out?

As far as I can see, we should not be involved in that process unless we have clear, specific, and achievable goals to our involvement. What would those be? I can't see trying to keep Maliki in power as something the US should be getting behind, same for keeping the physical "Iraq" that we know intact. So what's the goal? If we aren't clear on what that is, better to let the Iraqis hack it out themselves and deal with whatever emerges at the other end.


Here is the crack point because we the US have gotten ourselves so tangled up in the view of the US vs. them "the terrorists" we cannot see the trees any longer and at the same we were fighting the GWOT we gave up our inherent personal freedoms so we can no longer even complain without being defined as the "enemy" if one is using the legal software "Tor" in order to maintain privacy on the Net.

Yes, the whole "us vs the terrorists" routine is simplistic and pointless. What's the point? Is that pointing toward some variant on the "let's support the good guys" theme?


I will change directions and look at the Israeli/Palestinian problem as another example of our not fully understanding the role of a "superpower".

The US provides a massive financial aid package to both the Israeli's and the Palestinians especially in the last five years---and especially on the PLO side which is getting virtually nothing more from other Arab donors.

On the Israeli side we provide advanced weapons and R&D funding for their military research and weapons production or who do you think paid for the Iron Dome missile system which to this day the Israeli's have not provided the technical details on regardless of funding requirements.

So using your thinking we must not have a "voice" in the game ---right?---I would state we must have and should have a "voice" even if both sides do not like it and or even the the rest of the world does not like it.

But where do we find that "voice" in the currently stated Obama foreign policy?---nowhere would be my answer. By the way I would argue that since 9/11 American foreign policy displays a tad bit of we do not really care what the rest of the world thinks attitude.

Having a "voice" doesn't mean anyone will listen to your "voice", and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have been ignoring our voice for generations, perhaps partly because we keep giving them money even when they ignore us. Nothing unique to this administration about that: it's been going on for decades. If it were up to me I'd declare a pox on both their houses, cut off all the money, and maybe think about restoring some if the parties come to us offering specific concessions, but obviously it isn't up to me. If the money is intended to buy influence or to buy a voice, the ROI is unacceptably low, to put it very mildly.

I do not believe that being a superpower means you must have a finger in every pie, everywhere: overextension is ever the grave of empire. That doesn't mean we should never get involved, it means that we should only get involved where we have a clear and compelling interest at stake, where we have clear, specific, and achievable goals, and where we have realistic and practical plans for achieving those goals. Jumping into someone else's mess just because we're a superpower and the superpower ought to be there just doesn't seem very smart to me.


Dayuhan---we can debate all day long slicing and dicing each paragraph--core issues are;

1. why not go back to the decision making group of individuals and hold them responsible for the deaths of 4.4K killed, 200K wounded and a waste of 1T USDs---really question the lies, deceit and manipulations of the American public
2. why not go back a openly and seriously question the entire US intelligence community for the initial failures and the continued failures while we were in Iraq at not understanding what was going on
3. why do openly and seriously question the senior military leadership that served in the MNF-I for not calling a spade a spade

Then when that is finished question the American public for not wanting to know anything about anything and asking serious questions of their politicians and military.

I think we both know the answer to those. The US traditionally does not hold its leaders accountable for the consequences of their decisions, we just vote the fools out and vote a new bunch of fools in. There was no shortage of voices in the leadup to the Iraq invasion warning that a post-Saddam Iraq would be unmanageable and would likely dissolve into civil war; the voices were simply ignored. The leadership didn't want to hear it, and the post 9/11 public just wanted to see some Arab butt getting kicked. It was not an environment conducive to rational thought, and what little there was on the table was quickly swept away.


Because right now we are seeing the results of that lack of an open and serious conversation in the current events in Syria and Iraq all over again.

The conversation is going on, all over, it just hasn't reached any very attractive conclusions.


Then once we can get off the stupid discussions centered around declaring everything a "terrorist" then maybe we can get onto the discussion that some are in fact freedom fighters for a specific cause and not a threat against the "homeland".

Then when we can separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter without panicking and hiding in a closet from that discussion then we can incorporate what Robert has been saying for a long while here in the SWJ.

I don't think anyone here is declaring everything a terrorist, so that's a bit of a straw man, but again, I'm not sure where you're going with that. Is it pointing toward some variant on the "support the god guys" theme?


So stop the slicing and dicing and have an opinion and state it so we can slice and dice your thoughts to death.

My opinion, stated repeatedly, is that unless there's a defined and compelling US interest involved, unless we have clear, specific, and achievable goals, and unless we have a practical and realistic plan for achieving those goals, we should not be getting involved in these fights, directly or by proxy. Winning is achieving your goal, and if your goal is nebulous, ephemeral, or aspirational, your chance of winning is near nil from the start. Why engage on those terms? The start of any conversation on action, intervention, or engagement has to be defining the interests at stake and the specific goals of the action. Those ingredients are all too often missing from the conversation. How can there be a rational discussion of method if we aren't clear on what specifically we are trying to achieve?


BUT again no we do not know how to play the "game" that in the Cold War days would have been reserved for a "superpower" or did you think with the efforts, time, money, and loss of life did not "give" the US at least a "voice" in the game.

If so then why did we not use it?

We did use it. We just didn't use it effectively.

[JWing]

Little update on some events.

Iraq Oil Report finds that IS is smuggling oil from the northern fields it controls into Kurdistan making an estimated $1 mil/day.

With regards to the Kurds they are taking a two track policy. On the one hand they are trying to hep form the new Iraqi government. They haven't decided who will be president yet, keeping with the ethnosectarian quota system, but once the Shiite National Alliance decides on whether to keep Maliki or not this issues will be quickly decided. It will probably end up being Barham Salah. Their second poicy is to continue to move towards independence. That is not going to happen anytime soon. They are not a financially viable state. Just take a recent announcement by the Natural Resource Minister Hawrami who said that Kurdistan will suffer from gas shortages or 2-3 years until it build more refineries. Until then there are huge lines of people waiting for gas throughout the region and the regional government has had to increase purchases of gas from Turkey. Its estimated that the Kurds need to export an average of around 1 mil/bar/day to pay for themselves. They only have a capacity of 400,000 bar/day. Adding Kirkuk field does not help because the Kirkuk pipeline is down and the insurgents control much of the territory it passes through.

In Anbar the insurgents are moving on Ramadi. They had a presence in the southern portion of the city since the beginning of fighting in December but now control the western half and are moving on the rest of the city. Reinforcements were sent but these are the new recruits which supposedly are only getting 3-10 days of training and will probably be cannon fodder. Insurgents are also trying to take Haditha Dam but have been repulsed. I would suspect that Anbar will eventually fall in the coming months. Insurgents already control around 85% of the governorate.

The 6th consecutive security operation is taking place in northwest Babil with major militia support. As usual the government is claiming this is a great success. I expect a 7th security operation to be quickly announced after this one as IS has proven resilient in the area.

One positive the Sunni parties have picked Salim Jabouri to be the new speaker of parliament.

Forgot to mention that I just posted about 15 videos on Iraq covering Asaib Ahl Al-Haq and Badr Brigade militias, the Iranian SU-25s, a longer discussion of the situation in Iraq at the London Frontline Club, and others. Here's a link (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/).

[OUTLAW 09]

Appears the fighting is now moving into Baghdad proper---this attack is interesting as they moved in their typical fashion using trucks and that inside Baghdad---which shows some ease in freedom of movement despite all the extra Shia militia being called up. There had been rumors of IS cells in place months ago--appears to be true.

http://news.yahoo.com/gunmen-kill-least-33-raid-baghdad-complex-203144904.html

Also heavy fighting 30 miles south of Baghdad in the Sunni belt ---Iraqi's admit to 21 killed but "claimed" dozens of IS killed---in their typical over estimating of IS for the public fashion.

This over estimating is actually hurting them as it leads them to assume they are holding on well when they are not.

[OUTLAW 09]

For those that speak German---this link goes to the core reason the Sunni's are splitting Iraq as I doubt seriously they even believe it possible to have a federated Iraq as long as the Shia do not stop the torturing, random killings, large scale detentions of local Sunni's under no legal charges, raids on peaceful protest camps, declaring Sunni politicians terrorists or worse Baathists, and "disappearing" of Sunni's also on a large scale---and now we wonder about why the Caliphate was created?

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/irak-human-rights-watch-wirft-sicherheitskraeften-massenmord-vor/10190082.html

These types of activities we the US Army saw in Iraq starting just before the elections in 2005---not starting with the Shia ethnic cleansings in late 2006 early 2007---it was there to be seen by all we just did not want to believe it possible.

Notice while the world ie the West in particular panic about a "Caliphate" and the IS attacks---not a single western country and or western leader has openly attacked Malaki for the summary killings of over 250 Sunni prisoners---ever wonder why?---because they hold the same belief mechanism---well if he was arrested he must have been a terrorist and we do a GWOT going on.

We in the West spend a lot of time claiming we support human rights and that international law/international military law must be held to as a critical part of good governance---but is it really just mouthing the words in order that we have a good feeling that we are doing something positive in the world or is it deeply embedded in our own DNA? Really doubt that it is in our DNA these days?

The US Army claimed that they had extensively trained the ISF on prisoner handling, the use of legal evidence, and the courts as an anchor for good governance.

But did we just go through the motions on a good governance checklist just to get out of Iraq just as we went through the motions in setting up the ISF as a military requirement to get out?

[davidbfpo]

Some very tart passages in this article by Patrick Cockburn 'Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country':http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

Here is one:
The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

[JWing]

Re IS state functions. It has now set up a police force in Mosul. The group posted pictures of its police cars with IS logo on the car doors.

[JWing]

Outlaw that article is actually about a raid on prostitution houses in Zayouna Baghdad. No one is sure whether it was militias or insurgents. Either way was not a sign of fighting within Baghdad but rather murderous morality police like the regular bombing of liquor stores.

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw that article is actually about a raid on prostitution houses in Zayouna Baghdad. No one is sure whether it was militias or insurgents. Either way was not a sign of fighting within Baghdad but rather murderous morality police like the regular bombing of liquor stores.

JWing---typical for the old AQI--they often attacked the houses and alcohol establishments even in 2005-thru to 2009.

That led to clashes between the locals in Baqubah in 2005/2006 when they tried to make women walk on one side and men of the other side. Locals won out and AQI pulled back off the streets.

Shia tried the same things in the zones they controlled in Diyala.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/11/233107/witnesses-describe-how-islamists.html?sp=%2F99%2F100%2F&ihp=1

Witnesses describe how Islamists leveled Sunni village as a warning


The Islamic State heralded the “cleansing” of the village, which is near Tikrit in northern Iraq, in an Internet posting, bragging that it had blown up villagers’ homes, which it called “hideouts,” killed 28, wounded many more and driven the remainder from the village. It warned that “all those who may even think about fighting the Islamic State and conspiring against the caliphate can know what their fate will be.”

The threat was clearly aimed at any suggestion that Sunni Muslim tribes would organize to fight the Islamic State _ a strategy that the U.S. military used to defeat al Qaida in Iraq during the American occupation. The extremist rebels now have seized roughly half the country with little resistance from Iraq’s hobbled army, and it’s unclear how they could be routed short of a tribal uprising or foreign airstrikes.

“
Our men were ready to fight, but it was the mortar barrage that won the battle,” Jubouri said. “Negotiators were calling everyone they knew on the other side, but the other side refused.”

Assuming this report is accurate, at least there are sources indicating it is, I think it points out two things: the IS are very worried about tribal uprisings and are attempting to quell them before they can gather steam through the use of terror. The same type of terror Saddam used to quell any tribes or organizations that were plotting to rise up against him.

Second, and I realize this is reach based on one statement in the article, but "if our men were ready to fight" is true, then the divisions between IS and the tribes may already being taking place.

[Bob's World]

ISIS's hardest fight and greatest challenges will come after they "win."

They will find that their state sponsors will shift their support to more moderate voices that are more likely to govern in a manner that is not a challenge to their interests.

They will find that many who either joined them or simply stood on the sidelines as they surged to push back current state control will form into discrete and active organizations with their own popular bases of support to compete for turf, influence or even dominance.

They may have to deal with a Shia based, Iranian backed counterattack that will come in a wide range of asymmetric and irregular forms. To include Shia foreign fighters from India and elsewhere who are every bit as motivated as the Sunni foreign fighters working with ISIS today.

The better governance the people hope for will likely elude them for a decade or a generation or two or three. It is a process.

Like the US learned in 03, ISIS will get the big strategic lesson learned - "winning" is the easy part.

[JWing]

Here's my latest interview "Explaining Kurdish Nationalism Interview With Tenn Tech Univ Prof Michael Gunter" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/explaining-kurdish-nationalism.html). I talked with Prof Michael Gunter of Tennessee Technical Univ. about the development of Kurdish nationalism. Many Kurds date their nationalist drive back to the 5-7th Centuries but Prof Gunter argues that nationalism didn't develop in the Middle East until the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI and Kurds didn't use modern nationalism rhetoric until the 1960s-1990s.

[JWing]

Here's my latest article on the security situation in Iraq "Do Dead Bodies In The Street’s Of Iraq’s Capital Point Towards A Renewed Civil War?" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/do-dead-bodies-in-streets-of-iraqs.html) There has been a decided increase in the number of bodies dumped on the streets of Baghdad province this year. This is likely the result of increased insurgent operations and the return of the militias who are now openly operating in the capital.

[OUTLAW 09]

New Sunni video out of Erbil -----

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2014/07/sunni-tribes-attack-baghdad-within-weeks-2014716225354899669.html

[JWing]

My latest article "Islamic State Carries Out Intimidation Campaign Destroying Homes And Kidnapping And Murdering People In Northern Iraq" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/islamic-state-carries-out-intimidation.html). Islamic State has run both a hearts & minds campaign as well as tried to rule with an iron fist in northern Iraq and along the frontlines. As part of its intimidation campaign it has blown up over 300 homes, kidnapped over 100 and executed dozens.

[JWing]

My new article "Costs Of Iraq’s Kurds Moving Into The Disputed Territories." (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/costs-of-iraqs-kurds-moving-into.html) Many have proclaimed the Kurds the winner of the current conflict in Iraq but few have mentioned the costs they are incurring. Over 300 casualties and more costs when the KRG is short of cash.

[davidbfpo]

It was described as one the biggest heists in the history of bank robbery: more than $400m reportedly stolen from Mosul financial institutions by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, known as Isis, as it seized control of Iraq’s second-largest city of Mosul (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/76516468-06a7-11e4-8c0e-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk) last month.

But Iraqi bankers in Mosul and the capital, Baghdad, are saying the robbery never took place and that the cash remains inside the vaults of the city’s banks.


Alas full story is behind a free registration wall:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0378d4f4-0c28-11e4-9080-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz37qno7ZV1

[JWing]

I just posted some new videos on Iraq. They include the BBC visiting an Asaib Ah Al-Haq base in Salahaddin, the Kurds seizing two oil fields in Kirkuk and the opinions of the regional powers and the U.S. to Kurdish independence, a report on ISF & militias executing over 200 prisoners recently, PBS Newshour interviewing CSIS's Anthony Cordesman on how foreign military aid to Iraq will only have limited effect, Turkmen refugees from northern Iraq, and then a 1 hr+ video from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the Kurdish situation. Click on this link (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/)

[JWing]

Another worrying trend has begun in Baghdad. Over 4000 people have been displaced the majority of which appear to be Sunnis. Security in the capital overall has been constant this year. What has changed is the return of militias and increased targeting of Sunni neighborhoods by the security forces who are accused of cordoning off neighborhoods, conducting mass raids and arbitrary arrests. Here's a link to my article on the topic (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/sunnis-in-baghdad-fleeing-militias-and.html).

[JWing]

The new wave of fighting that started in January 2014 in Anbar and has now spread to northern and central Iraq has created a new refugee crisis in Iraq. The International Organization for Migration has counted almost 900,000 internally displaced Iraqis but the real numbers are much higher. Here's a link to my article on the topic (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/iraqs-new-refugee-crisis.html).

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing----it appears that the Sunni Coalition is taking over the control of areas captured by IS and then the IS moves on---have you heard that as well---almost as if the IS is being used as the Waffen SS to capture and terrorize and then hands off.

[JWing]

Outlaw

There was a story about that in Mosul but of questionable sourcing. From what I've heard IS is strengthening its hold on places like Mosul. It recently rounded up a bunch of different insurgent groups in the city to force them to pledge allegiance to it. It now has an IS police force for Mosul with patrol cars. It just kicked out the city's Christians, etc. It also has established itself in Hawija, Kirkuk, which was a traditional Naqshibandi stronghold. In Salahaddin it wiped out a couple villages that stood up to it.

I think a lot of the stories about the IS moving on and not being as prominent comes from other insurgent groups who generally deny that IS even exists because they are in its shadow. In most official statements by other militant groups they don't even mention IS and some have tried to claim IS operations as their own.

[JWing]

The changing battlefield in Iraq has led to a reduction in the number of car bombs and their use by the Islamic State. Some traditional targets like Mosul and Tikrit are now under insurgent control. IS also appears to be using car bombs as more of a tactical weapon against cities that it is laying siege to like Ramadi and Samarra. Here's a link to my article (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/changing-battlefield-in-iraq-leads-to.html). Includes charts on all the car bombings in 2014 in Iraq.

[TheCurmudgeon]

No move on Baghdad?

[OUTLAW 09]

Jwing---was working through some research on Shia and Sunni historical development and stumbled across the former al Baghdadi history and shifted from him into the Caliph concept historically represented in the various Islamic historical writings.

If you noticed outside of the first outbursts from leading Sunni thinkers about the Caliph being wrong---it has gone silent.

If my readings are correct--- because the historical writings and the use of the name of the former al Baghdadi seems and again Islamic historical writings are always open to interpretation---seems that the IS made a shrewd move on their part and in fact the IS might have the right interpretation of the historical writings.

In the Sunni Islamic stream of faith there are currently three Salafist groups moving at the same time and parallel to each other; 1) the purists who are not political and are fully into Islam and it's meanings, 2) the political types who are throwing out the terms down with US control of the ME/against globalization as it effects the ME etc and where a small number then drift into 3) the jihadists side.

There is an old German saying here in Berlin not all Salafists are terrorists, but all terrorists are Salafists.

If you look at al Baghdadi's statements since he has taken over and the IS actions they are in fact riding all three streams of the Salafist movement and appeal to all factions even al Duri's faction as the Sufi have been the "spreaders" of the faith for a really long time.

IMO al Baghdadi and the IS have hit the middle point of the Salafist movement that the AQ mothership failed in reaching even under UBL. The AQ mothership needs to be forewarned as al Baghdadi is not going away any time soon nor as it appears the IS is either.

[OUTLAW 09]

Looks like the ISF are killing their Sunni prisoners --HRW would call it murdering their prisoners and blaming the IS for it.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/0-prisoners-killed-in-northern-baghdad/

The Wolf Bde was bad about this in 2005 thru 2007 when they would roll into Diyala, arrest over 500 Sunni's at a time, haul them back to Baghdad, where they were interrogated for weeks and then all charged as AQI.

Then "surprisingly' released after about 4 months when their families paid a ransom for them.

The SPiTT teams never did get this under control from 2005-2007. The first US advisor teams had to be convinced the ransom thing was an ongoing scram by the Wolf Bde.

[OUTLAW 09]

It is actually interesting to see how over the last years Iran and Hezbollah contributed to the fighting effectiveness of Hamas in Gaza---32 Israeli IDF killed and only an estimated 200 of which Hamas claims only 70 were fighters and the IDF estimates Hamas strength at 20,000.

Interesting also is the fortified underground and interconnecting tunnel systems remind me of Far Eastern battle tactics ie the North Vietnamese Army tatics of fortified villages.

There was a former Marine officer--Poole who wrote a number of books on the Far Eastern battle tactics being used in the ME by both the Sunni and Shia.

What is far more interesting is that both the Sunni and Shia will work together when they have a common perceived enemy--we saw this at varying times even late in Iraq in the 2008-2010 period with the EFP IEDs when AQI/IAI crossed over and purchased EFP parts and then sold the Shia large amounts of HME.

http://news.yahoo.com/hamas-tactics-exact-high-toll-israeli-ground-thrust-173119328.html

[ganulv]

What is far more interesting is that both the Sunni and Shia will work together when they have a common perceived enemy--we saw this at varying times even late in Iraq in the 2008-2010 period with the EFP IEDs when AQI/IAI crossed over and purchased EFP parts and then sold the Shia large amounts of HME.

In the world of anthropology we call this segmentary opposition (http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module6/seg_oppb.html). “Me against my brother, both of us against our father, all of us against you.”

The exemplar description is invariably Evans-Pritchard’s description of how Nuer lineages fight one another, come together as a clan to fight other clans, and how all Nuer clans come together to fight the Dinka. It has been suggested, though, that many of forms of social organization he described amongst the Nuer are modeled upon the social life of the Bedouins in Libya (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2509950)with whom he served during WWII.

[JWing]

No move on Baghdad?

It's coming. There are almost daily reports of ISF picking up infiltrators into the capital along with the regular daily violence of IEDs and shootings. All the insurgent groups want to reach Baghdad and restart the street fighting there. It will happen sooner rather than latter. I fear the repercussions however as I think that will quickly lead to the ISF & militias turning to sectarian cleansing again as they did during the civil war.

[JWing]

My latest article "Indiscriminate Air Strikes By Iraq’s Army On Civilian Targets" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/indiscriminate-air-strikes-by-iraqs.html). Since the fall of Fallujah in Jan. the Iraqi forces have increasingly turned to indiscriminate shelling and air strikes upon civilian targets. This has now spread to Salahaddin, Ninewa and Kirkuk since large sections of those governorates have fallen to insurgents. The ISF apparently seems to think anything in insurgent held territory is a legitimate target. Air strikes have hit hospitals and universities. Even a case where ISF helicopter dropped a barrel bomb on a group of swimmers in Mosul.

[JWing]

Outlaw

You should check Hassan Hassan's work. He's bee writing a lot of good analysis of IS and the caliphate etc.

[JWing]

I just posted this video by the Institute for the Study of War "ISIS vs the Iraqi Security Forces: Can the State of Iraq Survive?" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/institute-for-study-of-war-isis-vs.html)Very informative about IS's capabilities and campaign. IS has fighters in reserve to the west and south of Baghdad that are not involved in current offensive. It has also been able to carry out simultaneous offensive operations in both Syria and Iraq showing its manpower strength. IS's campaign against Baghdad is coming but hasn't started yet are some of the highlights of the video.

[OUTLAW 09]

It's coming. There are almost daily reports of ISF picking up infiltrators into the capital along with the regular daily violence of IEDs and shootings. All the insurgent groups want to reach Baghdad and restart the street fighting there. It will happen sooner rather than latter. I fear the repercussions however as I think that will quickly lead to the ISF & militias turning to sectarian cleansing again as they did during the civil war.

There is an ongoing wave of bombings and car bombings---usually the first indicator of more things come.

[OUTLAW 09]

JWing---an interesting article from Haaretz on the tactics of the IS indicates with new recruits their strength is being estimated at the 20,000 range which as you indicated they are holding as their reserves in the rear---estimated hardcore fighters at 3,000.

This does not evidently include the Sunni coalition forces from IAI, al Duri, and the tribes.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.606590

[JWing]

I just published an interview with Small Wars Council's own Outlaw 09 aka Richard Buchanan. He goes through the development of the insurgency in Iraq's Diyala province, the entry of militias, the start of the civil war there and how the U.S. was caught in the middle of these warring factions never really understanding the environment they were working in. Here is a link to the interview (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-iraqs-civil-war-broke-out-in-diyala.html).

[JWing]

Iraq is going through a political crisis not just a security one right now. It is still undetermined whether PM Maliki will gain a 3rd term or not. Here's my latest piece on it "Pressure Grows On Iraq’s Premier Maliki To Give Up On A Third Term" (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/pressure-grows-on-iraqs-premier-maliki.html).

[carl]

I just published an interview with Small Wars Council's own Outlaw 09 aka Richard Buchanan. He goes through the development of the insurgency in Iraq's Diyala province, the entry of militias, the start of the civil war there and how the U.S. was caught in the middle of these warring factions never really understanding the environment they were working in. Here is a link to the interview (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-iraqs-civil-war-broke-out-in-diyala.html).

There was a SWJ journal article a few years ago that had something to do with this angle. It was by I believe one of our counter-intel guys and the thrust of the article was one of the reasons the insurgency started up so fast was that it was in large part an operation run by Saddam's former security and intel services. The article concluded also that we completely missed what was actually happening.

Do you Joel or you Outlaw know of that article or remember it? It was very good and really the only one I've read until this interview that stated this opinion.

[davidbfpo]

There was a SWJ journal article a few years ago that had something to do with this angle. It was by I believe one of our counter-intel guys and the thrust of the article was one of the reasons the insurgency started up so fast was that it was in large part an operation run by Saddam's former security and intel services. The article concluded also that we completely missed what was actually happening.

Do you Joel or you Outlaw know of that article or remember it? It was very good and really the only one I've read until this interview that stated this opinion.

Carl,

That sounds like Malcolm Nance, ex-USN; I have his book 'The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency', pub. 2007, on my bookshelf. He is not a SWC member, but has several SWJ articles readily id'd by a quick search and glance.

[carl]

JWing---an interesting article from Haaretz on the tactics of the IS indicates with new recruits their strength is being estimated at the 20,000 range which as you indicated they are holding as their reserves in the rear---estimated hardcore fighters at 3,000.

This does not evidently include the Sunni coalition forces from IAI, al Duri, and the tribes.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.606590

Am I the only one who is reminded of the Bolsheviks of almost 100 years ago by the IS?

[Steve Blair]

Am I the only one who is reminded of the Bolsheviks of almost 100 years ago by the IS?

It depends at what point in their history. The Bolsheviks were actually a fairly small party in the grand scheme of things. Their October coup only succeeded because the Mensheviks and other moderates couldn't get their acts together.

[carl]

Carl,

That sounds like Malcolm Nance, ex-USN; I have his book 'The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency', pub. 2007, on my bookshelf. He is not a SWC member, but has several SWJ articles readily id'd by a quick search and glance.

I don't think it was him. I just checked all the Journal articles for 2011 and 2012 and couldn't find it. I'll keep looking. The article was mostly paraphrasing an interview with one of Saddam's former secret police types if I remember correctly.

[JWing]

I don't think it was him. I just checked all the Journal articles for 2011 and 2012 and couldn't find it. I'll keep looking. The article was mostly paraphrasing an interview with one of Saddam's former secret police types if I remember correctly.

You sure it wasn't Outlaw/Richard's own article for SWJ?

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/rural-versus-urban-insurgency-how-we-missed-the-enemys-center-of-gravity-in-iraq-and-why-it

[JWing]

The Kurdish Peshmerga moved into the disputed territories in northern Iraq when the Iraqi Security Forces collapsed after the fall of Mosul. One area is Jalawla, Diyala which has always been an insurgent hotbed. Kurdish attempts to secure the area have been constrained by the budgetary crisis Kurdistan is facing due to Maliki cutting off the region's share of the national budget over disputes over oil policy. Peshmerga forces have not been able to clear and hold areas and have been told they can only respond to fire because they are short of ammunition as a result of their financial problems. Here's a link (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/07/budget-restraints-on-kurdish-peshmerga.html) to the article.

[JWing]

Just published a comprehensive article on security in Iraq in July. Were almost 5,500 casualties last month. Charts on dead and wounded in 2014, breakdown by province, car bombs in 2014 and in July, civilian death by govt shelling & air strikes, bodies dumped in Baghdad plus review of general situation between insurgents and government forces/militias. Check it out (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/july-2014-over-5000-casualties-in-iraq.html).

[Firn]

That's a shockingly long list of casualities.

The Kurdish budget and it's financial struggle make for some depressing reading, just like Iraq's one or the state as a whole. Oil seems to be often more of a curse then a gift, at least in the hands of many unresponsible governments.

[JWing]

Here are links to my articles from yesterday and today. Yesterday I published a review of the casualty figures by the 5 groups that track them. While the range between them was huge they all noted a drop in deaths from June to July likely caused by the fighting somewhat stabilizing after the insurgents charge across northern Iraq. Here's a link (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/deaths-down-in-iraq-slightly-as.html). My article from today is about insurgent in fighting in eastern Diyala. Has been going on since the spring has now turned into a low level war between the Islamic State versus the Baathist Naqshibandi, Ansar al-Islam and the Islamic Army of Iraq. IS is repeating its history of attempting to dominate other factions and push out its rivals just like it did previously in Iraq and is doing now in Syria. Here's a link to that article (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/in-fighting-between-islamic-state-and.html).

[OUTLAW 09]

AQI/ISIL/IS can never seem to get the 10 standing orders of an insurgency right---notice point 6---do not fork the insurgency---this is what caused them grief the last time around.

Taken from the Global Guerrilla blog site in 2010 referencing a concept called "open source warfare".

1.Break Networks
2.Grow Black Economies
3.Virtualize your organization
4.Repetition is more important than scale
5.Coopetition
6.Don't fork the insurgency
7.Minimalist rule sets work best
8.Self-replicate
9.Share everything that works
10.Release Early and Often
11.Co-opt, don't own, basic services

[Dayuhan]

AQI/ISIL/IS can never seem to get the 10 standing orders of an insurgency right---notice point 6---do not fork the insurgency---this is what caused them grief the last time around.

Taken from the Global Guerrilla blog site in 2010 referencing a concept called "open source warfare".

Ignoring John Robb might be considered evidence that they are thinking critically, rejecting philosophies based on nebulous buzzwords, and exercising intelligent discrimination in their selection of influences. :rolleyes:

[OUTLAW 09]

Ignoring John Robb might be considered evidence that they are thinking critically, rejecting philosophies based on nebulous buzzwords, and exercising intelligent discrimination in their selection of influences. :rolleyes:

Then you Dayuhan have never trained, led nor fought with a guerrilla unit---if you had expanded the definitions under each section then you would have recognized exactly what a guerrilla unit thinks and acts as it is a living breathing organism that has to survive in a hostile counter insurgent environment that wants to kill him.

If you would have looked more intensely at the Ukrainian Army and their major wins in the last two weeks has come from a centering of odd SF type units (Alpha, SF, Airborne, Airmobile) into a UW commando unit that has been their lead fighting element.

So again before you make comments think through the comments.

By the way everyone of the sections I saw countless times being used in Iraq and if you had read my article on Musings then you would seen these standing orders in play every single day as the Sunni insurgents groups to include AQI and especially now the IS practice them everyday--BUT IS is violating again point six exactly as they did in 2006 when they attempted to do the allegiance oath thing with the Sunni's which then spun off the Awakening movement---exactly the same thing today.

So Dayuhan think through the words, not the author, nor the philosophies nor the buzzwords before you critique---actually that is why you tend to tear comments apart and never produce a solid comment for others to think over/about.

Especially since you have never yourself trained, led nor fought with a guerrilla unit being chased by counter insurgents.

Also go back and review Dave Maxwell's comments from the last couple of days referencing UW.

THEN especially go back and read if you have not ---the eight steps of the new Russian military doctrine New Generation Warfare that is actually UW tied to political warfare and then tell me you are not seeing that doctrine being applied daily in the Ukraine.

THEN on the top of all this Google "swarm attacks" and find the RAND study and then you will see the IS and Sunni coalition tactics in play inside Iraq that has been the trademark of their current successes---at least Dayuhan you are right the insurgent is a thinking organism that learns from his mistakes except in this case IS has again not learned point six that led the first time to their failure.

Again think though before you comment especially if it is in an area that is not your expertise.

[JWing]

My latest interview. I talked with Dr Nicholas Krohley author of the Death of the Mehdi Army about Sadr's difficult relationship with Iran. Sadr was a staunch nationalist based upon his father's teachings that Iraqi Shiite Arabs should control the Najaf clerical establishment. His need to arm his militia however led him to a marriage of convenience with Iran. Tehran however wanted more pliable partners which was what led it to support breakaway factions of the Mahdi Army like Asaib Ahl Al-Haq which would do its bidding. Here's a link (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/moqtada-al-sadrs-difficult-relationship.html).

[jcustis]

I don't think it was him. I just checked all the Journal articles for 2011 and 2012 and couldn't find it. I'll keep looking. The article was mostly paraphrasing an interview with one of Saddam's former secret police types if I remember correctly.

Nance went by the nom de guerre of Abu Buckwheat when posting on the SWC. He seems to have lowered his internet profile considerably since authoring his waterboarding article.

[JWing]

The Islamic State has turned northward and attacked Kurdish positions in Ninewa taking several towns and leading to a huge exodus of mostly Yazidis. That has led to a pan Kurdish response with Turkey's PKK and Syria's PYD sending in their fighters to support the Iraqi peshmerga. Even Baghdad has thrown in air support. For the first time IS is leading to a regional response. Here's a link to the article (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/pan-kurdish-force-tries-expel-islamic.html).

[KingJaja]

This in unrelated.

This is Iraq, not Syria or Libya. US "broke" that nation, it has to play a role in "fixing" - what it does is left to smart people in Washington (I'm not paid to stress my brains for the US).

The point is a LOT is happening in Iraq and the US has to be involved in this, it cannot risk irrelevance.

[carl]

This in unrelated.

This is Iraq, not Syria or Libya. US "broke" that nation, it has to play a role in "fixing" - what it does is left to smart people in Washington (I'm not paid to stress my brains for the US).

The point is a LOT is happening in Iraq and the US has to be involved in this, it cannot risk irrelevance.

I agree with your last sentence. However, the world is basically on it's own until at least Jan 2017 and that includes Iraq.

[slapout9]

They are slaughtering Christians and destroying monuments that are holy to the christian religion and people still say this isn't a religious war. We should get every B-52 we have wipe Isis from the face of the earth! Forget about precision we should go for grid square destrction *********.

[AmericanPride]

They are slaughtering Christians and destroying monuments that are holy to the christian religion and people still say this isn't a religious war. We should get every B-52 we have wipe Isis from the face of the earth! Forget about precision we should go for grid square destrction ********

To combat ISIS in Iraq, ******* :confused:

[Dayuhan]

This in unrelated.

This is Iraq, not Syria or Libya. US "broke" that nation, it has to play a role in "fixing" - what it does is left to smart people in Washington (I'm not paid to stress my brains for the US).

The point is a LOT is happening in Iraq and the US has to be involved in this, it cannot risk irrelevance.

The US can't "fix" Iraq. They already took their best shot, and the outcome is what you see. Do you really want them to have another go?

The US policy in Iraq was hopelessly flawed from the start. It was not an error of ignorance: the people who designed the downfall of Saddam and its aftermath knew the situation. It was an error of hubris: they believed, really believed, that they could "install" inclusive democracy and that the magic of inclusive democracy would bring the factions together in a functioning government. They were wrong. The price is now being paid.

We occasionally see people ask "why can't we just divide Iraq"? Of course Iraq is already in the process of dividing itself, in the way these processes generally go (very messy). The reality is that it's no longer up to "us", however you define "us", and that unless "we" re-invade and start over (no chance) the Iraqis are just going to do it themselves.

The posts above demonstrate part of the range of American frustration: "blame the President" and "kill them all". Realistically, of course, the die was cast before the current President took office and killing them all is never much of a solution. I expect that the response will be to offer support to the existing "Government" conditional on reforms, but I don't expect that to accomplish much.

Iraq was always going to have a dictator or dissolve. Domestic politics won't allow the US to install a dictator, so we're seeing gradual dissolution. What's the US supposed to do about it?

[JMA]

The US policy in Iraq was hopelessly flawed from the start. It was not an error of ignorance: the people who designed the downfall of Saddam and its aftermath knew the situation. It was an error of hubris: they believed, really believed, that they could "install" inclusive democracy and that the magic of inclusive democracy would bring the factions together in a functioning government. They were wrong. The price is now being paid.

Careful now Steve or you will have Bill on your case (what with this criticism of US policy)... or, maybe its OK because you are a yank?

[Bill Moore]

The US can't "fix" Iraq. They already took their best shot, and the outcome is what you see. Do you really want them to have another go?

The US policy in Iraq was hopelessly flawed from the start. It was not an error of ignorance: the people who designed the downfall of Saddam and its aftermath knew the situation. It was an error of hubris: they believed, really believed, that they could "install" inclusive democracy and that the magic of inclusive democracy would bring the factions together in a functioning government. They were wrong. The price is now being paid.

We occasionally see people ask "why can't we just divide Iraq"? Of course Iraq is already in the process of dividing itself, in the way these processes generally go (very messy). The reality is that it's no longer up to "us", however you define "us", and that unless "we" re-invade and start over (no chance) the Iraqis are just going to do it themselves.

The posts above demonstrate part of the range of American frustration: "blame the President" and "kill them all". Realistically, of course, the die was cast before the current President took office and killing them all is never much of a solution. I expect that the response will be to offer support to the existing "Government" conditional on reforms, but I don't expect that to accomplish much.

Iraq was always going to have a dictator or dissolve. Domestic politics won't allow the US to install a dictator, so we're seeing gradual dissolution. What's the US supposed to do about it?

I think domestic politics will enable to install a benign dictator if we have credible civilian leaders that can make a case that is the best of all the bad options, and tie it to humanitarian reasons. The leader can add that we'll help Iraq set conditions for establishing democracy in time, but right now is not the right time since newly formed democracies are the most instable and most likely form of government to fail. Hard to stabilize a country that has suffered multiple years of sanctions, just finished a war with the U.S., and ethnic passions are rising by installing an unstable government.

Furthermore while I agree we broke it, I don't the think the combat operations did that much harm to Iraq (the initial operations), what broke Iraq was our cowardly 10 plus years of sanctions that destroyed the local economy while making Saddam stronger. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

[slapout9]

To combat ISIS in Iraq, we should bomb ****** :confused:

It's a concept called counter value targeting....are you familiar with it?

[slapout9]

Finally.......the President is going to cut some Airpower loose to help the Christians who are starving in Iraq because the nice peace loving Muslims are trying affect a Christian genocide. We will see how well this works.

[carl]

Slap:

Hopefully that airdrop was actually needed and not just a pr stunt. Tom Odom wrote of a pr airdrop that he was forced to be part of in Congo (then Zaire). The limited number of airplanes involved make me think it was more a pr thing.

I am not sure about airstrikes unless we have good targeting which may be difficult to do. If it can't be done, with certainty, I would rather see the Kurds get truckloads of ammo and boxes full of money.

[Dayuhan]

Careful now Steve or you will have Bill on your case (what with this criticism of US policy)... or, maybe its OK because you are a yank?

I don't mind having Bill on my case; we've disagreed many times before and always on reasonably congenial terms. I've been critical of US policy many times, and I thought the move on Iraq was a mistake from the start, not because Saddam didn't deserve it (he did) but because I didn't think the US could control the aftermath. I never believed that the US could successfully "install democracy", and said so repeatedly.

At this point... I could see the point in providing support to the Kurds, despite the problems with Turkey. I really don't see much point in US support for Maliki. I expect they will feel obligated to give some, probably with demands for reforms as a tradeoff, but I don't see that going anywhere. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I don't see much reason for optimism.


I think domestic politics will enable to install a benign dictator if we have credible civilian leaders that can make a case that is the best of all the bad options, and tie it to humanitarian reasons. The leader can add that we'll help Iraq set conditions for establishing democracy in time, but right now is not the right time since newly formed democracies are the most instable and most likely form of government to fail. Hard to stabilize a country that has suffered multiple years of sanctions, just finished a war with the U.S., and ethnic passions are rising by installing an unstable government.

I think the "benign dictator" option is no longer open. It might have been immediately after Saddam's fall, but with the dissolution of the old military and the incapacity of the new one, what's the "benign dictator" (oxymoron) going to use to establish control? Where do you find a dictator that we can pretend is benign who can also inspire the military to win and who will not be completely rejected out of hand by one or more of the major ethnic groups? I think that ship has sailed. Again, it's no longer about us, and any proposal like "we should divide Iraq" or "we should install a benign dictator" has to recognize that. It's no longer our choice. We had our opportunity, selected an unachievable goal, and blew it. We don't get another shot... unless of course we re-invade and start over from square 1, and we all know that's not happening.


Furthermore while I agree we broke it, I don't the think the combat operations did that much harm to Iraq (the initial operations), what broke Iraq was our cowardly 10 plus years of sanctions that destroyed the local economy while making Saddam stronger. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

I don't think it's about the combat operations or the sanctions. Combat damage can be repaired and an economy can grow back to health with outside assistance and stable governance. I think the mistake was our Quixotic pursuit of a form of government that Americans could accept as "supporting democracy" but which was simply not suitable for the realities of post-Saddam Iraq.

[OUTLAW 09]

What many forget was the simple fact that there was an ongoing Salafist insurgency already in progress being bitterly fought between them and the ISS.

Yes we broke it as we literally walked into the middle of this insurgency totally not knowing about it which if left alone would have eventually led to Saddam being overthrown by his own not an outside force.

That Salafist insurgency bridged across both the Shia and Sunni sides and did not include AQI.

[Dayuhan]

What many forget was the simple fact that there was an ongoing Salafist insurgency already in progress being bitterly fought between them and the ISS.

Yes we broke it as we literally walked into the middle of this insurgency totally not knowing about it which if left alone would have eventually led to Saddam being overthrown by his own not an outside force.

We don't know if those insurgents would have won. At the time the prevailing belief was that there was little imminent domestic threat to Saddam. Many of the prevailing beliefs of that time were of course later proven wrong.

It's always best if a dictator falls to an internal force, because if there's an internal force that's strong enough to topple the dictator, there's an internal force that has enough strength and credibility to at least try to rule. National liberation movements often rule badly, but at least there isn't a total power vacuum.

If a dictator is toppled by an outside force that does not intend to rule, it leaves a power vacuum. Various parties then contend to fill that vacuum. The contention is not generally very polite. If the outside force that toppled the dictator keeps forces around, the contention may be fairly muted for a while, but that's not going to last forever. Sooner or later the foreign force goes home and the contending parties duke it out for control of whatever they can grab, helped by whatever sponsors they can line up. I don't see how any of this is a surprise.

[omarali50]

I think Obama's instinct is that people should be left alone to take care of their own ####. But as president he still has to get into various half baked interventions (sort of worst of both worlds, because it was not well thought out, objectives are distorted by humanitarian posturing, planners are blind sided by genuine misconceptions about the nature of power and social organization... Or motivated by greed or other personal interests). Ideally the US should either understand it's worldcop /imperialist power role and execute it with clarity or it should butt out and let others sort things out without ham handed American interventions and payoffs to distort the playing field... Something like that

[JMA]

I think Obama's instinct is that people should be left alone to take care of their own ####.

That could work if everyone followed that line of thinking. Obama is not smart enough to realise that applying this unilaterally a vacuum is created and the laws of physics apply.

[AmericanPride]

It's a concept called counter value targeting....are you familiar with it?

Yeah - and directing it at the centers of one of the world's largest religion is both a war crime and the height of strategic folly.

[JMA]

I think Obama's instinct is that people should be left alone to take care of their own ####.

Further to this comment...

In discussions in the Syria thread those who warned of spill-over into the region were shouted down by the usual crowd of 'smart-guys' who post here.

Now the spill-over is evident and serious they continue to post here as if nothing has changed and nothing has happened. Just like US foreign policy where cock-up after cock-up is made the Administration and Department of State carry on as if nothing has happened and that they are still the smartest guys in the room.

It is surely time for America to he humble... it is surely time for the US to take stock of where, how and why things have gone so badly wrong... and fix it.

IMHO the first in the order of business is to deal with intellectually arrogant people blunder on and refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of the trail of disaster they have left in their wake.

What we read here in SWC is just a mirror reflection of the greater US problem of indescribable arrogance.

[slapout9]

Yeah - and directing it at the centers of one of the world's largest religion is both a war crime and the height of strategic folly.

That is right. It is time we face the reality that we are fighting a Religious War and there is know Strategy. But there can and should be justice. The Islamic barbarians are killing Christian women and children in the most horrific ways! They have destroyed church upon church some that date back to the 8th century and beyond and they burned holy Christian documents that can never be replaced.

So it is time to face the fact that we are not fighting a religion of peace we are fighting a Satanic cult and traditional laws and rules used by normal human beings will not work against the ***** animals we are facing.... everything they value should be wiped off the face of the earth.

And Saudi Arabia should be made to pay for it all since they are the ones that started this crap to start with.


listen to Sergeant Johnson he understands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu4ca3h-JQY

[Bill Moore]

Further to this comment...

In discussions in the Syria thread those who warned of spill-over into the region were shouted down by the usual crowd of 'smart-guys' who post here.

Now the spill-over is evident and serious they continue to post here as if nothing has changed and nothing has happened. Just like US foreign policy where cock-up after cock-up is made the Administration and Department of State carry on as if nothing has happened and that they are still the smartest guys in the room.

It is surely time for America to he humble... it is surely time for the US to take stock of where, how and why things have gone so badly wrong... and fix it.

IMHO the first in the order of business is to deal with intellectually arrogant people blunder on and refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of the trail of disaster they have left in their wake.

What we read here in SWC is just a mirror reflection of the greater US problem of indescribable arrogance.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that said it wouldn't spread throughout the region, it is part of the larger Shia-Sunni conflict that at least rages from Pakistan to Lebanon. What several have asserted is there was little the U.S. could do "fix it." We lost our humility when we went into Iraq in a hubristic manner, and now that we have regained our humility you're arguing we should regain our hubris so we can fix a problem that has it roots running back over 600 years ago, and then further exasperated by the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 where France and England drew some arbitrary lines on a map that were not sustainable.

If Sunnis and Shia want to kill each other, then let them, then maybe like the Christians did they'll tire of their religious war in time. I do agree we should help the minorities that desire help, which we're doing now a day late and a dollar short.

You're very quick to think America can fix all the world's problems. While we don't seem like it at times, I think we're humble enough to realize we can't. I can't recall the title of GEN Zinni's book, but after dealing with multiple problems worldwide, to include finishing his career has the commander of CENTCOM, he believes it is best to let certain fights continue to their end and then help pick up the pieces. We have rarely been successful when we step in the middle to two warring parties, much less step in the middle of several hundred warring groups as there are in Syria.

[carl]

Bill:

The IS goes beyond a dispute among Muslims. Way beyond. This is an ideology that has designs on the world. We underestimate them at our peril. I keep bringing up the Bolsheviks from 100 years ago as a parallel. If that is right, we will regret not taking action, at least to the extent of shipping money and weapons to the Kurds. We won't even do that.

[ganulv]

Bill:

The IS goes beyond a dispute among Muslims. Way beyond. This is an ideology that has designs on the world. We underestimate them at our peril. I keep bringing up the Bolsheviks from 100 years ago as a parallel.

The Bolsheviks were a mix of a lot of thugs, some thinkers, and some sadists. IS appears to be made up of some thugs and lots of sadists.

I get the impression that they’re as vicious as the Khmer Rouge and not as smart. YMMV, but I don’t see how that mix could bode well for their long term fortunes.

[Bill Moore]

Bill:

The IS goes beyond a dispute among Muslims. Way beyond. This is an ideology that has designs on the world. We underestimate them at our peril. I keep bringing up the Bolsheviks from 100 years ago as a parallel. If that is right, we will regret not taking action, at least to the extent of shipping money and weapons to the Kurds. We won't even do that.

Carl,

I have written similar comments and still agree with myself :D, but that still doesn't mean the best way to fight them is to get in the middle of them fighting each other. In my opinion you're damn right they're a global threat, and most importantly to us they're a threat to our nation and our interests. There is no daylight between us on that aspect.

Where we tend to diverge is how to deal with the threat, do we gain strategic advantage by getting bogged down in a quagmire in Syria? I don't think we do, and since there are already many countries providing support to the various separatist groups and Assad we won't bring much to the table to begin with, and we sure as heck IMO don't want to own the Syrian problem if Assad does fall. That plays into the AQ strategy of weakening our economy through prolonged asymmetric warfare. I also suspect we're providing covert support, and covert means you shouldn't be aware of it, but we can still suspect it. Again comments that we're not doing anything may not be accurate. This is one reason low visibility and covert operations are a difficult policy tool for democracies, since voters want to see action, or politicians risk getting tossed out. In many cases, again IMO, covert action would be the most intelligent approach, but political pressure often denies the President that option. The commis on Fox News beat the drums that it all the President's fault, while the commis on CNN want to have a hug fest with Hamas and wonder why Israel actually needs to kill people to defend themselves, but I digress.

For Iraq, I think the situation is presenting us with an opportunity to strike AQ while maintain legitimacy. The President may prove to be right in his decision to postpone striking to let the situation evolve and put pressure on the Iraqi government to reform or die, and also to remind the people just how bad AQ is, so they'll be willing to rise up against them when the time is right. As a nation we don't have strategic patience, but these would seem good approaches to me to decisively defeat them in Iraq. I don't know what his calculus is, so while frustrated like most, I'm not passing judgment on his strategy until I understand it.

The best thing that can happen in this fight is that the Iraqi people rise up (with supporting fires from the U.S. and others) and crush ISIS. That would be both a physical and psychological victory that could compel other entities to do the same.

[carl]

Bill:

Very well argued, especially your point about covert action. The problem is too big for just covert action perhaps. From what I read, the Kurds need ammo and heavy weapons. There aren't many ways to provide the quantities needed on the sly. Masses of weapons are masses of weapons.

The other problem is with waiting so people can see how bad IS really is. At best that is an extremely tricky matter of timing, you get it wrong and a lot of people die. The Yazidis are finding that out now. You get it wrong and too, the IS gets that much stronger through the process of terrifying people into inaction or acquiesence (sic). Once their morale is broken through terror it takes a whole lot to get it back to the point where they will act. Watching your son get his head cut off tends to induce inaction I think. By our waiting that terror induced catatonia grows deeper.

The other thing I think is rising up against IS is going to be far, far harder now than it was in 2006 and 2007 because the strongest tribe, the US military, isn't there anymore. They couldn't have done it then without the strongest tribe to back them up. And the longer we wait, the harder it will get.

I do not however advocate sending ground troops back in. Lots of money, weapons, guys like you to guide things, aircraft like the old Air Commandos, AC-130s, the 160th maybe, but only if we do it such a way as to not become the Shia air force. In any event back the Kurds and any Sunni tribes who want to fight. We should have plenty of guys like you who still know the sheiks by first name who can coordinate things.

Anyway, you argue your position well and I think we mostly disagree on timing. I think it is of the essence.

[carl]

The Bolsheviks were a mix of a lot of thugs, some thinkers, and some sadists. IS appears to be made up of some thugs and lots of sadists.

I get the impression that they’re as vicious as the Khmer Rouge and not as smart. YMMV, but I don’t see how that mix could bode well for their long term fortunes.

Perhaps. But I figure we have to judge by accomplishments which have been pretty impressive so far. I think we may be reluctant to say the devil incarnate is devilishly intelligent, but if they are we had better recognize it.

Zenpundit comments that one of the aspects of their genius is despite their horrific cruelty, they are still hanging on to a sort of moral high ground in the Muslim world, witness all those young foreign men flocking to their banner. He compares it to the sort of moral high ground the Commies held for decades amongst so many people in the West despite their murdering tens of millions.

These guys are damn smart. It hurts to say that about people so bad but I think it is true.

[slapout9]

Perhaps. But I figure we have to judge by accomplishments which have been pretty impressive so far. I think we may be reluctant to say the devil incarnate is devilishly intelligent, but if they are we had better recognize it.

Zenpundit comments that one of the aspects of their genius is despite their horrific cruelty, they are still hanging on to a sort of moral high ground in the Muslim world, witness all those young foreign men flocking to their banner. He compares it to the sort of moral high ground the Commies held for decades amongst so many people in the West despite their murdering tens of millions.

These guys are damn smart. It hurts to say that about people so bad but I think it is true.

Yes, and can you believe our fearless commander and chief is still going on vacation with his 1% banker buddies at Martha Vineyard. We are a completely leaderless country and the Muzzelims know it. Those folks that have been warning us for years that he is a secret Muslim don't look so crazy now.

[ganulv]

Zenpundit comments that one of the aspects of their genius is despite their horrific cruelty, they are still hanging on to a sort of moral high ground in the Muslim world, witness all those young foreign men flocking to their banner. He compares it to the sort of moral high ground the Commies held for decades amongst so many people in the West despite their murdering tens of millions.

There was a certain kind of Western support for the Soviet project in its earliest years. There was even an analogous emigration to the Soviet Union. There was a very different, at-a-distance support after Stalin Gulag-ed and purged those emigrants. It’s way too soon to see if things will play out the same way with the IS. But AQ in Iraq had decent popular support at one point, too, but they couldn’t help overplaying their hand. And this crew has been rejected by AQ in Iraq for being too hardcore!


These guys are damn smart. It hurts to say that about people so bad but I think it is true.

They’ve done a good job of seeing the opportunity in a crisis, there’s no denying that.

It’s apples and oranges in the end, but after your comparison to the Bolsheviks had sat with me for a couple of hours it occurred to me that as extremist leftist movements go, the IS reminds me more of the Shining Path. They’re completely uncompromising and own up to the violence they perpetrate. They can keep the members of a civilian populace and a government apparatus in states of terror, but they don’t really have much of a plan for maintaining a society. There are societies that have been run on pure fear for decades, but the showrunners came to power singing a different tune. The initial years of Kim-il Sung and Gaddafi had something of a mandate, and those two leveraged their mandates into strangleholds on civil society. There’s really not any indication that the IS has anything like a mandate, is there?

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I certainly don’t think “out of sight, out of mind” is the way to treat the IS, if that isn’t clear.

[novelist]

Jwing---was working through some research on Shia and Sunni historical development and stumbled across the former al Baghdadi history and shifted from him into the Caliph concept historically represented in the various Islamic historical writings.

If you noticed outside of the first outbursts from leading Sunni thinkers about the Caliph being wrong---it has gone silent.

If my readings are correct--- because the historical writings and the use of the name of the former al Baghdadi seems and again Islamic historical writings are always open to interpretation---seems that the IS made a shrewd move on their part and in fact the IS might have the right interpretation of the historical writings.

In the Sunni Islamic stream of faith there are currently three Salafist groups moving at the same time and parallel to each other; 1) the purists who are not political and are fully into Islam and it's meanings, 2) the political types who are throwing out the terms down with US control of the ME/against globalization as it effects the ME etc and where a small number then drift into 3) the jihadists side.

There is an old German saying here in Berlin not all Salafists are terrorists, but all terrorists are Salafists.

If you look at al Baghdadi's statements since he has taken over and the IS actions they are in fact riding all three streams of the Salafist movement and appeal to all factions even al Duri's faction as the Sufi have been the "spreaders" of the faith for a really long time.

IMO al Baghdadi and the IS have hit the middle point of the Salafist movement that the AQ mothership failed in reaching even under UBL. The AQ mothership needs to be forewarned as al Baghdadi is not going away any time soon nor as it appears the IS is either.

IS moved fast in taking and holding ground. The terrorist troops are well trained. Why? Because they have technical knowledge as to how to operate tanks and AFV's. This suggests that the [Sunni]fighters of IS are former [Saddam Era] Iraqi Army officers, Republican Guard, and Fedayeen. It is interesting to me that in the media you see these "experts" commenting on the BRUTALITY of IS, but none has raised the point that IS atrocities and the public display of those atrocities in the social media and otherwise are making full use of PSYOPS. IS defeats its opposition psychologically before it ever encounters them in the field. It reminds me somewhat of what Sun Tzu said about the optimum in warfare is having the ability to defeat your enemy without firing a shot. I don't see men of absolutely no military experience having the mental disposition to wage war like the IS terrorists do. The approach is too professional even if it is reprehensible under the Rules of Land Warfare.

[Bill Moore]

novelist,

The IS has former members of Saddam's army, but probably more relevant they have former members of the Syrian Army. Additionally the different terrorist groups have members from various militaries to include Pakistan and even some western armies. Finding folks with the expertise to teach someone to use the various pieces of ground equipment, or simply looking that up online, shouldn't be too hard. Gaining expertise (practice) is another thing, and then using all that equipment together in a combined arms fashion is another thing altogether. Reports indicate they're employing a combined arms approach, so to me that indicates that some rather senior former military leaders are instrumental in this movement. Maybe not, but it looks like, and smells like that is the case.

For everyone else if you haven't seen the PBS special it worth the 90 minutes to watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/?elq=17de837c85084f7c963d59dcfe4acc9e&elqCampaignId=1000

Losing Iraq

Also worth reading:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/inside-the-rise-of-isis/?elq=17de837c85084f7c963d59dcfe4acc9e&elqCampaignId=1000

Inside the Rise of ISIS

According to the author this situation would have happened regardless of whether the uprising in Syria happened or not.


That process, as far as I’m concerned, actually began as early as mid-to-late 2009. It was at that point that the Islamic State was in some ways forced to devolve into a typical terrorist organization. At that point it relocated much of its central leadership to Mosul [Iraq], which was a relative safe zone, and it was at that point that it essentially began its period of recovery.


The “Soldier’s Harvest” campaign has been the second of two 12-month campaigns. The first one was the campaign known as “Breaking the Walls.”

One of the primary objectives of that operation was to re-establish sources of leverage against security forces. A lot of that was done through a very significant campaign of intimidation — including collecting local intelligence on the addresses and family details of local security forces across the country.

A secondary objective of that initial campaign was the breaking out of prison of not only ordinary Islamic State foot soldiers, but most importantly, senior leading commanders, who’d been in prison for the final year or so of the U.S.-led surge in Iraq.

[slapout9]

IS moved fast in taking and holding ground. The terrorist troops are well trained. Why? Because they have technical knowledge as to how to operate tanks and AFV's. This suggests that the [Sunni]fighters of IS are former [Saddam Era] Iraqi Army officers, Republican Guard, and Fedayeen. It is interesting to me that in the media you see these "experts" commenting on the BRUTALITY of IS, but none has raised the point that IS atrocities and the public display of those atrocities in the social media and otherwise are making full use of PSYOPS. IS defeats its opposition psychologically before it ever encounters them in the field. It reminds me somewhat of what Sun Tzu said about the optimum in warfare is having the ability to defeat your enemy without firing a shot. I don't see men of absolutely no military experience having the mental disposition to wage war like the IS terrorists do. The approach is too professional even if it is reprehensible under the Rules of Land Warfare.


That is an excellent analysis. The experts are approaching this all wrong. This is a Religious War and you must destroy the counter value targets first! Then go to counter force targets. That is part of the reason I keep pounding on some of the points I have made regardless of how controversial they may seem.

ISIS is demonstrating that their God is more powerful than our God. If you want to defeat them you must destroy "THEIR" symbols of Religious authority and legitimacy, otherwise they are continuing to demonstrate that their God is better than every one else's, which gives them a tremendous psychological and recruiting advantage.

The American military must admit that their old analysis and warfare techniques are not going to work and somehow face the fact that they must change their thinking and face the fact that this is not an Insurgency but is a Religious struggle for world domination.

[Bill Moore]

Yes, ISIS is waging a religious war, but what percent of the global Muslim population does ISIS represent? Worse case would be 10% (that is certainly high). You want to blow up religious symbols which will generate even more support for them. You accuse the President of being a secret Muslim, even if he was so what? Yet you're the one promoting a strategy that would support ISIS. Think about the 2d and 3d order effects of what you're promoting.

Destroying religious symbols is little more than an emotional approach that would accomplish nothing militarily, and only serve to set us back politically. ISIS is waging a religious war, we are NOT waging a religious war just because one of our adversaries are. We are waging a war against AQAA. The religious aspect is critical, but that doesn't mean we need to engage in religious war, we just need to understand our adversary is and what that means.

Consider reversing your proposal, if someone blew up your church would you roll over and quit? Or would you mobilize and resist harder? History indicates most will pursue the second option.

[davidbfpo]

A timely article from Time: 'ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians':https://time.com/3093732/isis-iraq-yazidis-and-christians/


Here's what the Prophet and the Quran really say about how to treat the two faith groups

(Ends with) To the ISIS or anyone who sympathizes with them, know that Islam believes in a God of mercy, a scripture of mercy, and a Prophet who sent as a mercy to all the worlds. It is time to abandon persecution and violence, murder and mayhem. The enemy you seek to fight is within you. The pursuit of power is the problem. The pursuit of peace and social justice is what God really calls us to. Put down your arms. And, raise up your hands to the sky seeking God’s forgiveness for unconscionable sins.

[AmericanPride]

That is right. It is time we face the reality that we are fighting a Religious War and there is know Strategy. But there can and should be justice. The Islamic barbarians are killing Christian women and children in the most horrific ways! They have destroyed church upon church some that date back to the 8th century and beyond and they burned holy Christian documents that can never be replaced.

The U.S. is not fighting a religious war and neither are most Muslims. Several militant organizations that identity as Muslim claim to be fighting a religious war, but that does not mean the U.S., in response, should combat the one billion Muslims living today.


So it is time to face the fact that we are not fighting a religion of peace we are fighting a Satanic cult and traditional laws and rules used by normal human beings will not work against the ***** animals we are facing.... everything they value should be wiped off the face of the earth.

Genocide much? :rolleyes:


And Saudi Arabia should be made to pay for it all since they are the ones that started this crap to start with.

That's true to an extent. Unfortunately for the Saudis (and their neighbors and the U.S.), the royal family is always balancing its material security with its religious legitimacy. That's the consequence of making an alliance with the religious establishment many decades ago. It wasn't until 1979 with the seizure of the Grand Mosque, the Iranian Revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that militant Islam took root. And that's not because the Saudis are hell-bent on conquering the world, but for the sake of the kingdom's political survival. The solution is not to enrage the whole Muslim faith by destroying their religious sites but to reform the Saudi state.

[AmericanPride]

If you're going to continue to promote genocide, hatred, and attacking religious symbols you would be better off posting somewhere else other than SWJ. I don't think our community wants to be associated with the tripe that be found on extremist websites. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, your proposals are contrary to sound strategy period.

+1

That kind of garbage should be taken elsewhere.

[OUTLAW 09]

IS moved fast in taking and holding ground. The terrorist troops are well trained. Why? Because they have technical knowledge as to how to operate tanks and AFV's. This suggests that the [Sunni]fighters of IS are former [Saddam Era] Iraqi Army officers, Republican Guard, and Fedayeen. It is interesting to me that in the media you see these "experts" commenting on the BRUTALITY of IS, but none has raised the point that IS atrocities and the public display of those atrocities in the social media and otherwise are making full use of PSYOPS. IS defeats its opposition psychologically before it ever encounters them in the field. It reminds me somewhat of what Sun Tzu said about the optimum in warfare is having the ability to defeat your enemy without firing a shot. I don't see men of absolutely no military experience having the mental disposition to wage war like the IS terrorists do. The approach is too professional even if it is reprehensible under the Rules of Land Warfare.

If one looks at the make up of the Sunni coalition ie the former IAI, ASA, 1920 and the JM many of their fighters were former officers and NCOs and were good enough from 2003 to 2010 to take on the US Army in a multitude of different ways.

Couple that with experience gained in fighting daily Assad---and the use of swarming attacks which the Sunni insurgency got good at in Iraq---why does it "surprise" us when they are on a roll?

Guess what-- they have not even committed their reserves that are even better at it---it is currently estimated that only 3-4K has been carrying the fight forward and they have even dented badly the Peshmerga myth as great fighters.

This is going to get far more interesting in the coming weeks if their drive into Erbil is not stopped.

But it goes to something I wrote recently---this is the standard whip lash tactic so well used against us from 2003 to 2010----fighting here awhile then quiet then somewhere else then quiet and on and on---it is a war of moment nothing else and to forces others to keep up with them.

The main question I have is where are the IS units that have moved into position south of Baghdad and now are on the East and West sides of Baghdad as well---totally quiet from them as they watch what is going on in the north---again an example of the war of movement.

[carl]

Boy Slap, are people mad at you. But you are on to something which people are loath to admit. This is about religion. And you and American Pride are both onto something when you guys point at Saudi Arabia. I don't advocate flattening Mecca and Medina, that would be foolish, but something has to be done about Saudi Arabia. For whatever reason they have been heavily subsidizing officially and unofficially Wahabism throughout the world for decades. Wahabi is not synonymous with peaceful tolerance and they spend billions and billions pushing it everywhere they can. Thanks to fracking maybe we can finally admit what they are up to and do something about it.

There is something else about the Saudis that I comment upon but never get a response to. They are using Western benignity to destroy us. What I mean by that is this. If the Western culture was now as it was in the 17th or 18th century, we wouldn't be worrying about what the Saudis do because they would have no money to do it with. We would have just taken the oil and that would be that. But our values advanced beyond that and we now pay them for the oil found there, oil that we extract because they can't do it themselves.. They in turn can be viewed as using that money to promote and subsidize an ideology that seeks to destroy us. That does not seem wise to me. We should tell them to stop or else.

[carl]

Outlaw 09:

Zenpundit mention in a recent post that the IS took Sinjar using a combination of snipers and artillery. Do know about that or have any details about it?

[ganulv]

There is something else about the Saudis that I comment upon but never get a response to. They are using Western benignity to destroy us. What I mean by that is this. If the Western culture was now as it was in the 17th or 18th century, we wouldn't be worrying about what the Saudis do because they would have no money to do it with. We would have just taken the oil and that would be that. But our values advanced beyond that and we now pay them for the oil found there, oil that we extract because they can't do it themselves.. They in turn can be viewed as using that money to promote and subsidize an ideology that seeks to destroy us. That does not seem wise to me. We should tell them to stop or else.

You can’t get around a layer of expenses, though. Payment is going to go towards the maintenance of a Colonial Office or to the House of Saud. It’s a trade-off.

[KingJaja]

A timely article from Time: 'ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians':https://time.com/3093732/isis-iraq-yazidis-and-christians/

I don't think anyone is listening - not Boko Haram in my native Nigeria, not ISIS Iraq nor a not so insignificant number of Muslims.

I think Western liberals are in denial about what they are up against. There the "Mecca verses of the Quran" (respectful of Christianity) and the "Medina verses" (which look like a go ahead to destroy Christians and Jews) - whatever is chosen us up to the individual Muslim.

Ustaz Mahmood Taha (Republican Brothers) advocated a return to the "Mecca verses" - he was hanged in the 1980's in Sudan. A more tolerant version of Islam (West African Sufism) is under threat by Salafism promoted by America's ally (Saudi Arabia).

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of Western liberals. I'm a Nigerian Christian. I know a face of Islam that Western academics, liberals, journalists, diplomats, policy makers and analysts pretend doesn't exist.

I cannot afford to be "politically correct".

[AmericanPride]

Boy Slap, are people mad at you. But you are on to something which people are loath to admit. This is about religion.

Religion is often the expression of unresolved economic, political, or social contradictions. The wave of militant Islam did not emerge in a vacuum - it grew out of the conflicts of the 1960s and 1970s that simultaneously de-legitimized 'traditional' structures of power (Arab nationalism, colonialism, etc) and radicalized new ideologies of resistance. It's not a coincidence that all of the major militant Islamist organizations, with the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood, emerged after this period. And they've been gaining strength because those same unresolved problems inherited from the early post-Cold War period are still largely present. Discontent is what keeps movements like ISIS, Hamas, and Hezbollah active.

Cast over Saudi policy is the long shadow of remaining religiously legitimate in the context of Wahhabism - and that means rejecting to a large extent Western values. Hard to maintain that legitimacy while flowing the wealth earned from selling oil to the West in vast quantities; hence the schizophrenic nature of Saudi behavior. The seizure of the Grand Mosque pushed the Saudi elites to the right - and so has the Arab Spring but to a more limited extent. Until this central problem is resolved at the core of the Saudi state, I expect the issue of Saudi sponsored terrorism to persist.

[ganulv]

I think Western liberals are in denial about what they are up against. There the "Mecca verses of the Quran" (respectful of Christianity) and the "Medina verses" (which look like a go ahead to destroy Christians and Jews) - whatever is chosen is up to the individual Muslim.

To say that interpretation is up to individuals isn’t to say that a document doesn’t have a core meaning. Almost everyone in the United States has an opinion on and an interpretation of our Constitution. Most of them know f@#k all about it and its history. I, for one, am not willing to say that the U.S. Constitution means whatever anyone thinks it means.

[carl]

You can’t get around a layer of expenses, though. Payment is going to go towards the maintenance of a Colonial Office or to the House of Saud. It’s a trade-off.

The important point is the use of the money, civil servant pensions or Wahibism? Who is more likely to cut your throat?

[KingJaja]

Boko Haram warned Christians to flee Northern Nigeria in January 2012. Nobody can tell my that the similarity between this an ISIS behaviour is mere happenstance. This is a face of Islam, that many of us are too "politically correct" to confront.


(CNN) -- The militant Islamist group Boko Haram has issued an ultimatum giving Christians living in northern Nigeria three days to leave the area amid a rising tide of violence there.
A Boko Haram spokesman, Abul Qaqa, also said late Sunday that Boko Haram fighters are ready to confront soldiers sent to the area under a state of emergency declared in parts of four states by Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan on Saturday.
"We will confront them squarely to protect our brothers," Abul Qaqa said during a telephone call with local media. He also called on Muslims living in southern Nigeria to "come back to the north because we have evidence they will be attacked."
Recent weeks have seen an escalation in clashes between Boko Haram and security forces in the north-eastern states of Borno and Yobe, as well as attacks on churches and assassinations. Nearly 30 people were killed on Christmas Day at a Catholic church near the federal capital, Abuja -- a sign that Boko Haram is prepared to strike beyond its heartland.
Human rights activist Shehu Sani told CNN that the latest Boko Haram threat is credible, but many Christians born and raised in the north have nowhere else to go.
"The killings will continue," he said, and Boko Haram may respond to the state of emergency by taking its campaign of violence to areas not yet affected.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/02/world/africa/nigeria-sectarian-divisions/index.html

[ganulv]

The important point is the use of the money, civil servant pensions or Wahibism? Who is more likely to cut your throat?

Neither is sustainable. Nor completely safe, as de Gaulle discovered. :wry:

[ganulv]

Boko Haram warned Christians to flee Northern Nigeria in January 2012. Nobody can tell my that the similarity between this an ISIS behaviour is mere happenstance. This is a face of Islam, that many of us are too "politically correct" to confront.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/02/world/africa/nigeria-sectarian-divisions/index.html

It’s a face, and I have no trouble acknowledging that. But it’s not the whole. People were waking to burning crosses in front of their yards within the living memory of the part of the U.S. where I grew up. That movement was made up of Christians with a certain take on Christianity. Only a Richard Dawkins type would say it is representative of all Christians or that it is an inevitable outcome of the religion.

[AmericanPride]

The important point is the use of the money, civil servant pensions or Wahibism? Who is more likely to cut your throat?

I don't think the Saudis are unresponsive to U.S. diplomatic pressure. The House of Saud has close relationships many U.S. business interests and political families (most notably, the Bush family). But the Saudis are also deeply insecure about their governorship of the country, given the intense reactionary sentiment of the religious establishment. If it comes between appeasing Washington or appeasing the religious base, the Saudis will choose the religious base without fail. Of course, it doesn't help that the U.S. abandons its emphasis on democratic reform at the slightest hint of instability in the Gulf.

My point is that there are few pressures for moderation and reform within Saudi Arabia (though it does exist at a grassroots level to a small extent) - that pressure needs to come from the West, particularly the U.S. Conflict produces cycles of escalation and radicalization, and we are seeing that culminate with ISIS after 13 years of the War on Terrorism. But even militarily defeating ISIS in Iraq (assuming it's possible) doesn't remove the more fundamental structural problems at the foundation of conflict in the Middle East. And I think foremost among those is democratic revolution in Saudi Arabia.

[KingJaja]

It’s a face, and I have no trouble acknowledging that. But it’s not the whole. People were waking to burning crosses in front of their yards within the living memory of the part of the U.S. where I grew up. That movement was made up of Christians with a certain take on Christianity. Only a Richard Dawkins type would say it is representative of all Christians or that it is an inevitable outcome of the religion.

It is growing at an alarming rate - just like those cross burners were an issue in the 1920s & 30s - these folks are an issue today.

And they're a lot more dangerous than cross burners.

[OUTLAW 09]

It has had nothing to do with Wahhabism or the KSA---it has been all about the Shia Sunni split and the drive between Iran since Khomeini to expand Shia influence inside the Muslim world which clashes with that of the KSA and their defense of the Sunni global community and then in turn the regional hegemony clash between both Iran and the KSA.

The use of Wahhabism was the KSA attempt to control that Sunni global community and at the same time encircle the Shia global community with what they viewed a purer form of Sunni Islam.

Actually the KSA has been over the last ten years backing off (have actually cut back their funding and training enters) of the deep Wahhabism global drive but in the end has been supporting the AQI in Syria due to the Shia Sunni conflict.

Right now there is an estimated 3K Saudi's (many former military trained types) fighting with the IS and the KSA has broken up a large IS cell recently inside the KSA.

The IS has been actually threatening the destruction of the twin holy sites in the last week as they now view the KSA as not being radical enough--actually they do not view the KSA to be Takfiri enough for them. There is some indications in informal polling that the young generation inside the KSA are now more and more identifying with the IS and their messaging. By the way Wahhabism is not the same thing as Takfirism inside Sunni Islam.

Check the IS Caliphates' map they released when they called out the Caliphate---they are taking Islam back to the golden age of the expanded influence they had in Spain, North Africa and the Arabian peninsular and that appeals to the young Muslim of today.

IS has now become a direct threat to the KSA as well as a direct threat to Iran due to their deep Salafist hate of the Shia and any other religion that is not Salafist.

This is not a Christian Islam thing ---it is a pure Sunni power politics debate for the heart and soul of the Sunni global community.

[JMA]

Slap the question is how we have reached this point in history.

It was the West's failure to act in Syria - led by current US Administration - which set the scene for the current state of affairs in Iraq where it is all happening.

Now when it is time to act and act decisively the Whitehouse dithers and places all kinds of self imposed limitations upon its response. Quite pathetic.

It is American weakness that has opened the door for radical Islam to exploit. Tony Blair warned the world of the threat of radical Islam (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=20569&highlight=Tony+Blair) and the smart guys - we have a number around here - laughed him and his warning off. Its time to pay the price for the dithering and cowardice of western leadership now.

It should never have got to this.



That is an excellent analysis. The experts are approaching this all wrong. This is a Religious War and you must destroy the counter value targets first! Then go to counter force targets. That is part of the reason I keep pounding on some of the points I have made regardless of how controversial they may seem.

ISIS is demonstrating that their God is more powerful than our God. If you want to defeat them you must destroy "THEIR" symbols of Religious authority and legitimacy, otherwise they are continuing to demonstrate that their God is better than every one else's, which gives them a tremendous psychological and recruiting advantage.

The American military must admit that their old analysis and warfare techniques are not going to work and somehow face the fact that they must change their thinking and face the fact that this is not an Insurgency but is a Religious struggle for world domination.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator states

The second phrase is or else.

SWC seeks to promote dialogue on 'small wars' and related subjects. We have RoE and are not a political board. Accordingly I have acted to edit out a few phrases where the language is OTT and damaging to SWC. We pride ourselves on being a place to come to, read, maybe engage and above all value.

Additional action will be taken if there is more OTT postings.

[JMA]

The U.S. is not fighting a religious war and neither are most Muslims.

Yes, the US currently is very confused about what is going on in the world right now.

Screwed up Libya, dithered on Syria until it boiled over, presided over a bad ending in Iraq, impotent with respct to Ukraine and Gaza and we await the anticipated collapse in Afghanistan.

I put it to you that the US does not know what the hell is going on in the world around it.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA


It was the West's failure to act in Syria - led by current US Administration - which set the scene for the current state of affairs in Iraq where it is all happening.

As for Syria leading to the situation in Iraq, it certainly didn't help it (nor could we have changed that dynamic), but it would have happened anyway. Read about AQ's strategy in Iraq, they were making significant progress independent of anything happening in Syria. See the link I provided above on the Rise of the ISI. It actually provides great insight into their campaign plan, and what we can anticipate in the future.

Key excerpts:


That campaign was absolutely crucial in allowing the Islamic State to start its second 12-month campaign, which was “Soldier’s Harvest.” That has essentially seen the Islamic State launch a really concerted, high-level and brutal campaign of multiple bombings, large and small, and a concerted campaign of assassinations. Essentially, it sought to spark the perceptions of sectarian conflict within Iraqi dynamics and to transfer what were existing sectarian tensions within the political system, for example, back into the tribal thinking, back into societal thinking. That, in effect, created a vacuum which the Islamic State felt it would be able to step into, and in many respects that is what it has managed to do just in the last couple of months.

This nests perfectly with AQ's Management of Savagery strategy that is available via a Google search.


The bombings not only influenced that element of sectarian conflict in Iraq, but additionally, it also enforced a serious level of intimidation on the security forces – to the extent to which it was possible on a very local level for Islamic State commanders to essentially force the local army commanders to surrender without a fight. And certainly from what it’s been possible to see from Mosul in early June, that seems to have been what happened when the city fell. A lot of that was the result of this expansive intelligence and intimidation campaign, in addition to military attacks which had been taking place across Sunni areas of Iraq for at least the last two or three years.

Interesting comment


There will come a point at which the Islamic State will feel that if it continues the kind of gains that it’s making at the moment, it will reach a point at which it feels like it doesn’t anymore need these relationships with some of these groups. It will be at that point – where [the Islamic State] begins to assert itself more unilaterally – that you could start to see these relationships crumble.

Goes on to say that


Having said that, the Islamic State has proven its ability to pragmatically withdraw from territory where it feels like it can’t win – and then to later go back and recapture it. That’s what it’s doing in Syria at the moment.

Indicates they have a plan and can adapt to changes on the ground. I be the lone voice in this discussion, but I think the President is right that regarding military operations only having a minimal effect until the Iraqi government cleans up its act. Once there is a government worth fighting for, it will be easier (not easy) to clean ISI out of the key areas, especially if they continue to fight as a semi-conventional force. We can do that now, but to what end if we can't consolidate the victory with viable political control to hold the ground?

[Dayuhan]

Thanks to fracking maybe we can finally admit what they are up to and do something about it.

The impact of fracking is much overrated. Whether or not the US actually buys Saudi oil, we still need Saudi production to continue unabated, because any serious interruption to Saudi production would send the world oil price through the roof, producing economic chaos... and our domestically produced oil is sold at prevailing market price: the difference between WTI, Brent, and Dubai prices is generally negligible.


There is something else about the Saudis that I comment upon but never get a response to. They are using Western benignity to destroy us. What I mean by that is this. If the Western culture was now as it was in the 17th or 18th century, we wouldn't be worrying about what the Saudis do because they would have no money to do it with. We would have just taken the oil and that would be that. But our values advanced beyond that and we now pay them for the oil found there, oil that we extract because they can't do it themselves.. They in turn can be viewed as using that money to promote and subsidize an ideology that seeks to destroy us. That does not seem wise to me. We should tell them to stop or else.

Or else what?

[Dayuhan]

Yes, the US currently is very confused about what is going on in the world right now.

Screwed up Libya, dithered on Syria until it boiled over, presided over a bad ending in Iraq, impotent with respct to Ukraine and Gaza and we await the anticipated collapse in Afghanistan.

I put it to you that the US does not know what the hell is going on in the world around it.

The US did screw up in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at the beginning, not at the end. The screwup lay in the arrogance and hubris implicit in the belief that American intervention could solve the problems in those countries, and that it would be possible to "install democracy" and make it work.

The US does seem to have learned a bit from those mistakes, and they appear to be a bit more restrained about trying to solve other people's problems.

Criticisms of policy in places like Syria, Libya, and Gaza would be more credible if accompanied by some suggestion of what might have been a better policy... ideally a serious suggestion, not a facetious claim that three cruise missiles would have solved the problem, or something similar.

Knowing what is going on is one issue, having a viable plan for doing something about it is another.

[AmericanPride]

It has had nothing to do with Wahhabism or the KSA---

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.


it has been all about the Shia Sunni split and the drive between Iran since Khomeini to expand Shia influence inside the Muslim world which clashes with that of the KSA and their defense of the Sunni global community and then in turn the regional hegemony clash between both Iran and the KSA.

Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.


Actually the KSA has been over the last ten years backing off (have actually cut back their funding and training enters) of the deep Wahhabism global drive but in the end has been supporting the AQI in Syria due to the Shia Sunni conflict.

The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.

[slapout9]

I don't think anyone is listening - not Boko Haram in my native Nigeria, not ISIS Iraq nor a not so insignificant number of Muslims.

I think Western liberals are in denial about what they are up against. There the "Mecca verses of the Quran" (respectful of Christianity) and the "Medina verses" (which look like a go ahead to destroy Christians and Jews) - whatever is chosen us up to the individual Muslim.

Ustaz Mahmood Taha (Republican Brothers) advocated a return to the "Mecca verses" - he was hanged in the 1980's in Sudan. A more tolerant version of Islam (West African Sufism) is under threat by Salafism promoted by America's ally (Saudi Arabia).

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of Western liberals. I'm a Nigerian Christian. I know a face of Islam that Western academics, liberals, journalists, diplomats, policy makers and analysts pretend doesn't exist.

I cannot afford to be "politically correct".

God Bless you, perhaps one day my country will have the courage that you do.

[slapout9]

Boy Slap, are people mad at you. But you are on to something which people are loath to admit. This is about religion. And you and American Pride are both onto something when you guys point at Saudi Arabia. I don't advocate flattening Mecca and Medina, that would be foolish, but something has to be done about Saudi Arabia. For whatever reason they have been heavily subsidizing officially and unofficially Wahabism throughout the world for decades. Wahabi is not synonymous with peaceful tolerance and they spend billions and billions pushing it everywhere they can. Thanks to fracking maybe we can finally admit what they are up to and do something about it.

There is something else about the Saudis that I comment upon but never get a response to. They are using Western benignity to destroy us. What I mean by that is this. If the Western culture was now as it was in the 17th or 18th century, we wouldn't be worrying about what the Saudis do because they would have no money to do it with. We would have just taken the oil and that would be that. But our values advanced beyond that and we now pay them for the oil found there, oil that we extract because they can't do it themselves.. They in turn can be viewed as using that money to promote and subsidize an ideology that seeks to destroy us. That does not seem wise to me. We should tell them to stop or else.

Hi carl,
Yea I know there are hit squads out looking for me:D

You may find this of some interest even if nobody else does. Israel and what they are doing is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is called "Equivalent Retaliation" ###-for-Tat is the slang term. It literally means if you attack me I will attack you back in the same way, if you stop I will stop, if you continue I will continue. "Counter Value" means if you strike civilian targets I will hit back at civilian targets. If you attack my church I will attack your mosque,etc. And is not illegal or a war crime as it is often believed to be. The Prime Minister of Israel ended up having to explain this to the President of the UN recently.

Wilf published an excellent article recently on Strategy (over at his journal) and how brutal Strategy may have to be in order to be effective. It is not very Politically correct so I want post a link but you know where it is. He even sighted a TV program I watch and recommend to people it is called "Sons Of Anarchy" new season is about to start as a way to learn effective Strategy. Later

[Bill Moore]

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.



Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.



The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes. There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion). Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

King Jaja makes important points, as do other religious groups who are being targeted by the Islamists. We can ignore them and look at the world differently, but that doesn't change the underlying reality of why people are fighting. A theory is only good as long as it works, our political theories of conflict don't explain what is happening today. I disagree with Outlaw that this conflict has nothing to do with Christians, they're certainly being targeted throughout much of the Muslim world by Islamists. That leads to formally normal citizens like Slapout:D, embracing extremist ideas of their own and the character of the conflict evolves/changes over time. King Jaja may be able to spread light on this, but even 20 years ago various international Christian groups were smuggling arms into Nigeria to help the Christians battle/defend themselves against the Muslims. This wasn't sponsored by any state, but by religious groups. It is a multi-dimensional problem of which religion plays a significant role.

[KingJaja]

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes. There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion). Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

King Jaja makes important points, as do other religious groups who are being targeted by the Islamists. We can ignore them and look at the world differently, but that doesn't change the underlying reality of why people are fighting. A theory is only good as long as it works, our political theories of conflict don't explain what is happening today. I disagree with Outlaw that this conflict has nothing to do with Christians, they're certainly being targeted throughout much of the Muslim world by Islamists. That leads to formally normal citizens like Slapout:D, embracing extremist ideas of their own and the character of the conflict evolves/changes over time. King Jaja may be able to spread light on this, but even 20 years ago various international Christian groups were smuggling arms into Nigeria to help the Christians battle/defend themselves against the Muslims. This wasn't sponsored by any state, but by religious groups. It is a multi-dimensional problem of which religion plays a significant role.

I don't know about Christian groups smuggling arms to local Christians in Nigeria, but we've had a low intensity religious war between Muslims and Christians going on in Northern Nigeria for close to 20 years - the roots of this conflict even go further in the past.

If you listen carefully to Boko Haram, they tap into the grievances of Muslims - there have been massacres in Yelwa, Kaduna, Dogo na Hawa - pitting each side against the other.

About 10 - 30,000 people killed last decade - this was before Boko Haram

[KingJaja]

Let me also add that I'm not sure the US fully understands what's going on here - it is focused on "terrorism" with a minor focus on "social justice", but one thing that escapes the attention of many US analysts is this: the post-colonial order in Afrika and the Middle-east is being challenged.

There is state failure and yes, there is state formation. Somalia is a failed state, it gave rise to terrorism, but it also gave raise to Somaliland - a de facto, not de jure state under international law. In the 20 odd years in which the rest of Somalia failed, Somaliland has done remarkably well in building its own institutions.

Just like US prefers to maintain the fiction that Congo is a "state", it persisted in maintaining the fiction that a united Iraq can exist without a brutal, unifying dictator. ISIS has triggered what was always going to happen - a partition of Iraq & has also created new facts on the ground.

US has spent the past 50 years maintaining French, British & Portuguese spheres of influence in the developing World without asking deep questions about the "hows" and the "whys" of "state formation" in these parts of the globe.

US is invested in the Sahel, ostensibly to check the "spread of terrorism" - but has anyone asked about the roots of the Toureg rebellions of 1962 -64, 1990 - 95 and 2012 in Mali?

US intervenes, then it looks like Iraq again - a lot of the underlying issues were kept hidden by the French, then US discovers a lot of stuff it should have known going in.

[AmericanPride]

AP I don't understand why Westerners at this point in time deny that much of this conflict is certainly about religion. The Sunni and Shia divide was certainly over interpretation of religion, as was the jihad that established the original caliphate which extended into Spain. There is always politics involved, but I think it is a mistake to believe we will solve the current conflict between Shias and Sunnis through a combination of political and economic structural changes.

Bill - in my analysis, religion (and other forms of identity) are frames through which to view political and economic structures. Between 1948 and 2014, the structures in the Middle East have remained remarkably resilient - minus the revolution in Iran and the destruction of Iraq. What has changed however is that the post-War frames of colonial-anticolonialism, nationalism, republicanism, and of course the Cold War have all disappeared. This started in 1973 with the defeat of the Arab republics of Syria and Egypt, spelling the death of Arab nationalism. What has occurred since then? 1979 was the seminal year for the emergence of militant Islam - seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia; the Iranian revolution; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These events set into motion the strengthening of Islamism as an organizing principle and so the structural conflicts that were present before (i.e. Iranian-Saudi animosity) took on a religious tone. This is not to say that religion is unimportant - it absolutely is important. But I think it's difficult to argue that it is the cause of the current strife in the Middle East when the problems existed long before the emergence of militant Islam as a credible movement in its modern incarnation.


There are clearly two major sets of actors in this conflict, states and non-state. State actors leverage religion to pursue political ends, while non-state actors leverage states to pursue religious ends.

This is true in the post-1973 period. Who here remembers the communist Palestinian terrorist organizations like the PFLP and the DFLP or consider them serious threats to international security today? The paradigm has shifted from nationalism to religion but that doesn't mean the nature of the base conflict has also fundamentally changed.


The politics is always local argument tends to fall apart when you see Islamists (and others) coming from around the world to support their particular religious sect (or extremist group based on religion).

I agree - religion is a powerful organizing principle. But even during the Cold War, ideological militants also behaved similarly, just not on the same scale.



Politics are ultimately about identity groups, and if the identity group is based on religion and transcends state borders, and the goals of those identity groups (in some cases) are get everyone to submit to their particular religious view then how can we rationally deny it is a religious war? Are other factors, important factors involved? Most certainly, but we can't erase the religious aspect just to make it conform to our theory about conflicts and war.

I don't think religion can or should be ignored. But I also don't think (1) resolving whatever religious grievance is presumably at the heart of the conflict will actually end the conflict or (2) that understanding the nuances of the theology is helpful in understanding a path towards conflict termination. Twenty years ago ISIS did not exist. Ten years ago it was in its infant stages. Now militants are flocking to its banner - what has changed? I don't think it's because people are any more zealous than usual or because the ISIS message is more relevant now than previously; this is a path of conflict escalation created by the break down of civil society in Iraq framed by religion. The Arab world has been an ideological desert since 1973 and Arab nationalism is virtually non-existent, so that leaves religion as the only credible organizing principle with which to frame conflict. Minus the semantics, would the grievances and justifications be fundamentally different if religion was replaced by, say, nationalism or communism? I doubt it. The disputes between Iraqi-Iran, KSA-Iran, Israel-Arabs, etc would still be present.

[AmericanPride]

US has spent the past 50 years maintaining French, British & Portuguese spheres of influence in the developing World without asking deep questions about the "hows" and the "whys" of "state formation" in these parts of the globe.

I think this is central to what is going on in Iraq. Compared to the West, all of the states in the Middle East are relatively young (some exception could be argued for Iran and Turkey). Iraqi state formation never achieved the level of stability found in Europe - and this problem existed before the emergence of organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The collapse (read: destruction) of the Iraqi state in the midst of the revival of militant Islam created an opportunity for the formation of such groups.

[slapout9]

1979 was the seminal year for the emergence of militant Islam - seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia;

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

[AmericanPride]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

[slapout9]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

Why did they do it then?

[KingJaja]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

I'm going to deviate a bit here - I don't agree with your thesis on religion, i.e. that is is a "mere organizing principle". The Muslim Brotherhood was formed as long ago as the 1920s.

Okay, if we assume that politics is major factor driving religious movements in the Middle-east; what politiks is responsible for the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the Developing World - from the slums of Lagos to the favelas of Brazil?

I'm from an interesting nation; Nigeria - you can see a rise in religious fundamentalism in both major religions - Islam & Christianity.

I'm not sure this has to much to do with Middle-east politics.

[KingJaja]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

3. What is is the "Western narrative"? Is it capitalism - that doesn't work for the poor? Or "freedom" - that the West often abandons for expediency (whether it is Paul Kagame in Rwanda or Al Sisi in Egypt)? How is the West going to fight this "battle of ideas"?

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

[ganulv]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

They’re not always so primarily spiritual as you let on. In the 1980s the Guatemalan dictatorship was actively supportive of Pentecostalism, and association with evangelical communities provided a measure of safety at a time when Catholicism = Liberation Theology = Communism in the eyes of the generals. Hezbollah is avowedly Islamist, and they don’t separate that fact from their development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services) and political activities.

I don’t think there is a blanket response to your questions/comments. It just depends on the locale.

[AmericanPride]

Why did they do it then?

Inside the Kingdom by Robert Lacey provides good context and consequences for the incident on Saudi Arabia. In it, he describes how the material prosperity of KSA in the 1970s triggered a religious reaction (not unlike other societies that experience similar changes). The surprise and audacity of the event shocked the Saudi leadership, and in the hopes of repairing their religious legitimacy as they built their material wealth, the Saudi state made a deliberate decision to move closer to its own religious right to appease the anxiety about modernization and Western influences. For al-Otaybi and his men in particular who seized the mosque - they thought they were ushering in the arrival of the Mahdi and the overthrow of the House of Saud. They were all killed or executed.

Now your 'strategy' of annihilating a religious city - well, that's a guaranteed method to create more al-Otaybis, bin Ladens, and al-Bahgdadis.


4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

There is no long term plan. The U.S. does not do long-term strategy and what strategy it does do, it does not do very well.

[KingJaja]

They’re not always so primarily spiritual as you let on. In the 1980s the Guatemalan dictatorship was actively supportive of Pentecostalism, and association with evangelical communities provided a measure of safety at a time when Catholicism = Liberation Theology = Communism in the eyes of the generals. Hezbollah is avowedly Islamist, and they don’t separate that fact from their development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services) and political activities.

I don’t think there is a blanket response to your questions/comments. It just depends on the locale.

Politics doesn't explain the growth of Evangelical Christianity in China - and it has experienced quite significant growth there.

This is primarily spiritual. Western analysts (with their love for neat categories) find it hard to put their fingers around this, but it is true.

[JMA]

Now your 'strategy' of annihilating a religious city - well, that's a guaranteed method to create more al-Otaybis, bin Ladens, and al-Bahgdadis.

And what will be created by the destruction of Christian sites by radical Muslems?

[ganulv]

This is primarily spiritual. Western analysts (with their love for neat categories) find it hard to put their fingers around this, but it is true.

With due respect, you are the one delineating a neat category. I am the one saying that religion is one part of life tied into many others.

[JMA]

Posted by JMA

As for Syria leading to the situation in Iraq, it certainly didn't help it (nor could we have changed that dynamic), but it would have happened anyway. Read about AQ's strategy in Iraq, they were making significant progress independent of anything happening in Syria. ...

I appreciate just how humiliating it is for Americans right now but when the signs were that it was all going pear-shaped the 'flock' blindly supported a failing policy and attacked anyone who strayed 'off-message'.

Certainly in time we will have more clarity on this and other matters. In the meantime the best advice is to resist any knee-jerk defence of obvious failure.

[Bill Moore]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

3. What is is the "Western narrative"? Is it capitalism - that doesn't work for the poor? Or "freedom" - that the West often abandons for expediency (whether it is Paul Kagame in Rwanda or Al Sisi in Egypt)? How is the West going to fight this "battle of ideas"?

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

1. Spiritual fills a void (most humans are spiritual, intellectual, and physical), and also provides a narrative that explains what is happening in the world. I think AQ and Islamist narrative resonates because so far it does explain what is happening in the world to many poor and not so poor people. Early 2000s, there was an article in the San Antonio Times that expressed surprise in how many Mexican Catholics were converting to Islam, the reporter interviewed a few converts, and they said Islam explains what is happening in the world and fills a void that Christianity didn't. It would be interesting to explore that further and identify what that void is, and if it is the same void that leads some Muslims to take an extremist path.

2. Agree very strongly, but our Department of State doesn't seem to recognize this. This may be an unfair comment, but we tend to keep pushing the same narrative even though it fails to resonate with only a few educated people at tea parties and who have some degree of wealth. We're not so good at sensing ground truth in the masses who are living off a dollar or so per day.

3. I think the Western narrative is freedom, democracy, and capitalism (free markets). Freedom means different things to different people, an Islamist may desire to be free of Western forms of government so he can impose his views and laws on others. Democracy is a messy form of government, and young democracies are highly unstable and the majority fail. I tend to agree with Churchhill that it is the least bad form of governance, but you can't transition to a democracy overnight. Certain conditions must be created over decades related to education, economics, social norms, etc. before it has a chance to develop. Capitalism and free markets mean competition, when there is competition there are losers and winners, and those living off a dollar a day are going to compete effectively against those that have means (money, education, networks, etc.). Capitalism will likely be losing proposition for the economically oppressed, and simply expose them to more exploitation. Again we need to identify transitional/condition setting objectives to enable that transition if we insist on keeping this as a goal.

4. In my opinion we need to slow our roll and deeply self-reflect about what we want to accomplish in the world, what can be accomplished, and what is moral. I'm just one voter among millions, and I'm not aware of any politicians in our country running on that platform, so it is just another worthless set of ideas from one concerned American.

[Bill Moore]

I appreciate just how humiliating it is for Americans right now but when the signs were that it was all going pear-shaped the 'flock' blindly supported a failing policy and attacked anyone who strayed 'off-message'.

Certainly in time we will have more clarity on this and other matters. In the meantime the best advice is to resist any knee-jerk defence of obvious failure.

I don't think you have a good appreciation for how our country works. Obama's plans for Iraq were bitterly attacked, and his failure to follow through with his redline comment was bitterly attacked, and Libya, and Afghanistan, etc. I admit the democratic party has in many ways has become Nazi like where there is no deviation of thought allowed within their ranks; however, since Obama's policies are increasingly unpopular, we're starting to see fissures in their party (they're starting to look like an American political party again, instead of mindless conformists). We have three branches of government that counterbalance each other, the President is not all powerful.

As for the military, we're subordinate to civilian leadership, but that doesn't mean our leaders don't speak truth to power, but they do quietly behind closed doors. Once the decision is made they execute.

I agree it will take more time to understand what is happening in Syria and Iraq, who all the players are, why certain decisions are being made, etc. Of course we're trying to avoid a knee jerk response now, and that course of action comes with its critics also. I would like to say it isn't a popularity contest, but in democracy it too often is very much about a popularity contest. Some politicians have the courage to do what is right versus what is popular, but they're a minority.

[Dayuhan]

LOL... another Obama man throwing in a defence. The one plus with the US is that eventually it all comes out. Bush and Obama are guilty... we just wait to hear what complicity or otherwise the military has in all this.

Complicity sounds so... conspiratorial. I don't think the military is complicit in anything beyond trying to do what they were told to do. Sometimes badly, arguably, but anyone who hands an army a mission like "nation building" has to expect that things won't all go well.

I don't think Bush is "guilty" of anything beyond hubris, and if that's a crime there's a lot of criminals out there. Catastrophic results, of course, but that's often the case. I don't think Obama is guilty of anything beyond doing what he was elected to do... the eternal inconvenience of democracy.

[JMA]

Complicity sounds so... conspiratorial. I don't think the military is complicit in anything beyond trying to do what they were told to do. Sometimes badly, arguably, but anyone who hands an army a mission like "nation building" has to expect that things won't all go well.

The US military goes a bundle on ethics and moral courage and the West Point Honor Code but seldom live up to the standard.

Shinseki's projection on the requirement for post invasion forces was probably more accurate but cost him his job.

So we will learn in due course who said what and who resigned and why. The pliant sycophants will also be exposed. It all comes out in the end.


I don't think Bush is "guilty" of anything beyond hubris, and if that's a crime there's a lot of criminals out there. Catastrophic results, of course, but that's often the case. I don't think Obama is guilty of anything beyond doing what he was elected to do... the eternal inconvenience of democracy.The body count in Iraq since 2003 stands at 193,000 and no American is to blame or no American President has responsibility?

[carl]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

Slap, rather than flattening those places, which I think would be unwise, how about taking them? I don't mean us taking them, I mean other Muslims taking them from the Saudis. Where is it written that the House of Saud must have authority over those places? Why not the Kurds, or the Turks or the Malaysians? Why should those lazy, fat trouble making Saudis have them if they refuse to shape up? IS is eventually going to go after those places anyway and the Saudis couldn't stand against those guys but others could. Maybe we should look at openly backing a side in the contest that is occurring within Islam between the takfiri killers and everybody else. If the takfiris win the contest it will be all of Islam against the rest of the world. That is what they are aiming to bring about. We should recognize that and try to figure out how to stop it.

[OUTLAW 09]

Nonsense. It has everything to do with Wahhabism and KSA.

Again more non-sense. The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is about power, not religion. They are the competing regional hegemons in the Gulf, and Iran is inherently the stronger state by size, population, and resources. KSA's response has been to increase relations with the U.S., export terrorism, and build its alliance of Gulf kingdoms. At the same time, it has been desperate to shore up its religious legitimacy lest it face a revolt at home from the religious base.

The Saudis care less that the Syrian leadership is not Sunni than they care that Syria, since its independence, has been one of the leading voices of Arab nationalism and a competitor for regional hegemony; first through control of the opposition to Israel. KSA joined the Syrian civil war to destroy the ally of its main adversary, Iran, not because they're concerned about which prayers the Assad family uses.



See AP this is exactly why you are so often off base to the point of hanging onto the aged idea of negotiations which is suppose to solve everything.---but I guess it goes to the fact that you never served in Iraq either in the military or as a civilian.

Really go back and fully understand Khomeini and his Green Crescent expansionism of Shiaism. Go back and fully understand the Iraq/Iran war from 80/88 as an attempt by the Sunni's to reign in that Shia expansionism by Khomeini.

Go back and fully understand exactly how Hezbollah arrived carrying the Green Banners of Shia from Iran to "support" their brothers in Lebanon, fully understand how that led to the Marine Barracks bombing, how the US Embassy bombing destroyed virtually the entire CIA ME field agents as a pay back by "guess who" Russia for issues inside Iran just after the Revolution, then onto to Syria.

Once you fully understand all of this then go back and fully understand the Sunni Shia clash for the last 1400 years---and then fully understand the "Green Crescent" and what it means to the current Iranian leadership especially to the Iranian Supreme Religious Leader.

When you fully understand all of that then realize that when we arrive in 2003 in Baghdad we walked into a full scale Salafist insurgency against Saddam that had been going on since mid 90s and we the US and Bush knew absolutely nothing about this insurgency. Remember IS is not the only fighting group on the ground in Iraq---it is being supported by the Sunni tribes, and the Sunni coalition that fought us from 2003 to 2010 ie the IAI, the ASA, 1920, JM and then the al Duri first with his NB and now his War Councils.

One wonders why they are militarily so good --check the number of former Sunni Army and ISS officers fighting with the Sunni coalition.

On top of all of this the IS is using their experience gained in swarm attacks used against us from 2005 onwards which if one asks the 1st Cav especially in 2007 they were highly successful at doing.

If you had read my Musings article you would have understood a little about that insurgency and who led it---we were in a full scale Mao defined Phase Two guerrilla war and never realized it---even today the Army runs from that idea and it totally contradicts their COIN victory concept.

Zarqawi arrived in Baghdad in 2002 and linked into that Salafist movement and created then his QIBR, which we renamed AQI and then it morphed into ISIS and now IS after his killing.

This is indeed a Sunni Shia clash and that is what is behind the regional hegemony infighting.

We need to stay out of this clash as far as possible--yes protect the civilian refugees that are on the move, protect the Kurdish regions but allow the Sunni and Shia to finally work this 1400 years out of their systems.

I had a great Kurdish interpreter who had fought in the Iran/Iraq war as a Iraqi Army officer, and at the same time as a Phesmerga intel officer tell me during the ethnic cleansing---Arabs must fight each other so brutally until both are on the floor and can barely move--then and only then will they sit down and work a compromise--we are not there yet in this current cycle.

See AP we started now with the bombing--guess what up to the US air strikes al Baghdadi never voiced the IS desire to strike the US--that was broken when we bombed and now they will strike us and you think AQ was a problem--the IS is AQ on steroids--is gaining massive popularity among European Muslim men and their fighters are reaching a fighting ability that rivals even US standards. AQ was never able to achieve that--by the way most of the other major AQ groups have sworn allegiance to the new Caliphate and al Baghdadi.

It would have helped to have served some time in Iraq and if you had then you would not be stating it has nothing to do with religion.

AP you really do need to fully understand the region of Iraq and Syria and it's relationship to US/Russian politics--or have you recently noticed that instead of assisting the US in seeking a solution in Syria Russia has resisted us at every turn--so again AP notice the linkage back into the Ukraine?

[Firn]

Exodus from the mountain: Yazidis flood into Iraq following U.S. airstrikes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/exodus-from-the-mountain-yazidis-flood-into-iraq-following-us-airstrikes/2014/08/10/f8349f2a-04da-4d60-98ef-85fe66c82002_story.html)


The attacks helped at least some of the Yazidis escape, said Zaim Hassan Harmouch, 66, who said the bombings destroyed the militant positions that had blocked their route out. He led his wife, six sons and seven grandchildren down from the mountain overnight, crossing the border into a Kurdish-held region of Syria and then back into northern Iraq.

“It was because of the planes that we could leave,” he said. “They opened the way.”

The level of IS brutality and it's scale are becoming worse and Maliki is not fiddling but going one step further to conserve his power.

On the military side I think nobody thinks that air strikes alone will stop IS, but maybe they can play an important part the package. With Maliki doing again his best to destroy his country to save himself the US seems to be more open to support a regional factor like the Kurds.

[AmericanPride]

See AP this is exactly why you are so often off base to the point of hanging onto the aged idea of negotiations which is suppose to solve everything.

Where did I state that negotiations "solve everything"?


---but I guess it goes to the fact that you never served in Iraq either in the military or as a civilian.
Really go back and fully understand Khomeini and his Green Crescent expansionism of Shiaism. Go back and fully understand the Iraq/Iran war from 80/88 as an attempt by the Sunni's to reign in that Shia expansionism by Khomeini.


This is indeed a Sunni Shia clash and that is what is behind the regional hegemony infighting.That schism is really a pretext by superficial Western analysts like yourself to excuse any effort at building a rigorous understanding of the problems of the region and the states within it. And since we've been busy since 2003 implementing a strategy on the basis of this myth, we've helped actually make it a reality. What's behind the regional hegemony infighting is an unstable regional security system heavily penetrated by outside actors (namely the U.S.) complicated by the large concentration of fairly weak states.

I did not state that it has "nothing to do with religion". You should really spend more time investing in your education because if you had, then you would not be mistating other people's comments.

[AmericanPride]

AP you really need to fully understand the region of Iraq and Syria and it's relationship to US/Russian politics--or have noticed that instead of assisting the US in seeking a solution in Syria Russia has resisted us at every turn--so again AP notice the linkage into the Ukraine?

I pointed out weeks ago the linkages in the international system when I asked you repeatedly about the potential consequences for U.S. security if the U.S.-Russian conflict continued to escalate and Russia opted to pursue a strategy as a spoiler. You failed to provide any answers.

[OUTLAW 09]

So yes I tend to understand the Sunni Shia clash---you really do need to read the Koran more often and a couple of recent USC books that have hit the market on the Sunni Shia Clash.

Highly recommend one reads the following two books and couple of others on the Muslim Botherhood;

The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr

Wahhabi Islam From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad by Natana J. Delong-bas

[Firn]

Luftbruecke zu den Jeziden, Sinjar, Irak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IXK7I-6OvU) is a video uploaded by Michel Reimon, the Austrian EU parlamentarian and current delegate in Iraw. It has footage from the helicopter operations. He says at the end that no additional missions could be flown due to lack of fuel and that they even had to land away from the starting base. It took him seven hours to come back into his 'clean room', seeing thousends of refugees during the drive.

[AmericanPride]

I can call back up you long list of things the West needed to do that you recommended which read like a mirhond article which he gets into sometimes.

Be my guest.


So there is no linkage as you seem to argue?

You would be once again mistaken since I have made it clear in multiple posts that there are many linkages in the international system; a fact which you have with great effort avoided addressing when I have asked you repeatedly about the potential consequences of continued conflict escalation in the U.S.-Russian relationship.

[AmericanPride]

So yes I tend to understand the Sunni Shia clash---you really do need to read the Koran more often and a couple of recent USC books that have hit the market on the Sunni Shia Clash.

The Koran is great for understanding terminology, ideas, and context. It's not so great in explaining the structure of the regional security regime, the fraility of Middle Eastern states, and the consequences of persistent international penetration of the region. Whether Arabs worshipped Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monister, the destruction of Iraq would have produced the kind of violence we are witnessing unfold today. The revival of militant Islam and the explosion of sectarian violence is not the cause of the fundamental conflict in the region; it's the expression of that conflict through a religious (and ethnic) frame.

[OUTLAW 09]

You missed the most important piece---sitting between the fronts of the various Sunni and Shia groups in the middle of Beirut in the 80s using a battleship for fire support to just quiet things down a bit so one could hear one think.

So yes I tend to understand the Sunni Shia clash---you really do need to read the Koran more often and a couple of recent USC books that have hit the market on the Sunni Shia Clash.

Highly recommend one reads the following two books and couple of others on the Muslim Botherhood;

The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr

Wahhabi Islam From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad by Natana J. Delong-bas

AP---to continue your expansion education on the ME---go into Google and search for the Black September---then check what occurred in an around the palace of the King of Jordan.

some of us spent time in tha palace and it was not cakes and coffee being thrown at us for two weeks but AK47 rounds.

So AP some understand this region far more than is comfortable.

The education continued---Google and search first the Baader/Meinhof Gang and then the RAF---both were in my German university political science classes and debated with them and their group and then I watched them slowly drift into terrorism.

So again you bring up a good point---education is actually important---the question becomes is it targeted against the region that one is interested in or does it miss the mark to never be used again.

[OUTLAW 09]

The Koran is great for understanding terminology, ideas, and context. It's not so great in explaining the structure of the regional security regime, the fraility of Middle Eastern states, and the consequences of persistent international penetration of the region. Whether Arabs worshipped Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monister, the destruction of Iraq would have produced the kind of violence we are witnessing unfold today. The revival of militant Islam and the explosion of sectarian violence is not the cause of the fundamental conflict in the region; it's the expression of that conflict through a religious (and ethnic) frame.

But see AP you miss the point again---it explains the thinking, the acting, the morality of the individuals we call terrorists or others might call freedom fighters or in the case of IS--Takfirists.

See AP the Salafists interpret the Koran differently than do Takfirists--unless and this is critical unless you truly understand how they interpret the differences---How do you actually analyze their movements/internal developments, their thoughts, their politics, and their reasons for fighting Shia or for that matter each other. You mentioned Wahhabism---they have their own interpretations as well that cross over both.

And more importantly how and why do they form coalitions now with say the IS and then later other groups.

See AP Islam is a complete package---economic thoughts, political thoughts, judicial thoughts and morality. The Koran is the centerpiece and the core document---understand it and you understand more than you will ever need to in understanding the Sunni Shia clash and what drove Khomeini and still drives the core Iranian group--the Quds Force as it both protects and expands the Green Crescent in the name of Khomeini.

See AP it is all connected--you tend to just see the "big picture" without understanding that the small bits and pieces actually form the big picture.

You do not see that complete package in say Christianity. Therefore the core differences right now in how IS is treating Christians.

They are acting out of the Takfiri mindset---many Salafists will tolerate Christians under the concept of "they are also people of the book". Secular Muslims and there are many in Iraq totally tolerate Christians--but where do we hear that being mentioned-and secular Muslims tolerate Shia and often intermarry and yes Sunni do convert to Shia--right now it is only IS that is being talked about.

Now you can understand the violence angle of IS.

[AmericanPride]

See AP the Salafists interpret the Koran differently than do Takfirists--unless and this is critical unless you truly understand how they interpret the differences---How do you actually analysis their movements, their thoughts, their politics, and their reasons for fighting Shia or for that mater each other.


See AP Islam is a complete package---economic thoughts, political thoughts, judicial thoughts and morality. the Koran is the centerpiece and the core document---yesterday it and you understand more than you will ever need to in understanding the Sunni Shia clash and what drove Khomeini and still drives the core Iranian group--the Quds force

Hence my comment that:


The Koran is great for understanding terminology, ideas, and context


You do not see that in say Christianity.

Actually - you do, mostly among the religious right (Evangelicials, dominonists, etc).

But neither Christianity or Islam explain conflict in international and regional systems, nor the consequences of failure in projects of state formation. Not one word written in either religious script would have provided any predictability for the fall-out of the destruction of Iraq.

[OUTLAW 09]

The constant reference to your experiences and the refrain about the supposed lack of credibility in the experiences of others only speaks to your own insecurity in the strength of your argument.

See AP--again you overstate--there is another old saying in the intel and SF world and you are no where being close it---"walk the walk talk the talk" and right now you are not even "walking".

That is what education is for my friend--as book learning with only get you so far and you have reached that limit as your comments really do show a lack of understanding.

[OUTLAW 09]

Hence my comment that:





Actually - you do, mostly among the religious right (Evangelicials, dominonists, etc).

But neither Christianity or Islam explain conflict in international and regional systems, nor the consequences of failure in projects of state formation. Not one word written in either religious script would have provided any predictability for the fall-out of the destruction of Iraq.

See AP again you do not get it---yes one might even argue as some on the Left here in Europe do argue--a Christian fundamentalist is just as dangerous as a jihadi.

Give it some thought and you will find yourself agreeing--all fundamentalism is deadly regardless from right or left.

But here we are talking about Islam and how it has evolved in the ME especially the two strains Sunni and Shia.

You do realize that there is a deep political and governmental system inside Islam right AP?--- and there have been deep internal Sunni debate on how governmental functions should be in Islam---the problem has been there seems to be always a dictator standing in the way or say the Muslim Brotherhood felt they could shift a basically secular Islamic country ie Egypt to an Islamic State without asking the population.

That is the core problem right now in Iraq---the Sunni have a governing vision and the Shia historically have not had that strong a view on governing and we the US allowed a Shia dictator to emerge---so why did we invade to eliminate Saddam when we got Malaki in exchange?.

That was until Khomeini filled the Shia governing void with what can be called a ruling Shia theocracy and that my friend you will not/do not find in the Shia historical thoughts on governing. Actually if you read deeper in the net you will find that is the real reason al Sadr left Iran and why he and Sistani are often of the same views on how to govern a multi Islam state.

Really go back and Google the Green Crescent concept and you will understand exactly why there is a regional hegemony fight going on between Iran the "Protector" of Shiaism and the KSA the "Protector" of the global Sunni community.

[OUTLAW 09]

Hence my comment that:





Actually - you do, mostly among the religious right (Evangelicials, dominonists, etc).

But neither Christianity or Islam explain conflict in international and regional systems, nor the consequences of failure in projects of state formation. Not one word written in either religious script would have provided any predictability for the fall-out of the destruction of Iraq.

See AP I am not interested in explaining how it fits into an international or regional system---I am interested in how both solve their own problems without outside influence.

There is an overworked concept called rule of law and good governance--it should be and must be up to the target population to work through and resolve their own issues--we can stand on the side and assist or offer advice but in the end it is that target population that must define what the rule of law and good governance looks and acts like for them and not for some international system.

It is not up to us or anyone else to determine that decision making process and yes it might be brutal and ugly but they own it and it is their own developmental path.

Now go back and look at the Maidan and the following attempt by Russia to control the outcome of the Colored Revolts---why out of fear they would be the next Colored Revolt.

AP it is that simple---you read far more into these things than is necessary---it is not rocket science and yet you attempt to make it a science--and that is your fatal flaw.

[slapout9]

Slap, rather than flattening those places, which I think would be unwise, how about taking them? I don't mean us taking them, I mean other Muslims taking them from the Saudis. Where is it written that the House of Saud must have authority over those places? Why not the Kurds, or the Turks or the Malaysians? Why should those lazy, fat trouble making Saudis have them if they refuse to shape up? IS is eventually going to go after those places anyway and the Saudis couldn't stand against those guys but others could. Maybe we should look at openly backing a side in the contest that is occurring within Islam between the takfiri killers and everybody else. If the takfiris win the contest it will be all of Islam against the rest of the world. That is what they are aiming to bring about. We should recognize that and try to figure out how to stop it.


It's already happened sort of anyway and Bin Laden name was all over it. This is part of Muslim prophecies. A false Mahdi would attack Mecca and fail!!!!!!!thye beleive it happened in 1979. The real Mahdi will lead the Black Flaged Muslim Armies to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan or so the prophecy goes.Watch the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV6m8K21O8Y

[slapout9]

Link to Pat Lang comment on ISIS Tactics.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2014/08/httpwwwbloombergcomnews2014-08-07iraqi-islamists-overrun-christian-towns-in-push-for-major-damshtml.html

[slapout9]

Link not working for me.


try this this one and scroll down to 7 AUG 2014 for the post I am talking about.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/

[davidbfpo]

Three threads are closed to enable people to cool down and to enable a review. This one thread. I will endeavour to open the thread tomorrow.

[davidbfpo]

I have deleted three posts and edited slightly four posts.

[davidbfpo]

SWC has clearly set terms of reference and rules of engagement, which are all set out at:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/faq.php

SWC respects the right of members to post using psuedonyms. members are not required to provide an introduction on joining, nor are 'credentials' required. We are a "broad church" of experience, interests and standpoints. We are not a political board, although politics is ever present.

On a number of issues, in the past and today, members engagement changes and lurches into sniping or personal attacks. Members often contact a Moderator when concerned, a few post their dismay. It maybe appopriate for a Moderator to then take action.

SWC is open for non-members (with a few exceptions) to read and has an excellent reputation for its content. Sometimes the wrong word(s) can damage SWC.

[JWing]

Wow, my computer gets broken by my baby cousin and when I come back here everything has gone to hell.

Anyway, the days of Nouri al-Maliki's premiership are coming to an end. Maliki attempted to repeat his strategy from 2010 which was to drag out the government formation process and outlast his opponents. This time it backfired as not only did State of Law fracture but even his own Dawa Party did. Those splits allowed for the nomination of Haidar Abadi from Dawa to be the next premier. It's not known what Abadi will be like but it does offer the opportunity for a new start for Iraqi politics which is crucial if it wants to reverse the security situation. Here's my article on the whole affair (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-death-throes-of-maliki-government.html).

[KingJaja]

There seems to be no sense of ownership of Iraq from the US political elite - there's a lot of buck passing and electoral calculus, but no sense of responsibility.

This would be fine if the US had no pretensions to global leadership; but it does - and US politicians go on as if the rest of the World hasn't figured out the geo-strategic incompetence of the US ruling elite.

The rest of the World understood the US was definitely going to be less relevant economically as the years went by (that was clear after the 2008 financial crisis). What is a revelation is how quickly America's geo-strategic relevance is being eroded.

America's great advantage over the Chinese in most parts of the developing World is its military, but Iraq demonstrates the limitation of that military, but most importantly the failure of imagination of the policy makers wielding that tool.

So where does US go - after Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Bill Moore]

There seems to be no sense of ownership of Iraq from the US political elite - there's a lot of buck passing and electoral calculus, but no sense of responsibility.

This would be fine if the US had no pretensions to global leadership; but it does - and US politicians go on as if the rest of the World hasn't figured out the geo-strategic incompetence of the US ruling elite.

The rest of the World understood the US was definitely going to be less relevant economically as the years went by (that was clear after the 2008 financial crisis). What is a revelation is how quickly America's geo-strategic relevance is being eroded.

America's great advantage over the Chinese in most parts of the developing World is its military, but Iraq demonstrates the limitation of that military, but most importantly the failure of imagination of the policy makers wielding that tool.

So where does US go - after Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq?

Part of President Obama's platform when running for office was his anti-Iraq war stance, but what he seems to fail to recognize at this time is we're looking at an entirely new threat that has nothing to do with our former premise for invading Iraq (WMD). He seems to be trapped in the past. Action is clearly needed in Iraq, and while this may be an overused phrase, it isn't inappropriate. The terrorist organization(s) in Iraq are a "clear and present danger" not only to Iraq, but our interests in the region and to our homeland.

Don't count the U.S. out yet, I think you'll see a major change in our worldview and how we approach it when the next President assumes the office, regardless of whether that person is a democrat or republican.

Relative to China we do have a competitive advantage militarily, but I think a lot of China's economic might is built on a very flimsy foundation. The fact that we're clawing our way back from the economic crisis we went through, even with ineffective political leadership in the White House and Congress, demonstrates our system is pretty resilient. I doubt China could recover from a similar crisis of the scale we went through.

[Bill Moore]

I think it is worth adding that no one is turning towards China, Russia, or any country to provide global leadership, so while our relative power may be decreasing using the conventional measures of military might and economic power, we still are viewed as the global power that other nations and international organizations turn to when there are serious problems that need to be addressed. We still have the power of our ideas, and moral power that is far from perfect, but is still attractive compared to alternatives.

[AmericanPride]

To add to Bill's commentary, U.S. capabilities are still miles ahead of the next competitor. Sure, the U.S. has its structural problems and a strong argument can be made that U.S. power relative to other states is declining, but there still is a long ways to go for other states to become peers. Much of the problem in the U.S. is self-imposed (political dysfunction, financial constraints, etc).

As for Iraq - well, unfortunately Bill is correct that some kind of action is required and that the Obama administration is trapped in the past. It's hard to see any other way to address the problem of ISIS without further commitments to Iraq's security. I see ISIS as the culmination of an escalation cycle of Al Qaeda, starting with the initial pre-9/11 spectacular attacks, and now with a movement that is relatively well-organized and disciplined. This is a problem two decades in the making and it will be some time, and will take more than just airstrikes, to resolve it.

[KingJaja]

Part of President Obama's platform when running for office was his anti-Iraq war stance, but what he seems to fail to recognize at this time is we're looking at an entirely new threat that has nothing to do with our former premise for invading Iraq (WMD). He seems to be trapped in the past. Action is clearly needed in Iraq, and while this may be an overused phrase, it isn't inappropriate. The terrorist organization(s) in Iraq are a "clear and present danger" not only to Iraq, but our interests in the region and to our homeland.

Don't count the U.S. out yet, I think you'll see a major change in our worldview and how we approach it when the next President assumes the office, regardless of whether that person is a democrat or republican.

Relative to China we do have a competitive advantage militarily, but I think a lot of China's economic might is built on a very flimsy foundation. The fact that we're clawing our way back from the economic crisis we went through, even with ineffective political leadership in the White House and Congress, demonstrates our system is pretty resilient. I doubt China could recover from a similar crisis of the scale we went through.

A few words.

1. I don't think anyone is counting on a super hegemon, those days are over. This is more like the World of Bismark & Gladstone - a very delicate balancing act.

2. China not only recovered from warlordism, it also recovered from a Japanese invasion and Mao's cultural revolution - all last century. China is a lot more resilient than we think.

3. I don't see China's economic foundation as flimsy; it's a lot more resilient than we give them credit for - and from Africa & Latin America - you can see a strategy for future economic growth - which the US simply does not have.

Chinese trade with Africa was $210 billion this year, US trade with Africa was $85 billion. While Chinese trade is on an upward swing, US trade is actually declining - the same applies to Latin America.

I haven't seen any glimmer of a Bismark in any major US politician - maybe you know more about them than I do.

[OUTLAW 09]

To add to Bill's commentary, U.S. capabilities are still miles ahead of the next competitor. Sure, the U.S. has its structural problems and a strong argument can be made that U.S. power relative to other states is declining, but there still is a long ways to go for other states to become peers. Much of the problem in the U.S. is self-imposed (political dysfunction, financial constraints, etc).

As for Iraq - well, unfortunately Bill is correct that some kind of action is required and that the Obama administration is trapped in the past. It's hard to see any other way to address the problem of ISIS without further commitments to Iraq's security. I see ISIS as the culmination of an escalation cycle of Al Qaeda, starting with the initial pre-9/11 spectacular attacks, and now with a movement that is relatively well-organized and disciplined. This is a problem two decades in the making and it will be some time, and will take more than just airstrikes, to resolve it.

The former QJBR then AQI then ISIL and now IS while initially looking towards the AQ mothership during the founding years and Zarqawi having been in AFG ---even Zarqawi was on the outs with UBL/AQ by 2006, and was "disowned" if one takes the time to go back and read all of the edicts/fatwas that flew back and forth between Iraq and Pakistan/AFG during that period.

IS has been "disowned" as well by AQ in 2014, and in fact has become a competitor of the first order and virtually the richest "terrorist" group in the world right now--AQ is nowhere close on the financial side.

It has a far greater recruiting pull that does AQ in general and has received the allegiance oaths to the new Caliphate/al Baghdadi from virtually all of the branch AQ groups.

IS does not need nor will it need in the future to have ties with or be associated with AQ.

IS is a new breed of insurgency, radical Takfiri in nature and aggressive.

It is displaying a remarkable adaptability ---meaning they changed within hours their ground tactics after being bombed, they are in fact using an excellence mission command that the current Army cannot match---actually if one takes the time to read the JCoS's Mission Command article from 2012 one might in fact notice al Baghdadi is copying it to the letter.

Military tactics on the ground---swarming attacks in a fashion not seen in the ME coupled with a complete understanding of maneuver.

One can see the insurgency learning curve experience gained in Iraq coupled with the battlefield experience gained in Syria.

The key though while engaging IS---do not attack Islam as the supposed problem---this is a radical Takfiri ie terrorist group---attack instead the concept of terrorism.

By focusing say on the supposed Islamic side of the problem just creates a better recruiting narrative. Meaning the message to the youth--see the West is attacking Islam thus you must strike back and protect it. This message is pulling extremely well now especially when they can show battlefield successes against the enemies of the IS---meaning anything other than a Takfiri.

Why the hesitation right now might be explained in the simple fact---no one can seem to explain their sudden military tactics, their battlefield successes and what drives them. No one can quite see the interrelationship between IS and the Sunni coalition headed by al Duri and no one can foresee just how/why the Sunni tribes are now an unknown factor.

As an example---the Christians surrounded in the mountains are being circled by no more than 350 fighters in light trucks that are just driving in circles at the base of the mountain range---350 fighters clashed with the Peshmerga and basically defeated the myth that the Psehmerga are the great northern fighters.

Problem is ---it was all there to be seen from 2002 to 2010 and past 2010--we in our hurry to declare a COIN victory did not want to take the time to understand what we were seeing.

Example---why was Baghdadi parked in Bucca which was reserved for Wahhabi's and the more radical types--yet released and never sent to trial by the US or the Iraqi's. I have not seen any info on his arrest, his internment first in Abu Ghraib and then why he was placed in Bucca--anyone sent to Abu G and Bucca even if not guilty of anything attended for a period of time one of the finest insurgency training centers in the ME and the US did nothing to stop it.

Understanding the rise of al Baghdadi is the critical piece-ie he is displaying a serious sign of being a solid religious leader, a solid battlefield tactician/commander, he is a solid group leader, and an astute understander of the West--not Islam- not the IS is the problem---understanding al Baghdadi is the issue.

Thus the hesitancy in the US as they cannot "figure out" al Baghdadi and his end state game.

[KingJaja]

I think it is worth adding that no one is turning towards China, Russia, or any country to provide global leadership, so while our relative power may be decreasing using the conventional measures of military might and economic power, we still are viewed as the global power that other nations and international organizations turn to when there are serious problems that need to be addressed. We still have the power of our ideas, and moral power that is far from perfect, but is still attractive compared to alternatives.

That might be true - but having seen how a combination of Russia & Iran are opportunistically providing leadership in Syria & then Iraq (they lead, then US reluctantly follows their lead), people will increasingly pay more attention to regional powers (in spite of the fact that US will still be the World's dominant power).

Iraqi Christians have figured out that while US was quick to intervene on behalf on Yazidis - it basically ignored when Christians were evicted from Mosul. It was even France who took the lead on offering them asylum.

The US might pride itself on leading the charge against terrorism in the Sahel - but everyone knows France is calling the shots here (strategically) - with US providing important logistics. The Nigerian govt (which has traditionally been skeptical of France has been forced into a closer relationship with Paris).

Too many contradictions have accumulated in US policy over the years - and it will take a very serious politician (not an Obama who is passing time or a Clinton who will say anything to get elected) to take the important first step of drafting a coherent foreign policy.

[OUTLAW 09]

Wow, my computer gets broken by my baby cousin and when I come back here everything has gone to hell.

Anyway, the days of Nouri al-Maliki's premiership are coming to an end. Maliki attempted to repeat his strategy from 2010 which was to drag out the government formation process and outlast his opponents. This time it backfired as not only did State of Law fracture but even his own Dawa Party did. Those splits allowed for the nomination of Haidar Abadi from Dawa to be the next premier. It's not known what Abadi will be like but it does offer the opportunity for a new start for Iraqi politics which is crucial if it wants to reverse the security situation. Here's my article on the whole affair (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-death-throes-of-maliki-government.html).

Joel--this whole refugees in the mountains and the defeat of the Peshmerga is being from what I understand driven by no more than 350 IS fighters with light trucks? Their field maneuver ie swarming and the use of mortars as artillery coupled with very good snipers is an interesting tactical development not previously seen in Iraq from 2003-2010.

Secondly---IS had moved a large number of their personnel into the south of Baghdad and east/west of Baghdad---then silence.

Why the quiet?---actually it is too quiet as everyone is looking north but IS is sitting quietly around Baghdad and strengthening weekly.

Was the dam security control recovered by the ISF as of yet or still in IS control?

[davidbfpo]

Two different viewpoints from London. One by a Kings War Studies academic, who also lectures to Qatar's military, so may have extra value; entitled 'How to best externalize the R2P in Iraq?':http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2014/08/how-to-best-externalize-the-r2p-in-iraq/

Personally I think his option for regaining support from disaffected Sunni tribes is long past. Nor are regional 'powers' that willing to commit.

As the UK sends Tornado recce aircraft, Chinooks and Hercules transports, all ostensibly for humanitarian purposes Shashank Joshi, from RUSI, examines 'British Options in Iraq: Capabilities, Strategies, and Risks':https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C53EB5BC49555B/#.U-t10aORcdW

His sub-title is:
Pressure is building for the government to recall parliament over the crisis in Iraq and consider intervening alongside US forces. But what are the options for Britain, and what risks do they carry?

I am not sure where this pressure is coming from - beyond Whitehall. Given this government's stance on supporting the USA, it is likely to be Washington that is applying pressure.


In anticipation of these choices, we should therefore ask – of ourselves, and of ministers – what is Britain’s strategy in any intervention? A non-exhaustive list would include:

One-off degradation of ISIS’ offensive capabilities;
One-off humanitarian relief;
Indirect support to Kurdish forces;
Indirect support to Iraqi government forces;
A longer mission to contain ISIS, until those local forces gain strength;
A direct and sustained aerial campaign to destroy ISIS – or even more broadly, 'the defeat of jihadism (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11026422/Britain-must-give-the-Kurds-the-tools-to-lead-Iraq-out-of-this-mess.html)';
Some combination thereof.

[davidbfpo]

To look for the "root cause" of Isis is to miss the point. The group represents all the subterranean barbarism that every so often is apt to crawl, blinking into the light, out from the depths of the human subconscious.

Certainly an interesting POV and a reminder that ISIS is not new, nor just an extreme form of Islam IMHO:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-does-isis-hate-us-so-much-9664506.html

[KingJaja]

Davidbfpo,

Please what is the West's strategy for Iraq/Syria? It clear what Russia and Iran hope to accomplish & who they've pitched their tents with, but the West is all over the place - appeasing Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Qatar while trying to keep Iraq together - then there's the strategic funk in Syria.

Other than preventing the rise of terrorism (which you cannot do without taking a side in the Iraqi/Syria conflict - which the West doesn't want to do), what does the West hope to do, what are its interests?