PDA

View Full Version : Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

davidbfpo
06-10-2014, 01:52 PM
Like many here following Iraq is not a priority. AM today I read via Twitter reports that Mosul, Iraq's second city had fallen to ISIS, after Iraqi forces crumbled and left.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27778112 and http://eaworldview.com/2014/06/iraq-developing-insurgents-take-part-mosul/

I am aware, from old SWC threads, that the Kurds watch the city closely, but was unaware that our old friends - geography and water - play a part:
It was also unclear whether ISIS fighters had managed to cross the Tigris river, which dissects the city into two parts, and are also threatening the eastern bank, which is mostly Kurdish. But it appeared clear that the western bank, which represents the original heart and commercial center of Mosul, is in insurgent hands.Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/insurgents-seize-iraqi-city-of-mosul-as-troops-flee/2014/06/10/21061e87-8fcd-4ed3-bc94-0e309af0a674_story.html

Just whether the Kurds will sit and watch is unclear.

As others who watch the region more closely comment there is a growing ISIS governed territory / enclave stretching across Iraq into Syria.

jcustis
06-10-2014, 02:04 PM
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Kurds/Pesh go meshugganah on ISIS in the wake of this.

ganulv
06-10-2014, 02:19 PM
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Kurds/Pesh go meshugganah on ISIS in the wake of this.
Does the Kurdistan Regional Government control (using the word loosely) any de facto or de jure paramilitary forces?

jcustis
06-10-2014, 02:41 PM
Dunno anymore, but when I was in N. Iraq in 2008-09, it was clear that the Kurds Pesh forces and the Kurdish-heavy Iraq Army echelons were maneuverable, well-armed, and professional compared to other forces in the kettle.

JWing
06-10-2014, 03:44 PM
The Pesh are not in Mosul anymore. They are deployed to the east and north of the city. The ISF completely collapsed in Mosul last night and now ISIS is heading back towards Salahaddin province. It is repeating the same strategy that Zarqawi laid out before his death. To take Anbar, then urban centers, surround Baghdad, and then start fighting within the capital itself. Here are a couple reports you might be interested in to explain the current situation in Iraq:

Iraq's deteriorating security situation interview with Alexandre Massimo

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/iraqs-deteriorating-security-situation.html

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Storm Samarra In Salahaddin

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-levant-storm.html

Beginning of June 2014 Deadliest In Iraq

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/beginning-of-june-2014-deadliest-in-iraq.html

Islamic State of Iraq Launches Battle of Ninewa In Mosul

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraq-launches-battle.html

davidbfpo
06-10-2014, 08:22 PM
Joel,

Thanks I knew you would have been watching events unfold.

Yassin Musharbash is a German SME and has a rapid commentary on what might come next:http://abususu.blogspot.de/2014/06/do-we-have-to-talk-scenarios.html

Various Tweets indicating Black Hawk helicopters possiblty taken; just under 3k prisoners released (terror suspects and ordinary crimianls), US$425m in the banks seized (in local currency), Humvees and no doubt more.

JWing
06-11-2014, 12:10 AM
ISIS has quickly moved south after taking Mosul last night. They have taken northern Salahaddin and reached the outskirts of Tikrit. Also taken areas of western Kirkuk. Seems like a total collapse of the ISF. Many reports that few are putting up a fight and are simply fleeing as soon as ISIS shows up. Baghdad in its infinite wisdom said they will hold a special session of parliament Thursday to discuss the crisis! ISIS is also posting lots of pictures of people in Raqqa, Syria celebrating the fall of Mosul. ISIS's ideal of creating a state is becoming a reality stretching from Syria into central Iraq.

JWing
06-11-2014, 12:11 AM
ISIS took a major army base and air force base in Mosul and also the Baiji repair/supply depot of the army. Has captured 2 helicopters and hundreds of humvees, trucks, etc. Also just took the Baiji refinery and power station two of the largest in northern Iraq.

davidbfpo
06-11-2014, 12:49 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpzGRRPCAAAMInw.jpg

jcustis
06-11-2014, 01:43 PM
ISIS took a major army base and air force base in Mosul and also the Baiji repair/supply depot of the army. Has captured 2 helicopters and hundreds of humvees, trucks, etc. Also just took the Baiji refinery and power station two of the largest in northern Iraq.

What an absolute sh*t show.

JWing
06-11-2014, 03:40 PM
Here's my latest on ISIS advance south from Mosul into Salahaddin and Kirkuk and the collapse of the security forces

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraqs-2014-uprising.html

JWing
06-11-2014, 03:41 PM
ISIS was claiming that it took Baiji refinery and power plant yesterday but now it appears that is contested. The peshmerga has also pushed to the outskirts of Mosul and gotten into some firefights with ISIS.

JWing
06-11-2014, 05:05 PM
Reports and pictures of ISIS taking Tikrit. More reports of Iraqi forces folding up shop and fleeing without even putting up a fight. Looks like we might be heading for a battle of Baghdad much quickly then I thought.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 05:44 PM
The Pesh are not in Mosul anymore. They are deployed to the east and north of the city. The ISF completely collapsed in Mosul last night and now ISIS is heading back towards Salahaddin province. It is repeating the same strategy that Zarqawi laid out before his death. To take Anbar, then urban centers, surround Baghdad, and then start fighting within the capital itself. Here are a couple reports you might be interested in to explain the current situation in Iraq:

Iraq's deteriorating security situation interview with Alexandre Massimo

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/iraqs-deteriorating-security-situation.html

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Storm Samarra In Salahaddin

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-levant-storm.html

Beginning of June 2014 Deadliest In Iraq

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/beginning-of-june-2014-deadliest-in-iraq.html

Islamic State of Iraq Launches Battle of Ninewa In Mosul

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraq-launches-battle.html

I fully agree with these comments---the QRBJ, then the AQI, then the ISIS and actually the first true Iraqi Sunni Salafist grouping the Islamic Army in Iraq which was the largest group before Zarqawi/AQI came in 2004 all followed the same campaign plan and there never has been a second one. The IAI had by the end of 2003 had established major cells in all the major cities and rural areas in the Sunni triangle especially Mosul and Baqubah.

The ISIS stated in mid 2013 their newest campaign plan which had two single points 1) raiding prisons and releasing prisoners to join the fight and 2) taking territory and cities. By the end of 2013 they declared victory in point one and stated they were moving onto point two. During point one ---they attacked five prisons and released over 1400. They freed over 1500 just from the Mosul prison this week as well.
They were so successful at prison breaks and were on the move in Fallujah-- it even forced Malaki to close Abu Ghraib and move the prisoners there something even we were unable to do--shut down Abu G.

After Mosul comes Salahaddin, then Baqubah/Diyala---it is all about the Sunni triangle and then into the Sunni districts of Baghdad. Exact to the 2003 campaign plan which was released for all to see but no one believed it possible.

All captured HMMV 114s have been sent immediately into Syria to be used against the Syrian Army as well as some of the heavier weapon systems they were after---looks like they are rearming themselves with US weapons systems especially anti tank and heavy AAA.

This was taken out of an article in today's The Daily Beast about the loss of Mosul which was a major defeat of a US trained, supplied, and mentored 300K man army.

General Najim al-Jabouri, a former mayor of Tel Afar, which is a little more than 31 miles from Mosul, told The Daily Beast the bases seized by ISIS this week would provide the group with even more heavy weapons than they currently control. “The Iraqi army left helicopters, humvees, cargo planes and other heavy machine guns, along with body armor and uniforms,” the general, who is now a scholar at the National Defense University, said. He said he was able to learn about the equipment from soldiers and other politicians in and around Mosul with whom he keeps in touch.

General Najim is not alone in this assessment. Jack Keane, a retired four-star Army general who was a key adviser to General David Petraeus during the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq in 2007 and 2008 known as the surge, said ISIS has now established itself as a formidable military force.

Malaki is in military trouble for the simple reason the two main Shia insurgent groups capable of going toe to toe with the ISIS were all packed up and were sent off by Malaki to support the Syrian Army/Hezbollah and the Iraqi Army while trained in our image never was trained to fight for the "flag" thus the high desertion rates---there were rumors of over 10,000 alone just in the Fulluja campaign.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 06:20 PM
So can we all here at SWJ now finally declare COIN dead and buried--because the last time I checked a "total failure" in a delivered doctrine tends to in fact signal the doctrine was not valid?

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 06:33 PM
This makes it worse now for Malaki---the Turks are getting involved thus indirectly NATO/US as reported by the Russian Voice of Russia from today.

Militants stormed the Turkish consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Wednesday and kidnapped 48 people including the head of the diplomatic mission, a Turkish government official said. "48 Turks including the consul, staff members, guards and three children were abducted," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. "All are doing well," the official said. The kidnappings came a day after the Mosul consulate said fighters from the powerful jihadist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seized 28 Turkish truck drivers.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_11/Militants-seize-48-including-Turkish-consul-children-in-Iraqs-Mosul-3074/

jcustis
06-11-2014, 06:39 PM
At the tactical level it is frustrating to see the flood of displaced civilians trying to get out of Mosul. Claims of 500K are floating around. Take even 1/50th of that number and you get 10K males who could take up arms and defend their neighborhoods against these knuckleheads, but apparently most are just trying to get from in-between ISIS and ISF (which is proving hard to do if they are fleeing and changing clothes as fast as the reports say).

Perhaps it is just the fatalistic attitude I came to sense deep in the soul of the Iraqi Arab that convinces them it is hopeless to defend that neighborhood against extremists, and put a stop to violence that can serve no good for Iraq's long-term interests. Perhaps they see ISIS as a good thing for the Sunni cause in the triangle, and a counter-balance to Shiite power clustered in the center, the government and the security forces.

It's surprising that ISIS has been able to mass and strike distant targets from traditional areas of operation in the Sunni Triangle and have such significant effect, but I expected the security apparatus to be less than effective. The will to fight has always been a shabby one.

At the strategic level, the question David poses of "what next" is something a whole lot of actors are looking at.

The US is limited in what it can do to bolster the Maliki government and ISF, unless the relationship changes significantly. Even if he did an about face and came begging for help, geography, distance, and collections capability conspire against us, limiting responses to what I imagine will be "too little and too late". It does pose the peculiar possibility of US-Iranian cooperation--or at least looking the other way for the moment--to halt ISIS progress, and what strange bedfellows we will make. The right answer will ultimately be adversely influenced by partisan politics and ill-informed public opinion.

Even if ISIS does not attempt to hold on to gains, but rather foment a general state of instability that upsets Iranian aims in the trans Syria-Iraq belt, the fracturing that I expected 4-5 years ago has begun in earnest.

I think we need to try to look less at what happens next, and focus on what happens well after the next, deep down the planning horizon. What that scenario is I do not know, but somehow the old OIF coalition needs to decide if Maliki's government is too important to let fall, mend up strained relationships, and take action achieve policy goals in the region.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 06:44 PM
An now the Russians are signaling support for Baghdad via Interfax today.

This is a new layer of complexity not found in 2010/2011. They had offered recently to provide new arms shipments especially heavy weapons.

19:13 Moscow supports resistance of Baghdad to extremists in N. Iraq

TheCurmudgeon
06-11-2014, 06:56 PM
There may be a silver lining. It is easy to claim to be jihadists fighting towards the goal of a world-wide caliphate. It is another to actually try to govern this new world-wide caliphate. The wanting is often more pleasant (and easier) than the having. Let’s see how well Al Qaeda actually governs territory.

jcustis
06-11-2014, 07:13 PM
Absolutely agree on the silver lining aspect you mention, but what if they do enough damage by simply ensuring the territory acquired remains un- or under-governed space, and never aim to take on responsibility for governance, essential services, and the like?

I am reminded of the time in the end of April 2013 when my company was tasked to round up a group of local toughs who were terrorizing a village and causing all sorts of ills for a sheik a few miles to the west of Diwaniyah. He claimed they were stealing vehicles previously owned by the government, shooting up his small town, and generally terrorizing the area.

We drove off and got to the spot in short order, finding several government-looking buildings burned out or actively burning, and an empty town square/market area. Within five minutes of arrival, the center was swarming with able-bodied grown men, and the crush got so great I worried about being able to extract ourselves from the blocking positions. Why they men had not gotten up off their knees, picked up their AK from behind the back door of their home, and shot those knuckleheads dead baffled me for a long time. Instead, they had been able to slip away before we arrived.

We didn't get any solid leads until someone fingered an old man, who was passing by on the street, as a distant relative of the bandit family. We bundled him into a vehicle and made him show us the location of his clan's area, and it wasn't more than 5 miles east of the town we were in!

The gang that had originally been reported as possessing crew-served weapons, and moving around in platoon-minus strength turned out to be five brothers with a couple of busted up AKs, scampering around in the ubiquitous red racing stripe Isuzu pickup truck. They were detained and dumped off at Blue Diamond Headquarters without ceremony, to an intelligence officer and battle captain who said we needed to hold on to them since we'd captured them. They must have not expected we'd actually accomplish the mission and bring back five younguns' in the back of a pickup truck.

A town versus five guys...No action.:wry:

TheCurmudgeon
06-11-2014, 07:40 PM
A town versus five guys...No action.:wry:

I have seen this before. I think it has to do with certain social conventions, the largest being that none of the people in that town felt any connection to the government and therefore felt that destruction and theft of government property was not really their clan's concern unless and until a clan leader determined action should be taken. I am curious if these five guys actually killed a local or stolen property that belonged to any of the villagers?

I think things in Iraq will be different as the locals begin to lose business and ISIS can't provide basic necessities. Hard to say how long it will take. We had several months in Iraq before they turned on us. I would imagine the timing will be similar. It is one thing to lead a group of volunteers who have joined the struggle. It is another to have to provide for an entire region. It may take several months, but I am guessing they will begin to have trouble with the population. Plus there are the inevitable power struggles and the internal fights over the spoils of war. I will watch to see how things play out over the next few months.

davidbfpo
06-11-2014, 07:41 PM
Turkish diplomats seized, including a former adviser to the Prime Minister and ISIS claim they are being "interviewed about crimes" (From Twitter). So will Turkey react?

The Kurds calculating if they should respond, leaving aside for a moment their perennial split over power and revenue. Some reports of Peshmerga taking the civil airport @ Mosul and clashes on the road to Kirkuk. Some of which is covered here by a Kurdish website, so maybe read with caution:http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/11062014

Just about the best piece I've seen today:http://arabist.net/blog/2014/6/11/malikis-most-solemn-hour

A commentary written in mid-May 2014, which sets the scene and has this passage:
ISIS has created a multi-ethnic army; almost a foreign legion, to secure its territory. These cadres—trained, indoctrinated, networked, equipped and funded—will doubtless present a challenge for Arab and Western security services in the coming years, all the more so if not dealt with in the very near future.

Link:http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/state-of-jihad-the-reality-of-the-islamic-state-in-iraq-and-syria/

Will Baghdad be able to respond, apart from reading poetry to boost ISF morale? Already I note references to enlisting (buying?) support from Iranian supported Shia militia and as one "wag" suggested Hezbollah are the solution.

From my faraway armchair and with no ground knowledge I do find the scenes of the civilian population exit noteworthy, with allowance that they maybe non-Sunni minorities.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 08:14 PM
For those interested in the English version of the ISIS takeover of Mosul ---from the ISIS English web site.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-bragging-in-its-english-language-magazine-2014-6

Here is the link to their actual English news letter---if concerned about NSA monitoring which they will on this site- recommend Tor.

http://jihadology.net/2014/06/10/al-%E1%B8%A5ayat-media-center-presents-a-new-issue-of-the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-shams-newsletter-islamic-state-news-3/

jcustis
06-11-2014, 08:30 PM
I love the commentary and insight from The Arabist. I put that in my browser's favorites as soon as I came on board my current job.
That is a good summation and can bring the novice onlooker up to speed pretty quickly.


ISIS tactics strike me as reminiscent of the Mad Max fighting in Libya, and I wonder if there are any direct connections and influence.
Thanks David.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 08:38 PM
This is an interesting three paragraphs concerning the high desertion rates of the Iraqi Army---the second paragraph is the key I think---the comment that the soldier is tired and he is tired because he has been fighting "armies" for so long.

"One soldier named Mohamed, who would only give his first name because deserters face a possible death sentence, told the newspaper that eight of his comrades had been killed recently when a mortar shell struck their Humvee.

"I felt like I was fighting armies, not an army," said Mohamed, 24. "I’m tired," he said, referring to the U.S. invasion and the years of sectarian strife between the Sunnis and Shiites. "Everyone is tired."

The Iraqi government has attempted to play down the crisis by saying soldiers are "missing" and not deserters, while other officials have claimed that soldiers had not returned from leave because the roads leading to the battlefields were dangerous, the Times said."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iraq-army-Islamic-militants-deserters/2014/06/11/id/576394#ixzz34MO31gbL

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 09:01 PM
This article by The Daily Beast while good on why ISIS is winning brings up an interesting comment that might clash with many "positive" views of the "success of the surge".

Namely there is in the article a comment indicating that just maybe the surge did not remove ISIS at all from Mosul.

If that was then in fact an accurate comment then just what did the surge achieve against originally QRJB, then AQI, and now ISIS?

That is in itself an interesting thought as it would go totally against the COIN narrative.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/10/why-the-terrorists-are-winning-in-iraq-and-how-that-cost-them-everything.html

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 09:15 PM
Appears that Iran is now offering their assistance.

Iran offered neighboring Iraq support against terrorism Wednesday, as Baghdad battled a jihadist offensive that has seized the country's second city and is moving toward the capital.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that "while condemning the murder of Iraqi citizens, Iran offers its support to the government and people of Iraq against terrorism," AFP reports.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_11/Iran-offers-Iraq-support-against-terrorism-5398/

So in the last 24 hours both Iran and Russia have offered "assistance".

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 09:29 PM
This makes it worse now for Malaki---the Turks are getting involved thus indirectly NATO/US as reported by the Russian Voice of Russia from today.

Militants stormed the Turkish consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Wednesday and kidnapped 48 people including the head of the diplomatic mission, a Turkish government official said. "48 Turks including the consul, staff members, guards and three children were abducted," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. "All are doing well," the official said. The kidnappings came a day after the Mosul consulate said fighters from the powerful jihadist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seized 28 Turkish truck drivers.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_11/Militants-seize-48-including-Turkish-consul-children-in-Iraqs-Mosul-3074/

This appeared today in the German Der Spiegel concerning the Turks being pulled into Iraq--the article alludes to the possibility that this was a payback for Turkey supporting other Islamist groups in Syria.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/irak-islamisten-stuermen-tuerkisches-konsulat-und-nehmen-geiseln-a-974618.html

JWing
06-11-2014, 09:56 PM
There may be a silver lining. It is easy to claim to be jihadists fighting towards the goal of a world-wide caliphate. It is another to actually try to govern this new world-wide caliphate. The wanting is often more pleasant (and easier) than the having. Let’s see how well Al Qaeda actually governs territory.

They already do in Raqqa, Syria. ISIS is serious about setting up a state. They are not like AQI who just wanted to sow chaos.

JWing
06-11-2014, 10:00 PM
This article by The Daily Beast while good on why ISIS is winning brings up an interesting comment that might clash with many "positive" views of the "success of the surge".

Namely there is in the article a comment indicating that just maybe the surge did not remove ISIS at all from Mosul.

If that was then in fact an accurate comment then just what did the surge achieve against originally QRJB, then AQI, and now ISIS?

That is in itself an interesting thought as it would go totally against the COIN narrative.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/10/why-the-terrorists-are-winning-in-iraq-and-how-that-cost-them-everything.html

Mosul was the only urban center where the insurgents and ISIS were not kicked out of during the Surge. ISIS ran the place like a mafia extorting money from businesses, charging taxes on imports into Ninewa, kidnapping people for ransom. In early 2014 it was discovered that ISIS was even able to steal most of the salaries from the Iraqi police in Ninewa.

Article on insurgent financing in Mosul

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/03/insurgent-financing-in-iraqs-ninewa.html

davidbfpo
06-11-2014, 10:51 PM
Reported by the The Guardian, based on Iraqi government sources, with my emphasis:
Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states

I take the numbers with a "pinch of salt", but my reading today shows that a posting to Mosul was not desirable, for soldiers and police who were not locals (so mainly Shia dominated units?), with regular fighting, reliant on an air bridge and desertion was rife.

carl
06-11-2014, 11:25 PM
So can we all here at SWJ now finally declare COIN dead and buried--because the last time I checked a "total failure" in a delivered doctrine tends to in fact signal the doctrine was not valid?

That's silly. It has been years since we left and years since we had much influence on how the Iraqi gov handled things both politically and militarily. From what I've read they've done a bunch of the idiot things we did in the beginning until we wised up.

TheCurmudgeon
06-12-2014, 12:03 AM
So can we all here at SWJ now finally declare COIN dead and buried--because the last time I checked a "total failure" in a delivered doctrine tends to in fact signal the doctrine was not valid?

Iraq was a failure of policy at the executive level. Failed Presidential policy of regime change followed by rapid democratization lead to instability and insurgency. As long as the policy was a democratic Iraq, no amount of doctrine was going to make the impossible possible.

COIN was never the problem.

However, in fairness, it was never going to be the solution either.

ganulv
06-12-2014, 12:13 AM
Reported by the The Guardian, based on Iraqi government sources, with my emphasis:

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states

I take the numbers with a "pinch of salt", but my reading today shows that a posting to Mosul was not desirable, for soldiers and police who were not locals (so mainly Shia dominated units?), with regular fighting, reliant on an air bridge and desertion was rife.

Also to be taken with a pinch of salt, but NPR’s All Things Considered ran a piece this afternoon that has soundbites from Mosul residents who say they are fleeing not ISIS, but rather the ISF’s response. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/11/320932929/500-000-people-reportedly-flee-mosul-after-iraqi-city-falls

JWing
06-12-2014, 12:30 AM
Reported by the The Guardian, based on Iraqi government sources, with my emphasis:

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states

I take the numbers with a "pinch of salt", but my reading today shows that a posting to Mosul was not desirable, for soldiers and police who were not locals (so mainly Shia dominated units?), with regular fighting, reliant on an air bridge and desertion was rife.

30,000 would be if the two divisions in Mosul were at full strength. No Iraqi unit is ever at those numbers due to people going on leave, etc.

ISIS had been attacking the security forces in Mosul relentlessly for over a year. Unlike violence in other provinces usually 50% or more of the casualties in Ninewa were members of the ISF. Insurgents tracked down where members lived, shot them in front of their homes, blew up their houses, etc. Ninewa Operations Command had to set up special flights for its members from Mosul to Baghdad because the highways south were unsafe. Mentioned before ISIS was stealing most of the salaries of the police in Ninewa as well. Going unpaid and sense of being besieged helps explain collapse of security in Mosul.

TheCurmudgeon
06-12-2014, 12:31 AM
War on the Rocks video. Good background on the split between ISIS and Al Qaeda. Discussion on ISIS interests in forming a state and Al Qaeda's interests in fighting the jihad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zus5j0D2NpM

JWing
06-12-2014, 12:32 AM
That's silly. It has been years since we left and years since we had much influence on how the Iraqi gov handled things both politically and militarily. From what I've read they've done a bunch of the idiot things we did in the beginning until we wised up.

As soon as the U.S. withdrew its military the Iraqi security forces reverted to the same kind of strong arm tactics Saddam carried out and the Americans did pre-Surge. That being raiding and then leaving areas, mass arrests, taking families hostage of people on wanted lists, indefinite detention, abuse and torture of prisoners, etc. The positives of U.S. style COIN never sunk in with Iraqis and they went back to what they were used to doing once we departed.

JWing
06-12-2014, 12:38 AM
If you want a backgrounder on the Iraqi insurgency, the Islamic State and the other groups, their ideology and where operate please read my interview with Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/03/iraqs-resurgent-insurgency-interview.html

Also must recommend my interview with Alexandre Massimo again on how the security situation deteriorated after 2011 in Iraq. How the insurgency was able to rebuild itself and how the Iraqi forces became ineffective.

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/iraqs-deteriorating-security-situation.html

carl
06-12-2014, 01:33 AM
As soon as the U.S. withdrew its military the Iraqi security forces reverted to the same kind of strong arm tactics Saddam carried out and the Americans did pre-Surge. That being raiding and then leaving areas, mass arrests, taking families hostage of people on wanted lists, indefinite detention, abuse and torture of prisoners, etc. The positives of U.S. style COIN never sunk in with Iraqis and they went back to what they were used to doing once we departed.

Joel:

When I said "...I've read they've done a bunch of the idiot things we did in the beginning until we wised up.", I should have added that I read it at your site, Musings On Iraq. You do a brilliant job.

JWing
06-12-2014, 05:27 AM
Thanks Carl!

It looks like as ISIS is mobilizing and marching towards Baghdad so is Iran. it is sending in advisers, special forces, weapons and money and recruiting throughout central and southern Iraq to form new militia units to fight the insurgency. This is what they did during the previous Iraqi civil war with the Mahdi Army and Special Groups, and what it did on an even larger scale in Syria. Tehran is not going to let a friendly government go do to Sunni Islamists.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 06:28 AM
Joel:

When I said "...I've read they've done a bunch of the idiot things we did in the beginning until we wised up.", I should have added that I read it at your site, Musings On Iraq. You do a brilliant job.

Carl---here is the reasoning behind my comment and JWing actually indirectly confirms my comments to be accurate.

Where in the entire new and even in the old FM 3-24 is it in bold letters on the first page stated "Beware if the host nation does not follow the intent and goals of COIN to the exact letter the US Army follows it it is doomed to failure".

Basically JWing is admitting that even with all the mentoring, COIN classes for their troops and officers, even being trained in our COIN image and armed as we were--nothing was absorbed as JWing admits.

So looking back --what was exactly wrong and why was that failure not mentioned anywhere in the COIN manuals old and new?

Interesting we as a Force always talk as if COIN was a magic potion that will always succeed-but nowhere in all the COIN chatter and FMs is discussed the possibility that in the end the target population and their governance may just not want COIN to succeed for whatever reasons---or did I miss that discussion and or did I miss that paragraph in the new FM?

Not so silly was my comment after 4.6 KIAs and over thousands wounded not to count the maimed for life.

The comments concerning just why AQI was not eliminated in Mosul is interesting especially after the 2/3ACRs took beatings in calming it down and since JSOC was constantly targeting AQI members in Mosul?

Go back and read all media reporting during and after the surge---those narratives talk about "successes" not failures in driving AQI out --even the JSOC narrative is along the same lines.

So did we start believing our own PR as by 2008 the Force/National Command Authority wanted a way out?

Lastly we are talking a lot about ISIS but the largest by member count Sunni insurgency group was the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) who would often clash with AQI but in the end often worked together with them---they have not/never did "disappear"---they did come out under a new name and were by 2009 undergoing a fairly robust paramilitary training program which if one looks closely maybe the reason for the new effectiveness of the ISIS successes as ISIS has effectively made the transition from a so called "terrorist" group to fighting effectively as a army---almost Mao like.

I have always when in Iraq said to anyone who would listen but actually not many did---whoever trains the Iraq's to fight for a "flag" will be dominant-ISIS is fighting for a "flag" whether we like it or not.

Ray
06-12-2014, 11:02 AM
Iraq is like any Islamic country.

The social and the governance model is shaped by the norms of the religion.

The religion is very clear where the rules are inflexible and 'detours' are practically unacceptable.

In the rigid matrix of the religion, only a rigid iron hand (if you will) can succeed.

Take any Islamic country and it will be noticed that whenever democracy has been tried it has failed. Even Pakistan is seesaw in democracy and military dictatorship. Its current democracy is in turmoil with the fundamentalist holding the nation at ransom.

Egypt is back to a military leadership in the guise of democracy.

Syria is in turmoil.

Turkey is hardly a democracy.

Therefore, it is better to let them live the way they want and not superimpose what others feel is 'right'.

The happenings in Iraq and Syria only indicates that we are making it fair grounds for the fundamentalists to run a riot.

Watch this space for what happen in Afghanistan and the experiment in democracy.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 11:54 AM
Iraq is like any Islamic country.

The social and the governance model is shaped by the norms of the religion.

The religion is very clear where the rules are inflexible and 'detours' are practically unacceptable.

In the rigid matrix of the religion, only a rigid iron hand (if you will) can succeed.

Take any Islamic country and it will be noticed that whenever democracy has been tried it has failed. Even Pakistan is seesaw in democracy and military dictatorship. Its current democracy is in turmoil with the fundamentalist holding the nation at ransom.

Egypt is back to a military leadership in the guise of democracy.

Syria is in turmoil.

Turkey is hardly a democracy.

Therefore, it is better to let them live the way they want and not superimpose what others feel is 'right'.

The happenings in Iraq and Syria only indicates that we are making it fair grounds for the fundamentalists to run a riot.

Watch this space for what happen in Afghanistan and the experiment in democracy.

Ray---I had a very good Iraqi/Kurd as a Cat 3 interpreter in Iraq who had fought as an Iraqi CPT in the artillery during the Iranian /Iraq war and who at the same time was an Peshmerga intelligence officer and who had family members gassed by Saddam before going to Canada.

At the beginning of the sectarian violence which really started in late 2005 not as many thought in mid to late 2006---I sat with him once and discussed the increased ethnic violence and the barbarian results we were seeing in both the Shia and Sunni communities.

He said something that has always stuck with me. He said---hey Shia and Sunnis are Arabs and as Arabs they will not negotiate a problem if each one believes themselves to be correct---they will beat each other to a pulp and when both are on the ground and can barely move then and only then will they negotiate what in the end is what they should have done in the first place.

He went on to say you Americans are trying with the surge to put off this blood letting because you Americans cannot stand to see "blood" being let when in your democratic eyes there is a solution to always be found.

When I worked with Slavic types in the last couple of years---they had a similar concept---ie you can tell us the truth, but we will beat you up for telling us the truth, then when we finally see that it was the truth then we will beat you up for not convincing us it was in fact the truth in the first place.

ganulv
06-12-2014, 12:05 PM
He said something that has always stuck with me. He said---hey Shia and Sunnis are Arabs and as Arabs they will not negotiate a problem if each one believes themselves to be correct---they will beat each other to a pulp and when both are on the ground and can barely move then and only then will they negotiate what in the end is what they should have done in the first place.

That sounds a whole lot like the quote attributed to Churchill, “Americans will always do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.”

TheCurmudgeon
06-12-2014, 12:06 PM
So, if I may generalize, what I hear Ray and Outlaw saying is that, it is not being Islamic, or being Arab, or being Slavic. It is having an in-group identity that is powerful enough to disallow any recognition of another group's equality or the potential for them being right. That in this situation, power sharing between groups is not possible ... one group must dominate the other, and they will fight to the death until that domination is established.

I guess that does not bod well for a Sunni, Shia, Kurd State.

Ray
06-12-2014, 12:11 PM
So, if I may generalize, what I hear Ray and Outlaw saying is that, it is not being Islamic, or being Arab, or being Slavic. It is having an in-group identity that is powerful enough to disallow any recognition of another group's equality or the potential for them being right. That in this situation, power sharing between groups is not possible ... one group must dominate the other, and they will fight to the death until that domination is established.

That is what mankind is all about.

Check history.

Ray
06-12-2014, 12:18 PM
Ray---

At the beginning of the sectarian violence which really started in late 2005 not as many thought in mid to late 2006---I sat with him once and discussed the increased ethnic violence and the barbarian results we were seeing in both the Shia and Sunni communities.

He said something that has always stuck with me. He said---hey Shia and Sunnis are Arabs and as Arabs they will not negotiate a problem if each one believes themselves to be correct---they will beat each other to a pulp and when both are on the ground and can barely move then and only then will they negotiate what in the end is what they should have done in the first place.



That is right. More than they hate others, they hate each other i.e. Shia vs Sunni. See what is happening in Pakistan, which is one of the better nations with some democratic and legal sanctity.

It was a regular problem in India, especially during Moharrum. I got caught in one such gunfight.

However, by the Grace of God (any God) it is thing of the past.

ganulv
06-12-2014, 12:35 PM
[Dominating one another] is what mankind is all about.

Check history.
Well, it’s all relative. This is the region where food crops were initially domesticated. It took a lot of generations working together to pull that one off.

If you think humans are unable to act in social cooperation and you really want to look at history history, try lecturing to a hall full of chimpanzees some time and see how far you get. Individuals in our species are actually pretty good at not tearing one another apart just to get their way.

I take the point that humans can be barbaric to one another because of ideology, but acting in concert is also what mankind is all about. There are hundreds of miles of ancient canals throughout Mesopotamia attesting to that fact, as well as spacecraft on the surface of our moon and laboratories circling our planet.


That is right. More than they hate others, they hate each other i.e. Shia vs Sunni.

To be fair, Muslims take it on the chin from non-Muslims sometimes, too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Riots).

jcustis
06-12-2014, 01:24 PM
I have seen this before. I think it has to do with certain social conventions, the largest being that none of the people in that town felt any connection to the government and therefore felt that destruction and theft of government property was not really their clan's concern unless and until a clan leader determined action should be taken. I am curious if these five guys actually killed a local or stolen property that belonged to any of the villagers?

I think things in Iraq will be different as the locals begin to lose business and ISIS can't provide basic necessities. Hard to say how long it will take. We had several months in Iraq before they turned on us. I would imagine the timing will be similar. It is one thing to lead a group of volunteers who have joined the struggle. It is another to have to provide for an entire region. It may take several months, but I am guessing they will begin to have trouble with the population. Plus there are the inevitable power struggles and the internal fights over the spoils of war. I will watch to see how things play out over the next few months.

Good line of query. This were so unstable then that the villagers might have still been in a little shock over the fall of Baghdad, but then again they were so far of the beaten path that I don't think they had ever see a Gringo before and were somewhat inoculated from the invasion.

They were just a bunch of thugs, and I don't recall any word of killings r theft of private property.

jcustis
06-12-2014, 01:46 PM
So can we all here at SWJ now finally declare COIN dead and buried--because the last time I checked a "total failure" in a delivered doctrine tends to in fact signal the doctrine was not valid?

I quote this not because I agree or disagree with your query, but because it is a good jumping off point for my rambling brain this morning.

I haven't thought long and hard enough to make a judgment on whether COIN failed in Iraq, but I would agree with others' points that the strategic policies and actions set the stage for events which had terrible implications: disbanding the army; fast-tracking CPA schemes under people who had no idea what they were doing; rebuilding an imbalanced ISF.

What is important is that the Taliban are watching the game reel of this, and they are taking notes. Make no mistake that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same, and the conditions are very different. US actions in the wake of events in Mosul, Ramadi, and Fallujah will very much factor into the calculus Afghans use to look at Dec 31, 2014 and beyond.

Considering the wide capability gaps between the ISF and GIRoA security forces, I would bet a couple paychecks that the ANA and the ridiculous alphabet soup of other paramilitary units (which really just results in a disjointed, non-cohesive force) will certainly fair no better than Mosul's forces if the Taliban mobilize the pickup truck and motorcycle army upon our main body departure.

As I am inclined to say, what a sh*t show.

Best to get past fixing blame and start developing a policy, goals, and fixing the problem. Now.

davidbfpo
06-12-2014, 02:05 PM
A new map from WAPO.
https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/476911461944418304/photo/1https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp5UcmBCYAAKJ52.jpg
https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/476911461944418304/photo/1

ganulv
06-12-2014, 02:23 PM
A new map from WAPO.
https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/476911461944418304/photo/1https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp5UcmBCYAAKJ52.jpg
https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/476911461944418304/photo/1
So ISIS effectively controls Iraq Highway 12 and Syria Highway 4?

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 03:24 PM
I quote this not because I agree or disagree with your query, but because it is a good jumping off point for my rambling brain this morning.

I haven't thought long and hard enough to make a judgment on whether COIN failed in Iraq, but I would agree with others' points that the strategic policies and actions set the stage for events which had terrible implications: disbanding the army; fast-tracking CPA schemes under people who had no idea what they were doing; rebuilding an imbalanced ISF.

What is important is that the Taliban are watching the game reel of this, and they are taking notes. Make no mistake that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same, and the conditions are very different. US actions in the wake of events in Mosul, Ramadi, and Fallujah will very much factor into the calculus Afghans use to look at Dec 31, 2014 and beyond.

Considering the wide capability gaps between the ISF and GIRoA security forces, I would bet a couple paychecks that the ANA and the ridiculous alphabet soup of other paramilitary units (which really just results in a disjointed, non-cohesive force) will certainly fair no better than Mosul's forces if the Taliban mobilize the pickup truck and motorcycle army upon our main body departure.

As I am inclined to say, what a sh*t show.

Best to get past fixing blame and start developing a policy, goals, and fixing the problem. Now.

The reason for the comment is as follows---if one takes the view that yes the US military implemented as correctly as they could the tenets of COIN in the host country Iraq as per say and we can argue about it all day-- as per the FM.

Robert Jones would argue as I do that the game is really all about the rule of law and good governance and the populations perception of both--not our the US's perception of both.

What the FM does not talk about as many in the senior leadership positions do not want to talk about is yes we can implement COIN approaches, yes we can train host nation forces on the rule of law and good governance until we are blue in the face, we can build schools, hospitals, and military bases and we can arm and supply-but what are we seeing now in Mosul---success or failure of that approach?

But I mentioned this yesterday---the current Iraqi Army is mainly Shia and they are tired of fighting multiple wars since 2003 mentally and physically.

When a army reaches this point if one is not fighting for the flag on the shoulder of his BDUs with full vigor then all is in fact lost. While we might have done a good job on the training, mentoring and equipping side we never did nor could we "instill" the virtues of fighting and dying for your own country because one feels personally invested in that country for a lot of reasons and that was not in the FM. The American military always shy's away from deep discussions with the host nation about the concept of nationalism-that is not in their political DNA.

Actually Iraqi's in the military simply viewed it as a job to earn easy money and not be unemployed as simple as that---had nothing to do with national pride.

That is not in the FM, nor should it be there---that is for the host country governance to instill. So did Malkai attempt to instill it?

Here is where Robert would jump in a say--it is the governance side that should be instilling this desire into the target population.

There was a single moment recently that Malaki had when the entire Iraq stood up and voiced anger at the ISIS to include Sunni's of all shades---when ISIS ambushed a Division Commander and his staff---but what did Malaki do he turned around and raided a Sunni protest camp with the resulting loss of life. ISIS turned that move into a massive social media campaign.

Then we were back off to the races and Malaki has never recovered from that single stupid decision but being a Shia it was in his eyes not a stupid decision---he just never gave a thought to the perception of the Sunni target population.

Now here is a simple question-- would you as a 24 year old Iraqi Shia stationed in Mosul---fight and die for Sunni's in Mosul against AQI/ISIS? Simple answer is no.

Check why the Kurds fight or why ISIS is fighting for their respective "flags".

Then as an opposite view check the current Ukrainian Army and their fight with well armed, and battle tested irregulars out of Russia---they do fight even with less protective equipment than we would even think of doing, they slug it out over and over and take loses but still they have not run and they still fight-and all with really less training than Iraqi's received from us. Another simple question ---why do they do it when they could simply run away from the irregulars?

Would argue they have something to fight for, they had at least for the Ukraine recently really fair elections, they see a way forward through their new governance , the new governance is trying to say the right things, and they have in their minds a common enemy that is trying to destroy their
country and they had the Maidan which was a deep expression of their desires.

Iraq never had a Maidan. The US military "gave" them a Maidan event---the Iraqi's themselves did not have to fight for it.

IMO---the core problem with the new FM is that it was focused on COIN when in fact four weeks after we arrived in Baghdad we were in a Mao defined phase two guerrilla war and what we are now seeing in Mosul is a full fledged Mao defined phase three guerrilla war-COIN is not about guerrilla warfare.

No COIN FM can instill something into a target population unless the host governance is ready to build the necessary bridges into that population--and Malaki as a Shia bent on never doing that.

In the end it is all about perceptions---and it has cost us dearly in blood and treasure for this mistake.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 03:55 PM
That sounds a whole lot like the quote attributed to Churchill, “Americans will always do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.”

That's why the Army has a COIN FM. But it did not work in Iraq and I hear no questioning of that failure that would reflect they are trying everything else.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 03:59 PM
So, if I may generalize, what I hear Ray and Outlaw saying is that, it is not being Islamic, or being Arab, or being Slavic. It is having an in-group identity that is powerful enough to disallow any recognition of another group's equality or the potential for them being right. That in this situation, power sharing between groups is not possible ... one group must dominate the other, and they will fight to the death until that domination is established.

I guess that does not bod well for a Sunni, Shia, Kurd State.

Well stated---we might in fact call this a "radicalization" of a population and we are seeing this at work in the eastern Ukraine ---the clue is in finding the "trigger" that sets off this "radicalization". The trigger might come from inside the population or from an outside agitator who understands just how to "radicalize" the target population. There is always a buried trigger.

By the way "radicialization" is not discussed in the new COIN FM.

JWing
06-12-2014, 03:59 PM
Ray

Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. How does it fit in with your theory about Muslim countries?

davidbfpo
06-12-2014, 04:23 PM
Outlaw09 has posted on the potential for Iraqi state forces giving up. Just spitted on Twitter:
New vid of 1000s of Iraqsoldiers in Tikrit captured by ISIS. Acc to ISIS, nb of prisoners is 4500...(in a comment) tw most of these captured ones are from shia milita Asab el haqq

Very short video of along column of men walking along a highway, very lightly guarded:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0sa9ro4mZs&feature=youtu.be

I do wonder what these prisoners life chances are.

davidbfpo
06-12-2014, 04:26 PM
A different viewpoint:
Aboud Dandachi is an activist from the Syrian city of Homs, currently residing in Istanbul. He has been cited on issues relating to the Syrian conflict in the BBC, NPR, LA Times, the Guardian, Al-Arabiya and Turkiye Gazetesi.

Certainly bitter about ISIS and commends Kurdish capabilities to expel ISIS from urban areas. Also refers to the curious "hands off" stance by Assad's regime. Judge for yourself:http://adandachi.com/istanbul/isis-mosul-raqqa/

JWing
06-12-2014, 04:31 PM
Carl not so long ago there was a similar theory about Catholics. It was said that because they followed the Pope who is like a king Catholics could not become democrats. This was once used in a theory to explain why there were so many dictatorships in Latin America. The argument went that because they were Catholics they always gravitated towards a Jefe, strongman because they followed the Pope. In fact that was also an argument against the election of John Kennedy. There was a political cartoon against him that said if elected there would be a tunnel from the White House to Vatican City and Kennedy would be taking direct orders from the Pope.

JWing
06-12-2014, 04:34 PM
Iraqi forces retook Baiji in Salahaddin. Early reports that the refinery and power station outside the city being taken were incorrect. Baghdad has sent special forces towards Mosul. Tikrit was taken by ISIS, attempt to re-take it by ISF failed. ISIS launched another assault upon Samarra in Salahaddin but were repulsed. Peshmerga has deployed outside of Mosul, moved into some of the disputed territories in Diyala and occupied Kirkuk city. Yesterday was the first time there were reports in the Iraqi press that the ISF was fighting back.

Also don't forget that there is massive militia mobilization and Iran is moving into Iraq big time.

jcustis
06-12-2014, 04:57 PM
The reason for the comment is as follows---if one takes the view that yes the US military implemented as correctly as they could the tenets of COIN in the host country Iraq as per say and we can argue about it all day-- as per the FM.

I apologize if you thought I was referring to you about fixing blame. I was thinking out loud about the pundits, partisans, and tinfoil hat kooks.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 05:38 PM
Outlaw09 has posted on the potential for Iraqi state forces giving up. Just spitted on Twitter:

Very short video of along column of men walking along a highway, very lightly guarded:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0sa9ro4mZs&feature=youtu.be

I do wonder what these prisoners life chances are.

David--guessing not high because ISIS does not have a Geneva C track record with Shia prisoners or Awakening prisoners since 2004.

Have to many beheading videos in my research records that indicates they never change.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 06:08 PM
I apologize if you thought I was referring to you about fixing blame. I was thinking out loud about the pundits, partisans, and tinfoil hat kooks.

Took no offense my only concern is that the Army has gotten so wrapped up in the COIN debate they lost sight of really what is going on in such environments ie Iraq and Syria. The discussion of COIN failure is extremely important but more important is the discussion of a national UW and counter UW strategy as the next 20 years will be about UW as it is the center piece of both the new Russian and Chinese strategies. COIN died in Iraq and although it died--it was attempted to "win" with it in AFG because no debate concerning failure took place.

If one looks at the WH decision to not support the more "moderate" of the Islamists in Syria with heavier weapons in order to effectively counter Assad as well as ISIS--in hindsight this was a massive mistake and Syria was lost as well as the Sunni triangle.

Secondly, there is an interesting link that ISIS has been treated far "differently" by Assad forces than the other Islamist groups---and this might in fact be correct if one looks at the history of AQI and other Sunni groups selling HME to the JAM/SG/Mahdi groups and AQI purchasing EFPs from JAM/SGs. If one remembers the introduction of the Russian hand held and thrown RGP 3 anti tank grenade in about 2006/2207 that caused a lot of damage--it was initially introduced by AQI then transferred to the IAI ---all indicators initially pointed to it coming into Iraq via Iranian smugglers.

And then the recent reporting of how Iran protected and moved AQ personnel in and through Iran in order to fight against the US in Iraq.

I do know from first hand debriefs that IAI did not like AQI protecting Iranian SF agents that did come and go as early as 2005 into Iraq and were protected by AQI.

Ray
06-12-2014, 07:17 PM
Ray

Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. How does it fit in with your theory about Muslim countries?

They too have had an 'iron hand' given their history.

However, it is interesting to note that their currency carries the image of 'Ganesha' a Hindu idol.https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQflhdYEDMAseLd4b-kiJka-6QsYJmSnLRtZJxc5ZzcLldSB71MUmIxABY

http://www.banknotes.com/ID138.JPG

That is blasphemy in Islam!

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 07:52 PM
This has to be a record in the history of jail breaks---in just three days ISIS has attacked prisons located in the various cities they have attacked freeing an estimated 4500 prisoners-- many who were former Sunni insurgents from the various Sunni groups especially from the former IAI and Ansar al Sunnah.

slapout9
06-12-2014, 07:55 PM
No more Boots On The Ground....time for Wings On Our Feet.

Maybe we will finally learn we are an Airpower nation! We have known that since the 1950's for theses situations it is best to use our Airpower(to include SF/CIA advisors) and there Boots if you want to win.

slapout9
06-12-2014, 07:58 PM
Iraq is like any Islamic country.

The social and the governance model is shaped by the norms of the religion.

The religion is very clear where the rules are inflexible and 'detours' are practically unacceptable.

In the rigid matrix of the religion, only a rigid iron hand (if you will) can succeed.

Take any Islamic country and it will be noticed that whenever democracy has been tried it has failed. Even Pakistan is seesaw in democracy and military dictatorship. Its current democracy is in turmoil with the fundamentalist holding the nation at ransom.

Egypt is back to a military leadership in the guise of democracy.

Syria is in turmoil.

Turkey is hardly a democracy.

Therefore, it is better to let them live the way they want and not superimpose what others feel is 'right'.

The happenings in Iraq and Syria only indicates that we are making it fair grounds for the fundamentalists to run a riot.

Watch this space for what happen in Afghanistan and the experiment in democracy.

Ray,
You are a very wise man! I hope you can travel because our Generals.... well they suck and they loose alot.....so there may be a few openings here in the USA very shortly.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 07:59 PM
Took no offense my only concern is that the Army has gotten so wrapped up in the COIN debate they lost sight of really what is going on in such environments ie Iraq and Syria. The discussion of COIN failure is extremely important but more important is the discussion of a national UW and counter UW strategy as the next 20 years will be about UW as it is the center piece of both the new Russian and Chinese strategies. COIN died in Iraq and although it died--it was attempted to "win" with it in AFG because no debate concerning failure took place.

If one looks at the WH decision to not support the more "moderate" of the Islamists in Syria with heavier weapons in order to effectively counter Assad as well as ISIS--in hindsight this was a massive mistake and Syria was lost as well as the Sunni triangle.

Secondly, there is an interesting link that ISIS has been treated far "differently" by Assad forces than the other Islamist groups---and this might in fact be correct if one looks at the history of AQI and other Sunni groups selling HME to the JAM/SG/Mahdi groups and AQI purchasing EFPs from JAM/SGs. If one remembers the introduction of the Russian hand held and thrown RGP 3 anti tank grenade in about 2006/2207 that caused a lot of damage--it was initially introduced by AQI then transferred to the IAI ---all indicators initially pointed to it coming into Iraq via Iranian smugglers.

And then the recent reporting of how Iran protected and moved AQ personnel in and through Iran in order to fight against the US in Iraq.

I do know from first hand debriefs that IAI did not like AQI protecting Iranian SF agents that did come and go as early as 2005 into Iraq and were protected by AQI.

Reference AQI in Iran---this was from a CSIS Jun 2011 AQI study.

Following the 2001 U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan, Zarqawi led his men—now under the banner of al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (TwJ)—out of Afghanistan to set up camp in Iran.16 Arrests of Europe-based TwJ operatives in early 2002 alerted Western authorities to Zarqawi’s presence in Iran, forcing him to leave and establish new smuggling routes through Syria.

So AQI was not some unknown item in Syria after 2002 and especially their rat runs from 2004 onwards.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 08:35 PM
I had monitored this particular jihadi information site from 2006 through to 2011 and I had assumed that they had gone out of business.

They are not out of business as I had wrongly assumed.

The Facebook link has a large number of current videos coming out of the Iraqi jihadi side.

Definitely monitored from US agencies and the chat side is extremely active.

http://www.hanein.info/vb/index.php
https://www.facebook.com/Iraqe.Revolution
https://www.facebook.com/Iraqe.Revolution/videos

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 09:03 PM
I have been wondering just where the Islamic Army of Iraq had disappeared to after their final victory video was released a few days after we cleared the Kuwait border.

Then in the Mosul victory pdf (ISN) yesterday that was released by ISIS I noticed a rocket launcher being fired that was designed in early 2005 by the IAI and used by Ansar al Sunnah to fire the air to ground rocket CK5 in a March 2005 attack against the Iraqi Army headquarters in Baqubah. At that time IAI controlled over 6K C5Ks taken from a Black RG base near Baqubah in 2003 and no one had any idea how to fire them by hand since they used they were for helicopters.

The first firing of this launcher I happen to still have on video--that is why the picture caught my attention as it was not ever really used by AQI.

The hanein.info website was traditionally throughout the war a key IAI and related groups information site.

Then this was found on the Facebook page---here is the IAI in their new configuration and they definitely are working together with ISIS so it is a joint venture in Mosul much as they worked together in the 2006-2010 period regardless of "political/religious" differences. The videos posted on this link have definitely the look and feel of previous IAI videos and they do not carry the black banner of ISIS much like the 2006-2010 period.

Now the question is if the former IAI is in play and they have the deep links to the Sunni tribes---is ISIS really after control of Iraq or weapons for the fight they see between the Sunni/Shia and that is in Syria?

General Council of the Iraqi Revolutionaries

https://www.facebook.com/gmcir1 Check the number of likes 35K

carl
06-12-2014, 11:31 PM
Iraqi forces retook Baiji in Salahaddin. Early reports that the refinery and power station outside the city being taken were incorrect. Baghdad has sent special forces towards Mosul. Tikrit was taken by ISIS, attempt to re-take it by ISF failed. ISIS launched another assault upon Samarra in Salahaddin but were repulsed. Peshmerga has deployed outside of Mosul, moved into some of the disputed territories in Diyala and occupied Kirkuk city. Yesterday was the first time there were reports in the Iraqi press that the ISF was fighting back.

Also don't forget that there is massive militia mobilization and Iran is moving into Iraq big time.

Joel:

What is the short term capability of ISIS to take heavy casualties? They seem to be suffering some significant losses when the ISF actually stands and fights. This is important I think because from what I've read it seems the dramatic losses of cities of late have been because of morale collapse caused by lousy leadership, so the run of luck ISIS has been having may not last...and the Iranians are coming.

I remember with sadness how many Iraqis didn't want us to leave because they were afraid that just this kind of thing would happen. But there was an election coming up here and a talking point had to be carved in stone.

carl
06-12-2014, 11:38 PM
Carl---here is the reasoning behind my comment and JWing actually indirectly confirms my comments to be accurate.

Where in the entire new and even in the old FM 3-24 is it in bold letters on the first page stated "Beware if the host nation does not follow the intent and goals of COIN to the exact letter the US Army follows it it is doomed to failure".

Basically JWing is admitting that even with all the mentoring, COIN classes for their troops and officers, even being trained in our COIN image and armed as we were--nothing was absorbed as JWing admits.

So looking back --what was exactly wrong and why was that failure not mentioned anywhere in the COIN manuals old and new?

Interesting we as a Force always talk as if COIN was a magic potion that will always succeed-but nowhere in all the COIN chatter and FMs is discussed the possibility that in the end the target population and their governance may just not want COIN to succeed for whatever reasons---or did I miss that discussion and or did I miss that paragraph in the new FM?

Well if you teach somebody to wash their hands after using the latrine and they don't do it and get sick, that doesn't mean washing your hands after using the latrine isn't a damn good idea.

carl
06-12-2014, 11:48 PM
As I am inclined to say, what a sh*t show.

Best to get past fixing blame and start developing a policy, goals, and fixing the problem. Now.

And the show isn't going to stop until at least 2017 when a new administration gets in, if then. The show will go on not only in Iraq but in Af-Pak therefore maybe the entire sub-continent, eastern Europe, Syria, Nigeria and everywhere off the coast of Red China, and those are only the places I can think of.

What I hope you professional military guys are trying to figure out is how bad things are going to be by then and what will be possible, then, not before, with continued force reductions and equipment cuts. It is a very hard problem.

JWing
06-13-2014, 12:15 AM
Was another ISF collapse in Anbar today. Followed by reports of heaving fighting in Abu Ghraib. People with relatives in Baghdad have talked about militias being out in the streets and mobilizing. Two press reports that Iran has sent in special forces and weapons to Iraq. Shiite militias from Syria have been shifted back to Iraq several weeks ago.

TheCurmudgeon
06-13-2014, 12:17 AM
And the show isn't going to stop until at least 2017 when a new administration gets in, if then. The show will go on not only in Iraq but in Af-Pak therefore maybe the entire sub-continent, eastern Europe, Syria, Nigeria and everywhere off the coast of Red China, and those are only the places I can think of.

What I hope you professional military guys are trying to figure out is how bad things are going to be by then and what will be possible, then, not before, with continued force reductions and equipment cuts. It is a very hard problem.

Actually, what I am trying to figure out is at what point I start to care. So far I see no reason to get involved. In fact, I would like to see ISIS attempt to take and hold territory. They are likely to get more resistance from the regional neighbors, some of which we have an interest in weakening.

Perhaps the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but I am not inclined to spill blood and waste treasure on this at the moment. Lets see how much damage the various players do to each other first.

carl
06-13-2014, 12:29 AM
Actually, what I am trying to figure out is at what point I start to care. So far I see no reason to get involved. In fact, I would like to see ISIS attempt to take and hold territory. They are likely to get more resistance from the regional neighbors, some of which we have an interest in weakening.

Perhaps the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but I am not inclined to spill blood and waste treasure on this at the moment. Lets see how much damage the various players do to each other first.

Threat to Europe. Threat of nuke war in the sub-continent. Threat of war between Japan and Red China. Expansion of takfiri killers all over the place. Inevitable spillover to involve Israel. I'd say there is plenty of reason to care enough to start thinking on what can be done from a badly handicapped position in the beginning of 2017.

TheCurmudgeon
06-13-2014, 12:55 AM
Threat to Europe. Threat of nuke war in the sub-continent. Threat of war between Japan and Red China. Expansion of takfiri killers all over the place. Inevitable spillover to involve Israel. I'd say there is plenty of reason to care enough to start thinking on what can be done from a badly handicapped position in the beginning of 2017.

I suppose all that depends on where things stand in 2017. I was thinking more along the lines of summer, fall, and winter of 2014.

I am not sure how ISIS/Iraq/AQ/Iran struggle turns into a threat of war between Japan and China, I am not willing to rule out the possibility of some strange involvement. My gut is that Uighurs may become embolden by ISIS, but I don't see how Japan plays into it. Stranger things have happened.

Still, in the short term, I am all for a wait and see attitude.

JWing
06-13-2014, 01:17 AM
Outlaw09 read this interview about the insurgency. Includes information on the Islamic Army. Was much speculation whether they were still around and if they had any fighters left. Most of their posts were about their cooperation with other groups rather than carrying out their own independent operations. They appear to have started attacks again.

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/03/iraqs-resurgent-insurgency-interview.html

JWing
06-13-2014, 01:19 AM
Carl,

It's not only ISIS operating now but tribes, ex-Baathists, other insurgent groups. They are all coming out of the woodwork and taking advantage of the security collapse. Who knows what their numbers are right now and casualties they've taken.

ganulv
06-13-2014, 01:20 AM
I remember with sadness how many Iraqis didn't want us to leave because they were afraid that just this kind of thing would happen. But there was an election coming up here and a talking point had to be carved in stone.
If I recall correctly, the plan to leave a so-called residual force hinged on delicate Status Of Forces Agreement negotiations that ended up being handled less than delicately on both sides.

carl
06-13-2014, 01:32 AM
I suppose all that depends on where things stand in 2017. I was thinking more along the lines of summer, fall, and winter of 2014.

I am not sure how ISIS/Iraq/AQ/Iran struggle turns into a threat of war between Japan and China, I am not willing to rule out the possibility of some strange involvement. My gut is that Uighurs may become embolden by ISIS, but I don't see how Japan plays into it. Stranger things have happened.

Still, in the short term, I am all for a wait and see attitude.

The situation between Red China and Japan stands on its own. All this stuff happens to be happening at the same time.

We are all bound to wait and see at least until the beginning of 2017. The current administration will do nothing but wait and see.

My point is nothing but thinking and figuring can be done until then and I would be pleased if you professional soldier guys started contemplating.

Bill Moore
06-13-2014, 04:04 AM
The situation between Red China and Japan stands on its own. All this stuff happens to be happening at the same time.

We are all bound to wait and see at least until the beginning of 2017. The current administration will do nothing but wait and see.

My point is nothing but thinking and figuring can be done until then and I would be pleased if you professional soldier guys started contemplating.

Carl, your point is valid. Unfortunately most military and policy types are taught to look at problems locally within defined area, or focus on specific groups. It is the weakness in our center of gravity approach to planning where we conveniently ignore the whole and how the pieces interact intentionally and unintentionally. Most countries will exploit emerging opportunities to put their adversaries at a disadvantage. Usually they'll do so below the radar, but Russia just changed its relationship with North Korea and started exercising with the Chinese navy. They also are flying bombers off our coast and challenging our Aircraft.

Any Russian or Chinese support to any actor in the middle east is part of a strategic chess game based on long term strategic interests. Our military on the other hand only sees terrorists and wonder what they can accomplish with air power. Bomb ISIS until it hurts, but please do so in a way that is advantageous to our long term strategic interests.

ganulv
06-13-2014, 04:16 AM
Bomb ISIS until it hurts, but please do so in a way that is advantageous to our long term strategic interests.
Seems to me that ISIS has a nice AfPak situation going for itself knowing that Assad is going to cry bloody murder if there’s a U.S. drone strike inside Syrian airspace that he can’t deny happened. I can’t imagine that that would be worth the long term effects it might have.

AdamG
06-13-2014, 04:37 AM
"The army forces threw away their weapons and changed their clothes and left their vehicles and left the city," said Mahmud Nuri, a displaced Mosul resident. "We didn't see anyone fire a shot."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0610/Why-Mosul-s-fall-is-a-signature-moment-in-Iraq

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 06:27 AM
Was another ISF collapse in Anbar today. Followed by reports of heaving fighting in Abu Ghraib. People with relatives in Baghdad have talked about militias being out in the streets and mobilizing. Two press reports that Iran has sent in special forces and weapons to Iraq. Shiite militias from Syria have been shifted back to Iraq several weeks ago.

JWing---now you point to something that is extremely interesting--is ISIS really after Baghdad or is it a feint in order to do exactly what you mention.

In Syria it has been Hezbollah and Iranian SF together with JAM/SG units that have been the backbone of the Assad Army.

By forcing the Hezbollah, Iran and JAM/SG to reposition away serves ISIS on the Syrian battlefield--notice ISIS was/is more interested in holding Syrian territory and avoid directly confronting the SA as the other Islamists have been doing. Syria is to them the epicenter for the final Shia/Sunni clash.

From battle videos coming out---massive amounts of equipment especially artillery, HMMW 114s, AAA, and trucks and the older MRAPs were driven immediately towards Syria---the rest were burned. Why burn when you can use them for the march to Baghdad and there is street to street MOUT. The ISIS really love their utilities. With one "surge" they have completely rearmed and refitted without outside help and beholden to no one-impressive.

In attempting to hold Baghdad they awake a far larger majority ie the entire Shia nation and regardless how aggressive they are the sheer Shia numbers will eventually overwhelm ---IMO they really want the Sunni triangle and the oil resources there which have been at the heart of the Sunni population complaints since 2010.

That is why I say IAI is back in action as they were always military focused due to a high number of former officers and Iraqi security officers and their close ties to the Sunni tribes which you are correct about---the tribes have walked away from the "Awakening" as in the end it was a fail move on their part years ago-it brought them nothing from Malaki but it did bring grief to their leaders.

What really interests me is the ISIS use of aggressive fast moving swarming attacks in ways that they initially showed us in the late 2000s which were small small--by the way those attacks were always a joint IAI/AQI attack--this is solid battlefield tactical movements that we the US Army probably could not today even come close to doing---that type of attack formation hit the 1st Cav hard in Diyala 2006/2007.

This is reforming the ME literally overnight and our foreign policy in the area is now totally in tatters as we somehow never seem to think long term and we shy away from even coming close to moderate Islamists of which there a few that would talk to us. We need to finally understand that populations will make their own decisions about their futures and sometimes it is not in our direction but that is OK if we can at least talk with them long term.

What we are really seeing is now a Mao phase three guerrilla war using mobile formations on the go and taking no prisoners along the way---notice that they are maintaining fluidity and movement--Mao would be proud and Che would be envious.

ganulv
06-13-2014, 06:34 AM
What we are really seeing is now a Mao phase three guerrilla war using mobile formations on the go and taking no prisoners along the way---notice that they are maintaining fluidity and movement--Mao would be proud and Che would be envious.
The Maoists and the m267 movement had already built the bones of a legitimate government over the course of the previous years and that was there for them when they seized control of the state. Even if ISIS were able to take Baghdad, is there any indication that they have done something similar? They seem to have set up some sort of bureaucracy in the areas under their control, but is there evidence that the local residents have bought what they are selling?

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 06:38 AM
Carl, your point is valid. Unfortunately most military and policy types are taught to look at problems locally within defined area, or focus on specific groups. It is the weakness in our center of gravity approach to planning where we conveniently ignore the whole and how the pieces interact intentionally and unintentionally. Most countries will exploit emerging opportunities to put their adversaries at a disadvantage. Usually they'll do so below the radar, but Russia just changed its relationship with North Korea and started exercising with the Chinese navy. They also are flying bombers off our coast and challenging our Aircraft.

Any Russian or Chinese support to any actor in the middle east is part of a strategic chess game based on long term strategic interests. Our military on the other hand only sees terrorists and wonder what they can accomplish with air power. Bomb ISIS until it hurts, but please do so in a way that is advantageous to our long term strategic interests.


Bill--amen to the last sentence--extremely accurate comment to strategic long term foreign relations by the Russians and Chinese.

By the way--surprised we have not totally shifted the entire drone fleet to the skies over Iraq---we fully understand how to fight an air war with just armed drones and recon drones as hunter/killer teams since Libya.

IMO the US has not even begun to fully understand the latest Russian and Chinese strategic doctrinal shifts which are a direct challenge to the US in coming years.

JWing
06-13-2014, 08:06 AM
Not only did ISIS ship a bunch of captured equipment to Syria but Jabhat al-Nusra went into Ninewa today and grabbed some stuff as well.

And yes ISIS is heading towards Baghdad. Their main goal is to overthrow the government. They seemed to have forgotten all the militias with Iranian support that defeated them last time. This time Baghdad is even more Shiite then the last civil war.

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 10:24 AM
Not only did ISIS ship a bunch of captured equipment to Syria but Jabhat al-Nusra went into Ninewa today and grabbed some stuff as well.

And yes ISIS is heading towards Baghdad. Their main goal is to overthrow the government. They seemed to have forgotten all the militias with Iranian support that defeated them last time. This time Baghdad is even more Shiite then the last civil war.

JWing---if they are going they have discovered something the West missed--and it might be an accurate assessment by ISIS---there is not longer a deep pool of aggressive JAM/SG groups left in Baghdad---they are all in Syria---Malaki is trying to arm Baghdad residents---subtle why would be a good question.

It really does look like Malaki was being a bit big headed when he suggested/"allowed" JAM and the SGs to head to Syria in support to Assad and at the beckoning of Iran---not only were there good experienced fighters sent--arms and munitions as well. Iran is now forced to reinforce Assad via the air routes as ground transportation has all but been stopped by ISIS.

Now with the Army folding and definitely not having the stomach for a street to street fight those Shia forces in Syria now have to make the long ground run from Syria but with ISIS controlling the routes --virtually impossible to swing back to Baghdad in a timely fashion.

Looks like he is being massively criticized now by leading Shia political types for actually provoking the Sunni response and his heavy hand with them --yesterday the Iraqi parliament refused to give him is martial law bill which would have made him a virtual dictator even more so than Saddam.

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 10:28 AM
New ISIS record ----and now they are financially far more wealthy than the mothership AQ.

When they took Mosul they raided the Iraqi National Bank there immediately---taken was a total sum of get this;

380 million Euros or roughly 500M USDs.

A comfortable war chest if one asks me now they can go on a world wide recruiting binge and actually pay for it.

Their previous record for releasing prisoners at 4500 seems to have been outdistanced by this bank robbery.

davidbfpo
06-13-2014, 12:21 PM
A short analysis via the BBC and it ends with:
Mr Maliki has emerged as something approaching the Shia equivalent of Saddam Hussein, and is as much a threat to Iraq as ISIS.

Iraq desperately needs a truly national leader and one who puts the nation above himself.


Without one, ISIS may become a lasting enclave and regional threat - dividing Iraq into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish sections - or drag Iraq back to the worst days of its civil war and create another Syria in Iraq.


Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27801680

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 02:10 PM
A short analysis via the BBC and it ends with:


Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27801680

David---three things will be happening in short order;

1. the Biden plan of three ethnic enclaves will occur
2. ISIS and many are overlooking this piece is currently only operating with approx. 600-1000 depending on the head count and who is doing the counting with some realistic numbers in the mid 600 range---so who is carrying the brunt of the actual street to street fighting---it looks like the Sunni tribes together with the renamed IAI the Military Council of Iraqi Revolutionaries
The Iraqi military is absolutely incapable of street to street fighting so they resort to artillery fire and barrel bombs which then creates even more Sunni anger
3. there is a replacement for Malaki who even has the respect of the Sunni tribes---that is Sistanni the Shia religious leader who has sidestepped becoming political he is about the only Shia left in Iraq that talk to the Sunni side and be believed

Malaki has failed to listen to four calls over the last year from Biden, failed to listen to the UN Moon just recently and has not heeded the calls from some influential Shia leaders to reconcile with the Sunni's who many in the Shia community now understand they themselves have overreached on.

There is some interesting comments that Malaki maybe tied to deeply with Iran and thus cannot even begin to consider a dialogue.

TheCurmudgeon
06-13-2014, 02:11 PM
The situation between Red China and Japan stands on its own. All this stuff happens to be happening at the same time.

We are all bound to wait and see at least until the beginning of 2017. The current administration will do nothing but wait and see.

My point is nothing but thinking and figuring can be done until then and I would be pleased if you professional soldier guys started contemplating.

I disagree with your base assumption that the current administration will do nothing. I actually believe the current administration is acting far more prudently than the previous administrations that, arguably, are directly responsible for ISIS having a slice of Iraq.

Most of us are always contiplating what can be done. That is not the real question. The question is what SHOULD be done. We can kill AQ or Taliban leadership with drones. The question is, should we? What is the result? Who comes next? Is that better, or worse, than the previous option?

At this point a number of entities that I would like to see weakened are fighting amongst themselves. While I am obviously interested in the situation, I do not see any reason to alter the dynamics, particularly if we really want a long-term presence in Iraq. My guess is that we will use Drones. I sincerely hope that we do not get involved at all at this point.

Yes, this is a bit of a game of chicken, but I am still in favor of watching things unfold for a bit longer before taking any action.

I am still of the opinion that it is easy to lead a jihad, it is harder to govern a large territory. That we can do more to weaken ISIS by letting them try to hold and govern a swath of Syria/Iraq than we can by giving them the moral victory of being engaged directly by the Great Satin (ops, wrong group).

Particularly when the stories leak out of how life really is in an ISIS controlled area. My guess is that fewer people in the Levant will be interested in coming under their control once they see how they actually rule.

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 03:02 PM
I disagree with your base assumption that the current administration will do nothing. I actually believe the current administration is acting far more prudently than the previous administrations that, arguably, are directly responsible for ISIS having a slice of Iraq.

Most of us are always contiplating what can be done. That is not the real question. The question is what SHOULD be done. We can kill AQ or Taliban leadership with drones. The question is, should we? What is the result? Who comes next? Is that better, or worse, than the previous option?

At this point a number of entities that I would like to see weakened are fighting amongst themselves. While I am obviously interested in the situation, I do not see any reason to alter the dynamics, particularly if we really want a long-term presence in Iraq.

Yes, this is a bit of a game of chicken, but I am still in favor of watching things unfold for a bit longer before taking any action.

We lost our ability to "influence" Iraq with the 2005 national elections--when 60% of the country is Shia, the Shia won the election, and their neighbors Iran and Syria are Shia---where is there a snow balls chance in heaven in "influencing".

Example---we fly our entire drone fleet and park it over Iraq---we decimate ISIS and the other Sunni tribes, but who in the end gains--Malaki who is "our true friend" while the Iranian Republican Guard troops and SF troops sent by Iran to help him to remain where--in and near Baghdad---what happens then to "influence"?

After 4.7K KIAs, thousands of WIAs, 34B in equipment and training and trillions in rebuilding efforts if that does not gain us any "influence" then it is time to go home for good and let the three ethnic entities settle the problem themselves.

At some point they will and yes Russia and Iran will come out smelling like roses and the oil flowing will go to China and Russia even though those in the Bush second administration did promise us the American taxpayer that hey the Iraqi oil would pay for our trillions we spent. Yeah right?......that happened with that idea? Maybe the paintings of our previous President if sold at auction might cover some of the VA hospital costs.

ganulv
06-13-2014, 03:10 PM
We lost our ability to "influence" Iraq with the 2005 national elections--when 60% of the country is Shia, the Shia won the election, and their neighbors Iran and Syria are Shia---where is there a snow balls chance in heaven in "influencing".
The Syrian government is in Alawite hands, but 3/4 of the Syrian population is Sunni.

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 03:38 PM
The Syrian government is in Alawite hands, but 3/4 of the Syrian population is Sunni.

The country is still the last time I checked 13 June 2014 it is still in the hands of Shia (Alawite's are a sub Shia grouping) with Iranian and Russian support---correct?

JWing
06-13-2014, 04:07 PM
They too have had an 'iron hand' given their history.

However, it is interesting to note that their currency carries the image of 'Ganesha' a Hindu idol.https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQflhdYEDMAseLd4b-kiJka-6QsYJmSnLRtZJxc5ZzcLldSB71MUmIxABY

http://www.banknotes.com/ID138.JPG

That is blasphemy in Islam!

Ray since 1998 when Suharto stepped down have you seen any of these turn to a strongman tendencies in Indonesia that you say are inherent in Muslim culture?

JWing
06-13-2014, 04:13 PM
Outlaw 09

Many of the Iraqi militiamen who were fighting in Syria were shifted back to Iraq months ago. Militias have already been fighting insurgents in Fallujah, Abu Ghraib and parts of Diyala. Early this morning Hakim said that he was sending Supreme Council fighters to support the Defense Ministry. Sadr said he supported people protecting the Shiite shrines which would obviously include Samarra in Salahaddin. IRGC Quds Force Cmdr Gen. Suleimani is in Baghdad right now. They are all gearing up to fight the insurgents started from Samarra down to Baghdad.

JWing
06-13-2014, 04:16 PM
Outlaw 09

Assad is an Alawite and despite press reports that is not Shiite. That's like saying Shiite are really Sunnis because they are just an offshoot. Syria was also one of the main supporters of the insurgency for years so saying that Shiite rule in Iraq after 03 created this united Shiite arc from Iran to Iraq to Syria is incorrect. Maliki only decided to back Assad when the civil war started and Islamists started fighting the government. Maliki hated Assad but made an alliance of convenience because ISIS and others were seen as worse, Enemy of my enemy stuff going on.

TheCurmudgeon
06-13-2014, 04:18 PM
Outlaw 09

Many of the Iraqi militiamen who were fighting in Syria were shifted back to Iraq months ago. Militias have already been fighting insurgents in Fallujah, Abu Ghraib and parts of Diyala. Early this morning Hakim said that he was sending Supreme Council fighters to support the Defense Ministry. Sadr said he supported people protecting the Shiite shrines which would obviously include Samarra in Salahaddin. IRGC Quds Force Cmdr Gen. Suleimani is in Baghdad right now. They are all gearing up to fight the insurgents started from Samarra down to Baghdad.

Just think - Iranian Quds troops could be fighting to gain control of terrain in Iraq with air support provided by US Drones.

JWing
06-13-2014, 04:19 PM
Here's my lastest story on Musings on Iraq. More ISF collapses in Fallujah and other places. Fighting in outskirts of Baghdad plus Shiite and Iranian mobilization are covered.

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/continued-collapse-of-iraqi-security.html

ganulv
06-13-2014, 04:27 PM
Just think - Iranian Quds troops could be fighting to gain control of terrain in Iraq with air support provided by US Drones.
I find it difficult to imagine that that would ever occur in a coordinated fashion. If word were to get out – and it would – the political leaders of both sides would have a whole lotta ’splaining to do to their citizens.

TheCurmudgeon
06-13-2014, 04:41 PM
I find it difficult to imagine that that would ever occur in a coordinated fashion. If word were to get out – and it would – the political leaders of both sides would have a whole lotta ’splaining to do to their citizens.

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend ... or Jihad/ Counter Jihad makes strange bedfellow ...

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 07:14 PM
Outlaw 09

Assad is an Alawite and despite press reports that is not Shiite. That's like saying Shiite are really Sunnis because they are just an offshoot. Syria was also one of the main supporters of the insurgency for years so saying that Shiite rule in Iraq after 03 created this united Shiite arc from Iran to Iraq to Syria is incorrect. Maliki only decided to back Assad when the civil war started and Islamists started fighting the government. Maliki hated Assad but made an alliance of convenience because ISIS and others were seen as worse, Enemy of my enemy stuff going on.

JWing

Correct me if I am wrong but yes Alawites are in fact a sect element of Shiaism--even "normal Shia" recognize the sect as Shia, but have a different name for them the last time I checked---and yes both Sunni and Shia did stem from the same Koran and Mohammad until 1400 years ago when they clashed over the successor question and the destruction of Ali. Historically though in say India many Shia thinkers might have been thought to be Sunni and vice versa as they shared similar ideas and world visions, and surprisingly both honor Jesus but simply do not accept him as a prophet. And yes we are infidels but at the same time "people of the book".

So based on 1400 years of infighting and yes using the same Koran they are in fact two different religious groups under the banner of Islam. In some aspects Episcopalians and Catholics are a similar example while both stemming from Catholicism are in fact two different groups after clashing on the question or priests marrying but share a large number of Catholic religious similarities.

If I am also correct yes Syria initially accepted Baathists fleeing Iraq when we arrived based on the Syrians also being Baathists but of a different sect than Saddam Baathists in Baghdad were. I would never argue that the Assad Security Service did allow the Iraqi insurgent open and free movement inside Syria---as long as they maintained a low profile they were "allowed" to exist but it had to be under the radar.

Iraqi's always had to fight to get permits to reside in Syria and usually via corrupt Syrian officials and many did not get them and had to constantly dodge police raids for Iraqi's who would then be pushed back into Iraq---Iraqi refugees that were Sunni had it hard---Iraqi Shia on the other "seemed" to get residence permits/work permits and were not pushed back to Iraq. On the whole Iraqi Sunni refugees and insurgency members did not have it easy in Syria so the yes it "appeared" Assad supported them but the reality on the ground was far different.

Major Iraqi Baathist military officers/State Security types were "allowed" to exist a tad over the radar but that was due to the large amounts of money they had in the Syrians banks and what was flowing to them from other Iraqi supporters and from Jordan.

AQI developed an extensive smuggling system with multiple cutouts inside Syria until they got their fighters to the border and yes if discovered they did end up in prison and torture was not unusual for them. There was no love lost between the then QJBR--AQ in the Land of Two rivers and Assad's security forces.

I would argue Assad "supported" the Sunni insurgency for the core reason- They kept the US busy and off his back as he was not that warm and fuzzy with the idea of the US Army siting on his borders--he and also this perception "they supported Israel" and were boxing in Syria from three sides if one counts the NATO member Turkey.

But Syria while "tolerating" the Sunni insurgency that was tied to the Iraqi Baathist military/state security side was not all that "tolerant" of the QJBR then AQI side even in 2004 and their smuggling through Syria of foreign fighters.

There were in fact a number of AQI members released from Syrian prisons by Islamists when the civil war started---would not call that being "tolerant" towards QJBR/AQI.

Notice Saddam's daughter though did not flee to Syria---rather to Jordan where she has been the guest of the King since her arrival and he has refused to extradite her regardless of US requests which were many.

Understand the enemy of my enemy but global power politics has played a far bigger role in all of this.

JMA
06-13-2014, 07:34 PM
I wonder what - if any - warning the US Administration were given by that Keystone Cops outfit known as the CIA?

FP has it here: Jihadist Gains in Iraq Blindside American Spies (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/12/jihadist_gains_in_iraq_blindside_american_spies)

Of course if the Administration was given warning of the build-up to this invasion then it reinforces the pattern of indecisiveness observed over a number of years.

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 07:55 PM
I wonder what - if any - warning the US Administration were given by that Keystone Cops outfit known as the CIA?

FP has it here: Jihadist Gains in Iraq Blindside American Spies (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/12/jihadist_gains_in_iraq_blindside_american_spies)

JMA--anyone with an internet connection and a mouse and a little understanding of key jihadi websites saw this coming since the raids on the Sunni protect camp.

What they did not see was the redevelopment of the Islamic Army in Iraq now the Military Council of the Iraqi Revolutionaries and their linking into the Sunni tribes.

And yes they seem to have again not understood the game being played on the ground by the Sunni resistance. There was during the entire Iraq time a myth that stated insurgent cells would not talk to each other due to OPSEC especially insurgent cells from different insurgent groups and the second myth was that the Sunni insurgent groups rejected working with AQI.

First myth---heck they chatted all the time on their prepaid cells simply because they had friends in the other cells and other groups and had at one time or another prayed together.

Second myth---AQI had the funds along with IAI---AQI would fund the attacks and operations, IAI would plan them and then Ansar al Sunnah would be the lead attack element with the Revolutionary Brigades 1920 being the foot soldiers. Yes AQI did kill some IAI cell leaders over religious politics, but when IAI threatened to go to war with AQI --AQI backed off.

What you are seeing in the Sunni triangle is the interaction between ISIS, The Military Council and the main Sunni tribes---and yes the CIA should have seen it coming. I saw it over two years ago and that was all on open source.

The Sunni's simply now believe they must fight for their rights and that was a given even in 2011.

What is more interesting is the role Turkey will have---they have supported ISIS in Syria and now their Consulate is raided by ISIS.
So I guess even the NSA is not as good as the Snowdon hype makes them out to be.

JMA
06-13-2014, 07:57 PM
The current administration will do nothing but wait and see.

In this case the normal paralysis of indecision might not be a bad thing.

The US should recognise that the Iraq 'adventure' ended badly - for everybody (except maybe the Kurds and Iran) - and question whether there any point reopening that can of worms?

Samantha Power will of course be freaked-out by the unfolding humanitarian crisis - for which I some sympathy - and calling for intervention in that regard.

Not sure a drone fleet can provide the fire-power required to neutralise ISIS/ISIL ... but certainly some carefully targeted cruise missiles could do some real damage ;)

carl
06-13-2014, 08:04 PM
In this case the normal paralysis of indecision might not be a bad thing.

A broken clock is perfectly accurate at two moments during each day but you still don't want to buy one.

In this case if inaction was the result of reasoned thinking, that would be one thing. It isn't in my view. It is just more deer in the headlights indecision, that's another thing altogether which does nothing to get the international opportunists out there to stop thinking that they can get away with just about anything until the beginning of 2017.

JMA
06-13-2014, 08:08 PM
JMA--anyone with an internet connection and a mouse and a little understanding of key jihadi websites saw this coming since the raids on the Sunni protect camp.

Well then that leads to the deduction that the Administration was once again caught out 'sitting on it's hands' paralysed through indecision.

carl
06-13-2014, 08:12 PM
Carl, your point is valid. Unfortunately most military and policy types are taught to look at problems locally within defined area, or focus on specific groups. It is the weakness in our center of gravity approach to planning where we conveniently ignore the whole and how the pieces interact intentionally and unintentionally.


Our military on the other hand only sees terrorists and wonder what they can accomplish with air power. Bomb ISIS until it hurts, but please do so in a way that is advantageous to our long term strategic interests.

Good. That is the kind of thinking I am talking about. You have identified a weakness in the training of the people we may be charging with thinking about these things. So people who haven't had their minds locked in a box by training had better get to cogitating and we should start listening to them.

Your point about airpower highlights is another bit of thought that is useful. We have been airplanes this airplanes that for too long.

JWing
06-13-2014, 08:22 PM
Outlaw 09

Most of the Iraqi Shiites I have talked to do not consider Alawites a Shiite sect but rather a distinct group. Sunnis on the other hand tend to lump them together, and the more sectarian they get will say in political discourse that both Shiites and Alawites aren't even Arabs because of their religion but rather "Persians."

As for Syria and the insurgency. They let in the entire Baathist group. There were two main factions after 2003 and both resided in Syria. Izaat Ibrahim al-Duri Saddam's success resides in Syria and heads the Naqshibandi insurgent group. Plus Syrian intelligence was actively involved in helping foreign fighters and their networks operate so that they could get to Iraq and that included AQI. Remember in 2008 when the U.S. made a raid into Syria and killed an AQI commander there? Winter of 03 US was complaining that the Syrian security forces were letting foreign fighters through their country and into Iraq.
Late 2004 there were reports that Zarqawi was setting up cells in Syria as well. Ties were improving a bit and then August 09 after big bombings in Baghdad Maliki openly accused the Assad government of supporting both Baathist and AQI insurgents. Wasn't until 2010 when relations really started to improve between Baghdad and Damascus that things started to change somewhat. Also don't forget the defection of the Syrian Amb to Iraq in July 2012 who said Assad had helped AQI immediately after the 2003 invasion.

Ultimately agree that Syria's motivation was to keep the U.S. busy though.

JMA
06-13-2014, 08:27 PM
I would like to believe that the US military have a range of contingency plans and are awaiting instructions/authority to act.

Where I dovetail in outcome with the Administration's indecision is that I am not persuaded that the US should get involved even to prevent the billions of $ of equipment they gave to Iraq falling into the hands of either ISIS or the Iranians.

Not sure I understand your reference to 2017.


A broken clock is perfectly accurate at two moments during each day but you still don't want to buy one.

In this case if inaction was the result of reasoned thinking, that would be one thing. It isn't in my view. It is just more deer in the headlights indecision, that's another thing altogether which does nothing to get the international opportunists out there to stop thinking that they can get away with just about anything until the beginning of 2017.

carl
06-13-2014, 08:30 PM
I disagree with your base assumption that the current administration will do nothing. I actually believe the current administration is acting far more prudently than the previous administrations that, arguably, are directly responsible for ISIS having a slice of Iraq.

Over the next 2.5 years we will see what will happen. I judge that whatever comes along, this administration will react with prolix inaction. I figure all the Putins, takfiri and Red Chinese killers of the world judge the same.


Most of us are always contiplating what can be done. That is not the real question. The question is what SHOULD be done. We can kill AQ or Taliban leadership with drones. The question is, should we? What is the result? Who comes next? Is that better, or worse, than the previous option?

Could or should, I don't care what you chose to call it. I would be pleased if you guys start thinking hard about how things will look in 2017, because nothing much will be done by us till then. Answer all those questions you posed.

Your opinion of the efficacy of drones in killing leadership is wildly optimistic I think. In Iraq for example, how are we going to find the targets? Before the end of 2011 we had multitudes of people on the ground working closely with multitudes of Iraqis to find targets. That structure isn't there now. Besides the ISIS captured helos and AAA which means no Pred ops. Reapers might do ok but again how will they find targets? MO and the current AQ top guy still live on year after year.


At this point a number of entities that I would like to see weakened are fighting amongst themselves. While I am obviously interested in the situation, I do not see any reason to alter the dynamics, particularly if we really want a long-term presence in Iraq. My guess is that we will use Drones. I sincerely hope that we do not get involved at all at this point.

One of those sides is going to win, or both sides will come to an accommodation. That accommodation may be a de-facto takfiri killer state encompassing part of Syria and Iraq. Do we want that? You don't see any reason to alter the dynamics. That's fine, for now. But how about in 6 months, a year?

We can fly drones around but they won't have a clue what to shoot at.


Yes, this is a bit of a game of chicken, but I am still in favor of watching things unfold for a bit longer before taking any action.

Fair enough. How much longer? What kind of action? It will be 2017 before anything can be done, what will be needed then?


I am still of the opinion that it is easy to lead a jihad, it is harder to govern a large territory. That we can do more to weaken ISIS by letting them try to hold and govern a swath of Syria/Iraq than we can by giving them the moral victory of being engaged directly by the Great Satin (ops, wrong group).

Particularly when the stories leak out of how life really is in an ISIS controlled area. My guess is that fewer people in the Levant will be interested in coming under their control once they see how they actually rule.

You underestimate the power of well run police states to establish power and endure. They kill enough people and suddenly life under them isn't so bad anymore. History is filled with examples of long lived regimes whose people lived really stinko lives.

ganulv
06-13-2014, 08:37 PM
Most of the Iraqi Shiites I have talked to do not consider Alawites a Shiite sect but rather a distinct group. Sunnis on the other hand tend to lump them together, and the more sectarian they get will say in political discourse that both Shiites and Alawites aren't even Arabs because of their religion but rather "Persians."
Is the history of Shi'ism in Iraq and Iran ultimately tied to the Buyid dynasty?

carl
06-13-2014, 08:37 PM
I would like to believe that the US military have a range of contingency plans and are awaiting instructions/authority to act.

Where I dovetail in outcome with the Administration's indecision is that I am not persuaded that the US should get involved even to prevent the billions of $ of equipment they gave to Iraq falling into the hands of either ISIS ot the Iranians.

Not sure I understand your reference to 2017.

Nothing will be much will be done anywhere in the world by us until 2017 because that is when the term of the current President ends. It doesn't matter what kind of plans the US military has because it will not get any instructions to act, not just in Iraq but anywhere. The evil ones of the world know they have a window of opportunity that lasts at least until then.

That is why I think the US pro soldier types had better start thinking about what the world will look like in 2017 because that will almost certainly be the first opportunity we will have to do something about it.

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 08:48 PM
Outlaw 09

Most of the Iraqi Shiites I have talked to do not consider Alawites a Shiite sect but rather a distinct group. Sunnis on the other hand tend to lump them together, and the more sectarian they get will say in political discourse that both Shiites and Alawites aren't even Arabs because of their religion but rather "Persians."

As for Syria and the insurgency. They let in the entire Baathist group. There were two main factions after 2003 and both resided in Syria. Izaat Ibrahim al-Duri Saddam's success resides in Syria and heads the Naqshibandi insurgent group. Plus Syrian intelligence was actively involved in helping foreign fighters and their networks operate so that they could get to Iraq and that included AQI. Remember in 2008 when the U.S. made a raid into Syria and killed an AQI commander there? Winter of 03 US was complaining that the Syrian security forces were letting foreign fighters through their country and into Iraq.
Late 2004 there were reports that Zarqawi was setting up cells in Syria as well. Ties were improving a bit and then August 09 after big bombings in Baghdad Maliki openly accused the Assad government of supporting both Baathist and AQI insurgents. Wasn't until 2010 when relations really started to improve between Baghdad and Damascus that things started to change somewhat. Also don't forget the defection of the Syrian Amb to Iraq in July 2012 who said Assad had helped AQI immediately after the 2003 invasion.

Ultimately agree that Syria's motivation was to keep the U.S. busy though.

JWing---agree then with Sunni lumping Alawites together but that does not explain the willingness to spill tons of Shia blood in the defense of a non theoretical Shia government or call in Hezbollah and or send JAM/SG to Syria does it?

If JAM/SG is back out of Syria and they are fighting in Anbar then they have lost a large amount of their fighting capacity in Syria as they are not dislodging ISIS nor the tribes from Ramadi or Fulluja.

Izaat Ibrahim al-Duri great to hear that name again---he definitely did not die of cancer but have not heard anything about him in the last few years-but again he could be the de facto head of the Military Council. His home stomping safe houses where by the way in Diyala thus the importance of Diyala as a center of gravity.

The Naqshibandi were in fact the follow on group name from the Islamic Army in Iraq--now morphed into the Military Council-they started a massive paramilitary training program in 2009 onwards and became literally the supreme HME manufacturers in all of Iraq---sheer numbers in the tons range and of good quality and they were behind the development of a IR "Cat eye" IED that was extremely dangerous. JSOC was tasked to kill or capture this specific bomb maker but never succeeded.

Notice his name is still not in play.

Assad helping AQI in 2003---not so sure--- as Zarqawi did not call out the Islamic State of Iraq until mid 2004 on the steps of the Green Dome in Baqubah--when he left Iran in 2002 it was though he came in via Jordan which makes sense and the IAI had been up and fighting four weeks after we arrived in Baghdad---by the way they used the first RCIEDs against us two months after we arrived. Again wonder why he was killed near Baqubah---it was his pull back safe area during the whole time he was being hunted. One of my walk-ins I worked was in the inside circle and no one from the national IC/JSOC wanted to believe the individual but through that person we rolled up over six related cells tied to him who had been in Baqubah since 2003.

JMA
06-13-2014, 08:49 PM
OK I thought as much.

I appreciate your concern about your country's future but the bad news appears to be that it will go from bad to worse when Hilary takes over. (This is how it is seen from outsider's view). What will you do then?


Nothing will be much will be done anywhere in the world by us until 2017 because that is when the term of the current President ends. It doesn't matter what kind of plans the US military has because it will not get any instructions to act, not just in Iraq but anywhere. The evil ones of the world know they have a window of opportunity that lasts at least until then.

That is why I think the US pro soldier types had better start thinking about what the world will look like in 2017 because that will almost certainly be the first opportunity we will have to do something about it.

carl
06-13-2014, 09:12 PM
OK I thought as much.

I appreciate your concern about your country's future but the bad news appears to be that it will go from bad to worse when Hilary takes over. (This is how it is seen from outsider's view). What will you do then?

Because it can change in 2017 and after of course does not mean that it will.

What will we do then if that happens? I don't know. Suffer the consequences I guess.

JMA
06-13-2014, 09:18 PM
Because it can change in 2017 and after of course does not mean that it will.

What will we do then if that happens? I don't know. Suffer the consequences I guess.

Whatever happens it will be self inflicted through the democratic process... no one else to blame.

Bill Moore
06-13-2014, 09:21 PM
Does anyone know why the Iraqi military didn't resist? Maliki claims it was a conspiracy, and in this case that makes sense, but who were the conspirators and why?

Wild spectulating on my part.

- this ties into the Arab coalition trying to oust Assad. Supposedly Maliki has been helping Assad with his Iranian buddies.

- a state actor out of the region enabled ISIS and paid off Iraqi military leaders to not resist to put Iraqi oil at risk to strengthen their position in the global market, which makes boycotting them impractical.

I have absolutely no supporting evidence for either hypothesis, but for the better equipped and trained Iraqi army to just drop weapons and flee due to a irregular force advance doesn't add up.

JMA
06-13-2014, 09:57 PM
Personally I have no idea, but here is an opinion:

Why the Iraqi army collapsed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/13/why-the-iraqi-army-collapsed-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/?tid=recommended_strip_1)


Does anyone know why the Iraqi military didn't resist? Maliki claims it was a conspiracy, and in this case that makes sense, but who were the conspirators and why?

Wild spectulating on my part.

- this ties into the Arab coalition trying to oust Assad. Supposedly Maliki has been helping Assad with his Iranian buddies.

- a state actor out of the region enabled ISIS and paid off Iraqi military leaders to not resist to put Iraqi oil at risk to strengthen their position in the global market, which makes boycotting them impractical.

I have absolutely no supporting evidence for either hypothesis, but for the better equipped and trained Iraqi army to just drop weapons and flee due to a irregular force advance doesn't add up.

JWing
06-13-2014, 10:22 PM
The story that seems to be the most believable is that the generals in Mosul ordered a retreat but with no specific instructions on how to conduct one. Then they jumped in some helicopters and took off to Irbil. The regular forces heard about it and simply broke. The hierarchical and top down structure of the ISF meant that only a senior officer could try to rally the forces and they had left. When that news spread other units they bugged out mostly before the insurgents even showed up. There have been continued breaks in morale but also some examples of the ISF standing and fighting and even launching offensives right now.

JWing
06-13-2014, 10:28 PM
That last comment was only about the specific breakdown in Mosul that spread to the rest of central Iraq. If you want to go to the heart of the matter the Iraqi security forces are a hollowed out institution. Corruption coup proofing by Maliki etc are the root problems.

carl
06-13-2014, 11:48 PM
Whatever happens it will be self inflicted through the democratic process... no one else to blame.

Yep. We'll see how we do in the 2016 election.

TheCurmudgeon
06-14-2014, 12:08 AM
Does anyone know why the Iraqi military didn't resist? Maliki claims it was a conspiracy, and in this case that makes sense, but who were the conspirators and why?

They have no dog in the fight. They are not really loyal to a nation, only to their clan and religious sect. Based on those factors, they have no reason to risk their lives. Hence, the turn and run.

carl
06-14-2014, 02:02 AM
It is interesting that ISIS did a lot of targeted killings and assassinations of people in the ISF over the past few years. This apparently did a lot to hurt the morale of the ISF. The reason it is interesting is that is exact.y the kind of thing the VC did in South Vietnam those many years ago. In fact that was what Fall was talking about when he spoke of one side outgoverning the other; it is hard to govern when all the administrators for one's side are dead.

So regardless of how fashions in countering insurgencies change, insurgencies don't change so much. They all seem to make great use of assassination

Bill Moore
06-14-2014, 02:33 AM
It is interesting that ISIS did a lot of targeted killings and assassinations of people in the ISF over the past few years. This apparently did a lot to hurt the morale of the ISF. The reason it is interesting is that is exact.y the kind of thing the VC did in South Vietnam those many years ago. In fact that was what Fall was talking about when he spoke of one side outgoverning the other; it is hard to govern when all the administrators for one's side are dead.

So regardless of how fashions in countering insurgencies change, insurgencies don't change so much. They all seem to make great use of assassination

This is real UW which we're restricted from doing. Fall provided a lo t of good insights that are as appreciated as they should be.

ganulv
06-14-2014, 03:40 AM
This is real UW which we're restricted from doing. Fall provided a lot of good insights that are as appreciated as they should be.
So are you saying that JPEL doesn’t actually exist? Or that it needs to be longer and less burdened by restrictions?

carl
06-14-2014, 04:26 AM
This is real UW which we're restricted from doing. Fall provided a lo t of good insights that are as appreciated as they should be.

Oh I don't know. The insurgent kills, the counterinsurgent arrests and jails. The latter is harder than the former but the effect is the same if you run the jails right and don't let them out.

Bill Moore
06-14-2014, 05:08 AM
So are you saying that JPEL doesn’t actually exist? Or that it needs to be longer and less burdened by restrictions?

We are required by our laws to target militarily appropriate targets. That is fine for 5th column guerrilla warfare, but it isn't how you effectively displace and replace existing governance structures. I'm not arguing we should do this, but we need to be aware of it. As Fall once pointed out, when we did our village assessments in Vietnam we assumed control if we built a school and kids were going to it. He pointed out we were often blind to the fact that the communist shadow gov appointed the teachers. Gov appointed teachers were a critical target for the VC. I see similar parallels in our current fight. We often don't understand it because it is outside of our perceptions model. A JPEL means little if we don't understand the adversary's strategy. We blindly focus on HAM and targeting foot soldiers when the real H VIs are often a different flavor.

Maeda Toshiie
06-14-2014, 05:13 AM
Ray since 1998 when Suharto stepped down have you seen any of these turn to a strongman tendencies in Indonesia that you say are inherent in Muslim culture?

Just a note on Indonesia, and even Malaysia. The SEA region was under Hindu influence for centuries long before Islam was born, or even before Christianity was born. The influence can still be seen: the national airlines Garuda, is named after a creature from Hindu mythology. Bali is still Hindu majority. In comparison, the various brands of Islam (and the so-called Muslim culture) in the region, is more diluted than what is found elsewhere.

Other factors to consider in terms of the power structure within countries in the region. Ethnic Chinese or their descendents who intermarried locally, control the vast majority of the business interested throughout Indonesia (and Thailand). The economic control of the Chinese minority is lesser in Malaysia and Philippines, but their slice of the economic pie is far larger than what their portion of the population might suggest. The Chinese minority originate from the southern Chinese coast, descendents of labourers and businessmen. By and large, few of them converted to Islam.

Historically and till today, the Indonesian archipelago is dominated by Java, the most populous and richest island. The popular perception is that the Javanese are business at heart, no doubt due to the region's geography and trade (namely spice, historically) passing through the region. Due to Java being the center of power, the Javanese arts and culture is generally viewed as the most refined.

From my point of view, the need for a strongman in Indonesia is more about suppressing regionalism (eg. Aceh) for economic reasons, than about one group/ tribe proving their point over another.

carl
06-14-2014, 05:35 AM
What does JPEL mean?

Ray
06-14-2014, 05:41 AM
Obama says no combat troops to Iraq; U.S. weighs airstrikes

No troops to Iraq, but other options are being considered.

That was President Barack Obama's message Friday in response to the lightning advance by Sunni militant fighters in Iraq that could threaten the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki........

Pressure for the United States to provide military support to Iraq's struggling government has increased, with conservative Republicans blaming Obama for creating a security vacuum in 2011 by pulling out U.S. troops.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/iraq-us/


What is the predominant opinion in the US about how to solve the issue and stop this 'invasion'?

Obama cannot go back on the pledge to end US involvement in Iraq.

I wonder how many Americans, at the time when Obama made the pledge and acted on it, would endorse the Republican claim that Obama created a 'security vacuum' implying that he should not have withdrawn.

The manner in which the ISIS is moving in, the greater the delay in acting, would only make the situation wretched.

If no troops are to be used, then should Drones not be used before Iraq is lost to the fundamentalists?

The uncertainty as to what will happen to Iraq is only pushing up oil prices and that would lead to inflation.


Uncertainty over Iraq pushes oil price to three-month high
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/12/iraq-oil-price-three-month-high-isis-militants


It will also water down the effect the Western sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. Russian oil will be in high demand to offset the loss of Iraqi oil, which has the second largest oilfields in the world, with the added advantage of being 'sweet' oil.


But he clearly indicated that plans are being drawn up to give support to the Iraqi military. That would most likely be aerial support and there were reports of the Pentagon preparing to order the George HW Bush aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf this weekend.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-obama-says-united-states-will-not-send-in-troops-but-will-play-its-part-9535810.html


What effect would one aircraft carrier have?

carl
06-14-2014, 05:57 AM
Ray:

The drones will be of no use unless they can be directed to a target. Unless we put people on the ground in Iraq to help with that they would be useless. Mr. Obama won't put people on the ground, but he might send in various drones to make 6 o'clock news strikes. So I would not be surprised to see us send in drones whose missions are to look good for the camera.

Ray
06-14-2014, 06:25 AM
Ray since 1998 when Suharto stepped down have you seen any of these turn to a strongman tendencies in Indonesia that you say are inherent in Muslim culture?

Indonesia is uniquely different.

It is because of the unique syncretic mix of culture, they being Santri, Abagan and Priyayi.

Santri is the practice of orthodox Islam, who are basically urban and who go to the Mosque, read the Quar'an and follow Sharia.

The Abagan tend to be rural people who have absorbed both the Hindu and Muslim ways and are sort of animist, if you will, and who follow folk tradition, to include beliefs that centres on spirits, magic, and the ceremonial feast or salametan .

The Priyayi are those who follow Hindu Javanese traditions.

Indonesia's political history would give an idea of how Indonesia functions and why it is different.

The Santri played a the key role in Indonesian Nationalist movements, and formed the strongest opposition to President Suharto's New Order army-based administration.

In contrast, the Abangan have tended to follow the prevailing political wind; they supported Sukarno's overt nationalism, while during Suharto's subsequent presidency, they loyally voted for his Golkar party. Poorer Abangan areas became strongholds of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) in stark opposition to the orthodox Muslim Santri. The cultural divisions descended into bloody conflict in 1965/66 when Santri were opposed to communists, many of whom were from Abangan streams.

For further details, see

Elections and Politics in Indonesia

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kPju6sMoq5IC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=Indonesian+population+Santri+and+Abangan&source=bl&ots=FIc3yw-AkX&sig=jt3iyV_XI6_xYtUOR01cTh2aF14&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-tebU9LOB5CfugSLj4Io&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBw

SANTRI - ABANGAN DICHOTOMY IN TODAY INDONESIA: RECONSIDERED

http://sudirmansetiono.blogspot.in/2009/06/santri-abangan-dichotomy-in-today.html

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 06:32 AM
Does anyone know why the Iraqi military didn't resist? Maliki claims it was a conspiracy, and in this case that makes sense, but who were the conspirators and why?

Wild spectulating on my part.

- this ties into the Arab coalition trying to oust Assad. Supposedly Maliki has been helping Assad with his Iranian buddies.

- a state actor out of the region enabled ISIS and paid off Iraqi military leaders to not resist to put Iraqi oil at risk to strengthen their position in the global market, which makes boycotting them impractical.

I have absolutely no supporting evidence for either hypothesis, but for the better equipped and trained Iraqi army to just drop weapons and flee due to a irregular force advance doesn't add up.

Bill---here is my theory---conspiracy doubt it---the Malaki army units based in the Sunni heartland have been always Shia units and there have been increasing massive complaints by the Snni locals that they have been acting like an occupation army--bribes, corruption, indiscriminate arrests for release money, targeted killings---exactly what the US Army saw repeatedly from the new Iraqi army but we looked the other way again a COIN thing.

The attacks by ISIS were of the swarming nature which is something we also saw in especially Diyala and the Sunni heartland and they were extremely successful even against say the 1st Cav in Baqubah.

In fact swarming attacks are extremely effective if carried out by aggressive small units---in Tirkit the attacks came from all directions at the same time, were violent and fast--the Iraqi army trained in the US fashion was simply not prepared for it---and ISIS then uses violence to hype the attack meaning the instant killing of prisoners or execution style killing to ramp up the psywar effects of the attacks.

There is something in the manner and fashion of these attacks that smacks of military training and field leadership---thus my comments back to al Duri and the Military Council and yes he did work often in the past with AQI.

So if one is viewed by the population to be an occupation army, and you are Shia do you fight and die defending Sunnis or simply flee and live for another day---you still will be paid whether you fight or not is the current motto of the Iraqi army. There is massive corruption and theft in the current Iraqi army and ghost units where higher officers collect the pay for the entire ghost unit etc.

So in effect they had become a hallow army---looks great in parading falls apart when attacked.

AQI has always pushed the ethnic conflict---the question is can al Duri and the Sunni tribes control ISIS--I think they can as they fight just as well as does ISIS and they are defending their heartland.

There was always chatter that KSA was funneling monies to al Duri and the Islamic Army in Iraq which I and others believed to be true as we traced 100 USD bills first to money washers in the Kuwait City Gold Market area and then on to the KSA.

The RSA has been at war with Iran in Syria and getting the foreign Shia fighters to pull back into Iraq which was done and creating a second front to keep Iran engaged in is a smart move whoever is behind it. It also places Iraqi oil fields in danger thus the oil jumping to 111 USDs yesterday so the ME oil producers are earning a little extra and that is always good for them. Now rearmed with heavy weapons and 114s/MRAPs and AAA and artillery and heavy combat experience and far fewer foreign Shia fighters---there will be new developments coming out of Syria in the coming months. Remember they also released 4500 Sunni prisoners for an extra fighting boost.

The wild card are the Turks now that ISIS originally their ally has actually taken Turk prisoners (48). The Kurds will push back into the "disputed areas" where they have always wanted to push the green line to nothing new there put to go to open warfare with ISIS-doubt it.

We need to stay of this fray as anything we do right now will be viewed by the Sunni to be proof of our open ended support for Malaki and the Shia and in the end if we assist we still will have no long term influence.

Bill---there is though a second option the KSA and Russian private deal meaning we hold your oil/gas prices high in exchange for dropping Assad fell through again privately---just maybe the KSA released the dogs of war to both rearm the Syrian fighters when the West did not and to send a hello back to Russia.---just a thought.

Ray
06-14-2014, 06:33 AM
Ray:

The drones will be of no use unless they can be directed to a target. Unless we put people on the ground in Iraq to help with that they would be useless. Mr. Obama won't put people on the ground, but he might send in various drones to make 6 o'clock news strikes. So I would not be surprised to see us send in drones whose missions are to look good for the camera.

I presume it could be done the same way as it is being done in Pakistan.

I daresay that the US withdrew from Iraq, after a high cost in human and financial terms, would not have cultivated and organised a humint that is active in Iraq.

Therefore, would it be incorrect to surmise that the US can use drones, even if they do not wish to put boots on the ground.

What do you think is the aim of sending the aircraft carrier?

Hoping for a commodore Perry repeat? :D

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 07:10 AM
Indonesia is uniquely different.

It is because of the unique syncretic mix of culture, they being Santri, Abagan and Priyayi.

Santri is the practice of orthodox Islam, who are basically urban and who go to the Mosque, read the Quar'an and follow Sharia.

The Abagan tend to be rural people who have absorbed both the Hindu and Muslim ways and are sort of animist, if you will, and who follow folk tradition, to include beliefs that centres on spirits, magic, and the ceremonial feast or salametan .

The Priyayi are those who follow Hindu Javanese traditions.

Indonesia's political history would give an idea of how Indonesia functions and why it is different.

The Santri played a the key role in Indonesian Nationalist movements, and formed the strongest opposition to President Suharto's New Order army-based administration.

In contrast, the Abangan have tended to follow the prevailing political wind; they supported Sukarno's overt nationalism, while during Suharto's subsequent presidency, they loyally voted for his Golkar party. Poorer Abangan areas became strongholds of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) in stark opposition to the orthodox Muslim Santri. The cultural divisions descended into bloody conflict in 1965/66 when Santri were opposed to communists, many of whom were from Abangan streams.

For further details, see

Elections and Politics in Indonesia

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kPju6sMoq5IC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=Indonesian+population+Santri+and+Abangan&source=bl&ots=FIc3yw-AkX&sig=jt3iyV_XI6_xYtUOR01cTh2aF14&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-tebU9LOB5CfugSLj4Io&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBw

SANTRI - ABANGAN DICHOTOMY IN TODAY INDONESIA: RECONSIDERED

http://sudirmansetiono.blogspot.in/2009/06/santri-abangan-dichotomy-in-today.html

Totally agree to the comments--a whole different world developed there and could if needed be a model for the ME ethnic groups if they wanted a model which they do not currently want.

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 07:17 AM
What is the predominant opinion in the US about how to solve the issue and stop this 'invasion'?

Obama cannot go back on the pledge to end US involvement in Iraq.

I wonder how many Americans, at the time when Obama made the pledge and acted on it, would endorse the Republican claim that Obama created a 'security vacuum' implying that he should not have withdrawn.

The manner in which the ISIS is moving in, the greater the delay in acting, would only make the situation wretched.

If no troops are to be used, then should Drones not be used before Iraq is lost to the fundamentalists?

The uncertainty as to what will happen to Iraq is only pushing up oil prices and that would lead to inflation.



It will also water down the effect the Western sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. Russian oil will be in high demand to offset the loss of Iraqi oil, which has the second largest oilfields in the world, with the added advantage of being 'sweet' oil.



What effect would one aircraft carrier have?

With a country having 60% Shia and Iran next door there is no danger of Iraq ever going Sunni fundamentalist any time so---the Shia will not give up the current power they did not have for the last 60 or so years and they fight well as we learned via JAM and the Special Groups and Mahdi.

There is though a danger that Iraq splits into three separate countries and now the Sunni triangle has oil reserves thus a chance to develop alone if needed as did the Kurds.

Malaki was a fool for not sharing the wealth and reaching out--but he was always a dictator at heart and yes US military and State Dept types who were around him hid that fact as it endangered the overall mission which was to get out under the guise of "democracy".

Anything Obama does that kills Sunni civilians in the process will be viewed as a direct support to the Shia and Malaki and wins him absolutely nothing with the Sunni who are still at the heart of any solution there if anything it would stiffen their fighting as they will message to the Islamic world see it is the Sunni against the Shai and they are supported by the Americans.

Sunni's are still the majority Islamic grouping worldwide.

Bill Moore
06-14-2014, 07:21 AM
What does JPEL mean?

Joint prioritized effects list

Nothing more than a convoluted targeting list using EBOOKS methodology. We have failed miserably since adopting EBO true believers are still out there in force. The process sounds logical but is deeply flawed.

Ray
06-14-2014, 08:08 AM
With a country having 60% Shia and Iran next door there is no danger of Iraq ever going Sunni fundamentalist any time so---the Shia will not give up the current power they did not have for the last 60 or so years and they fight well as we learned via JAM and the Special Groups and Mahdi.

There is though a danger that Iraq splits into three separate countries and now the Sunni triangle has oil reserves thus a chance to develop alone if needed as did the Kurds.

Malaki was a fool for not sharing the wealth and reaching out--but he was always a dictator at heart and yes US military and State Dept types who were around him hid that fact as it endangered the overall mission which was to get out under the guise of "democracy".

Anything Obama does that kills Sunni civilians in the process will be viewed as a direct support to the Shia and Malaki and wins him absolutely nothing with the Sunni who are still at the heart of any solution there if anything it would stiffen their fighting as they will message to the Islamic world see it is the Sunni against the Shai and they are supported by the Americans.

Sunni's are still the majority Islamic grouping worldwide.

Just a question for your consideration since it appears that you have operated in the Middle East.

In the Middle East and Iran belt where oil is produced appears to be predominantly populated by the Shia. Is that correct?

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/middle-east-military-and-oil-map.jpg

If so, what is interplay between geopolitics and geostrategy in these events that are unfolding and did they impinge on the earlier events and its fallout thereof?

My apologies for this rather large map. (If it could be made smaller, then it will be fine. I am not very computer savvy).

ganulv
06-14-2014, 12:28 PM
Indonesia is uniquely different.
Yes, Indonesia is uniquely different. Just like every other country.

Ray
06-14-2014, 01:51 PM
Yes, Indonesia is uniquely different. Just like every other country.

Is that one liner a statement of fact or your failure to grasp the issue under discussion that elicited my post and the statement?

Apparently, you have missed the point. Or maybe, you wanted to state something but lost the chain of thought.

Indeed all countries are unique. Is there anything that is unique in that statement of yours that every country is has unique singularity? Forgive me, I must have missed the point.

However, if I can clarify, the point under discussion was why is Indonesia different from other Islamic countries in its interpretation of Islam and why it lacked the fervour that other had.

I merely indicated why so.

Now, if you have some enlightening discourse to set us on a course that is different and what I failed to understand, I assure you I shall be delighted if you can clear the cobwebs.

Ray
06-14-2014, 03:11 PM
Teetering on the edge

Meanwhile, the uncertainties in Iraq are causing international oil prices to rise, not least because hitherto accessible oil fields in the northern provinces could be cut off if fighting starts there. In sum, Iraq now faces a power vacuum which could be extremely dangerous, and although the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has expressed his shock at the recent events, it is highly unlikely that any proposal for intervention will be put to the U.N. Security Council. Yet if the international community seems not to want to intervene, others will very probably take over, and Iraq now faces not only civil war but potential disintegration.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/teetering-on-the-edge/article6112271.ece?homepage=true

carl
06-14-2014, 03:14 PM
I presume it could be done the same way as it is being done in Pakistan.

I daresay that the US withdrew from Iraq, after a high cost in human and financial terms, would not have cultivated and organised a humint that is active in Iraq.

Therefore, would it be incorrect to surmise that the US can use drones, even if they do not wish to put boots on the ground.

What do you think is the aim of sending the aircraft carrier?

Hoping for a commodore Perry repeat? :D

I figure in Pakistan we hit what the Pak Army/ISI allows us to hit, so that doesn't apply.

I would also be shocked into momentary catatonia if we had any kind of humint network or networks in Iraq. This latest thing came like a bolt from the blue. We do machines, not people. Humming is people. That doesn't mean we won't make drone strikes. It just means they will be blind and for PR.

The aim of sending a carrier is so the administration can say they sent a carrier. It makes them look fierce without having to actually do anything.

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 03:34 PM
What does JPEL mean?

carl----Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) targeting list process including the nomination process. ... targeting packets, etc---it is the targeting process used at a joint level for nomination, selection and then physical targeting of a high value individual and or target either via non lethal or lethal means.

Lethal is kill or capture, non lethal could be simply a poster placed in town ---saying hey we know you are here so stop the crap down to hovering an Apache 30 feet directly over this house for 10 or 15 minutes.

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 04:03 PM
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/teetering-on-the-edge/article6112271.ece?homepage=true

Ray--reference the question concerning oil belts and the Shia---in Iraq the majority of the bigger fields were in the south of Iraq and yes in Shia areas, and in the north where they fall under Kurdish control which has led to a minor fight between Malaki and the Kurds because the Kurds released oil drilling contracts without Malaki approval and are shipping oil out of the Kurdish areas earning a solid revenue for the Kurds who are not sharing with Baghdad.

The Sunni triangle was for the most part oil empty and that led to the open disputes between the Sunni and Malaki over oil revnues the Sunni were not getting for their development.

Then surprise surprise for Malaki---several rather large oil deposits were located, drilled, and the results were extremely good which now could give the Sunni provinces an oil revenue stream they have been missing under Malaki.

What we do not discuss in this thread is not the oil but the good old Silk Road that runs from AFG through Iran, then over Mandali and through Baqubah on to Syria and from Syria into Lebanon.

A large under noticed fight between the Shia and Sunni is actually over control of the old Silk Road ie who controls the Road controls the ME.

Khomeini spoke often about the "Green Crescent" containment theory---meaning there are Shia ranging from AFG through Iran , Iraq , Syria and into Lebanon thus building a wall between the Shia and the Sunni' protecting the Shia.

During his lifetime he did everything possible to implement the Green Crescent theory. Actually if you go back and read just how the Hezbollah ended up in Lebanon there is something to the Khomeini concept.

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 04:54 PM
An interesting read on funding to ISIS.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

Ulenspiegel
06-14-2014, 05:05 PM
Sorry Outlaw,

during their history the SilkRout(s) were only useful when one country controlled a large chunk of them, their last height was when the Khans could maintain the Pax Mongolia. However, the Silk Routes became quite meaningless with larger ships and later railroads, it is nothing worth fighting for sice 1600 AD.

JWing
06-14-2014, 05:14 PM
to the comment whether JRTN can control ISIS. Simple answer no. For the last four months ISIS and JRTN have been getting into gun fights in Salahaddin and Diyala over the Islamic State demanding their loyalty. JRTN has consistently denied that it has any problems with ISIS despite these clashes which to me is cowing in the face of the larger, more well armed and organized ISIS. Reports out of Iraq have ISIS organizing the assault upon Mosul with other groups including JRTN and then afterwards firmly asserting control. Gave JRTN 24 hrs to remove any and all pictures of Saddam from Mosul or else. ISIS is also setting up the administration of Mosul and giving orders to the other groups. For now the sweeping success have subdued the internal rivalries within the insurgency but they're sure to come back. The other groups are just far smaller than ISIS these days.

JWing
06-14-2014, 05:18 PM
Yesterday Baiji oil refinery finally fell to pro-ISIS tribes. They have kept all the workers on line and Baghdad has not cut off the oil supply. ISIS also controls two small oil fields in northern Iraq. With the administration it's trying to set up in Mosul and its on-going experience in Syria we're seeing the expansion of an actual ISIS administrative unit being created in northern Iraq right now.

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 06:16 PM
Sorry Outlaw,

during their history the SilkRout(s) were only useful when one country controlled a large chunk of them, their last height was when the Khans could maintain the Pax Mongolia. However, the Silk Routes became quite meaningless with larger ships and later railroads, it is nothing worth fighting for sice 1600 AD.

Ulenspiegel---then the virtual "control" via religion of a Shia global "community" stretching from AFG through Iran, thru Iraq and on to Syria and into Lebanon following the Silk Road means what exactly? Notice how the Silk Road follows the "Green Crescent" or global Shia "communities".

The following are comments from Khomeini which many in Europe and the US often do not read nor have see before;

“We have often proclaimed this truth in our domestic and foreign policy, namely that we have set as our goal the world-wide spread of the influence of Islam and the suppression of the rule of the world conquerors … We wish to cause the corrupt roots of Zionism, capitalism and Communism to wither throughout the world. We wish, as does God almighty, to destroy the systems which are based on these three foundations, and to promote the Islamic order of the Prophet … in the world of arrogance.”

“We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry `There is no God but God` resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

“Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution.”

These comments were the background comments in his concept of the "Green Crescent".

These are thoughts and ideas currently floating in the ME concerning the "Green Crescent".

The king of Jordan has worried aloud about the rise of a “Shiite crescent” in the Arab east that would ally with Shiite Iran and menace the traditional monarchies.

Amman worries that the new Shiite axis of Baghdad and Tehran will have natural allies in a Syria dominated by Alawis (an offshoot of Shiites) and in the Shiite Hezbollah Party of southern Lebanon. Shiites may now be over 40 percent of the Lebanese population, and they will likely form a majority of
the country within 20 years. A Shiite Iraq would also inevitably establish ties with the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the Shiite plurality in the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. (Ever wondered why the KSA is totally against an Iranian hegemony?)

The old sectarian balance in the eastern Arab world, with Sunni rulers and Shiite ruled, is coming unraveled as Shiite masses are mobilized into new forms of sectarian politics.

The Khomeinists were deeply disappointed that no Arab state adopted their new system, since their aspirations had been pan-Islamic. Until 2003, Iranian Khomeinist influences had been largely contained in the Arab world, although Tehran had a foothold in Lebanon through the radical Hezbollah
Party. With religious Shiite parties now operating freely in Iraq, and even influencing government policy and the wording of the new constitution, Khomeini’s ideas have finally entered a phase of wider practical influence.

Some in the ME will privately say that the overthrowing of a secular nationalist Sunni leader who was a buffer nation unleased a tidal wave that we are now currently seeing in the ME-there is some truth in this.

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 07:20 PM
Why is it that the media pundits and RAND never seems to "see" and "understand" the reality called Iraq and that when the US overthrew a secular nationalist Sunni leader who was acting however badly as a buffer state to Iran the tides of change and the dogs of war were unleased in the ME and it will take years for that tidal wave to work it's way through the ME and the Shia "crescent" or as Khomeini called it the "Green Crescent".

http://www.stripes.com/news/iraq-army-s-collapse-may-hold-lessons-for-the-future-1.289017

Khomeini saw this coming in 1979. Why did we not see it coming?

OUTLAW 09
06-14-2014, 07:37 PM
to the comment whether JRTN can control ISIS. Simple answer no. For the last four months ISIS and JRTN have been getting into gun fights in Salahaddin and Diyala over the Islamic State demanding their loyalty. JRTN has consistently denied that it has any problems with ISIS despite these clashes which to me is cowing in the face of the larger, more well armed and organized ISIS. Reports out of Iraq have ISIS organizing the assault upon Mosul with other groups including JRTN and then afterwards firmly asserting control. Gave JRTN 24 hrs to remove any and all pictures of Saddam from Mosul or else. ISIS is also setting up the administration of Mosul and giving orders to the other groups. For now the sweeping success have subdued the internal rivalries within the insurgency but they're sure to come back. The other groups are just far smaller than ISIS these days.

JWing---notice the similarities between how the IAI interacted initially with QJBR and then AQI after AQI had killed several IAI cell leaders---exact same fashion. They called a truce then celebrated together and went back to work still leery of each other. JRTN has deeper ties to the tribes thus in the end potentially more fighters if needed but right now remaining neutral is a game as ISIS has to fight a two front war and that will thin the forces over time especially if the Kurds move back into the disputed zones of the green line and into Diyala again. We still have to see how the Turks respond to ISIS taking Turkish prisoners especially if they cut the rat lines ISIS has built on the Turkish border.

We also have to see if the Quds Forces that are streaming into Iraq based on street rumors of about 10,000 eventually due into Baghdad after the first 150 have arrived---move into the Sunni triangle in full force which then makes it a true Shia/Sunni clash then one will have the KSA, Kuwait, and Qatar getting in deeper or do they remain and simply defend Baghdad.

The division of labor you mention is a common feature from the previous fighting years nothing new there. Suspect the old 1920 guys who were really just guns for hire will be joining into the JRTN---the old guard Ansar al Sunnah probably merged as well into JRTN has they due to combat loses in 2006 thru 2007 had to bring in more Arab fighters vs fewer Kurds.

Just guessing many of the tribal fighters, the old 1920, and Sunnah will eventually merge into JRTN who still has a healthy funding stream from al Duri and the KSA--many believed that the IAI was more secular due to the military officers and state security but they were not---many were hidden Salafists.

Do you know or have heard who is holding out well in the street to street fighting in Fulluja---ISIS or JRTN or the tribes and or a mix of all of the above?

Also who has moved into the Diyala river basin where the Thunder Runs occurred---Zarqawi's old stomping grounds.

Pretty sure JRTN can live without a few Saddam photos if the Shia are driven out of Sunni provinces.

Anything to the report of US contractors being trapped at Balad airbase?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1298366/reports-from-iraq-claim-100s-of-us-contractors-trapped-by-isis-terrorists-at-balad-airbase-breaking/

davidbfpo
06-14-2014, 10:21 PM
Outlaw09:
Anything to the report of US contractors being trapped at Balad airbase?

Twitter has a few Tweeets from today, which suggests that 200 US civilian contractors for the Iraqi state are @ Balad AFB (due to be the home of F16s). The source is this:http://www.special-ops.org/200-u-s-contractors-surrounded-jihadists-iraq/

It appears that a few hundred staff were flown out earlier, leavinga smaller group behind. See:http://myemail.constantcontact.com/-Breaking--Americans-on-the-run--Balad-AFB-Being-Evacuated--100-left-behind--6-14-14-.html?soid=1109942942085&aid=AXrVSkmPbCw

davidbfpo
06-14-2014, 10:43 PM
Some grim photos of ISIS prisoners before and after execution on Twitter just. Earlier there were reports of over a thousand Shia ISF being executed, with a larger number of Sunni prisoners released.

Not unexpected given the history of ISIS.

1) transport pic.twitter.com/wlqrm1wTuF (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/pic.twitter.com/wlqrm1wTuF)
2) pic.twitter.com/QhLW8G8mGf (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/pic.twitter.com/QhLW8G8mGf)
pic.twitter.com/oSUiDh1K4X (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/pic.twitter.com/oSUiDh1K4X)
pic.twitter.com/oK1hBJU9Lh (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/pic.twitter.com/oK1hBJU9Lh)
pic.twitter.com/Uo6V1hxn5B (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/pic.twitter.com/Uo6V1hxn5B)
pic.twitter.com/i1nZMPAxl7 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/pic.twitter.com/i1nZMPAxl7)

Dayuhan
06-15-2014, 01:38 AM
We need to stay of this fray as anything we do right now will be viewed by the Sunni to be proof of our open ended support for Malaki and the Shia and in the end if we assist we still will have no long term influence.

With that I agree, though isn't the guy's name Maliki, not Malaki?

I think we'd also do well to recognize that Saddam would have fallen sooner or later, to internal factors, external factors, or just plain age. All dictators do. Civil war along sectarian lines was going to be a probability in any post-Saddam scenario. The American mistake IMO was in embracing the illusion that this could be forestalled by "installing democracy". That was never going to work, and was a mistake from the start.


Bill---there is though a second option the KSA and Russian private deal meaning we hold your oil/gas prices high in exchange for dropping Assad fell through again privately---just maybe the KSA released the dogs of war to both rearm the Syrian fighters when the West did not and to send a hello back to Russia.---just a thought.

What "KSA and Russian private deal"? That supposed "deal" was anything but private, it was proposed last August and was never consummated.


A large under noticed fight between the Shia and Sunni is actually over control of the old Silk Road ie who controls the Road controls the ME.

Bollocks. As Ulenspiegel correctly points out, the "Silk Road" has been irrelevant for centuries.


Ulenspiegel---then the virtual "control" via religion of a Shia global "community" stretching from AFG through Iran, thru Iraq and on to Syria and into Lebanon following the Silk Road means what exactly? Notice how the Silk Road follows the "Green Crescent" or global Shia "communities".

The "Silk Road" doesn't follow Shi'a communities. That's one end of the Silk Road. The whole concept of the "Silk Road" was focused on land transport of trade goods from east to west. It was rendered irrelevant by maritime transport; in the age of the container ship it is long extinct.

What I see happening is something many people predicted in the early stages of the Iraq operation: the dissolution of Iraq into an Iranian-dominated Shi'a sector, a Sunni segment with militants and tribal leaders fighting for control, and the Kurds grabbing whatever they can hold. Given that Iraq was only ever held together by main force, that was always a lively possibility. I can't really blame the current administration for that, because I think the Iraq that was passed to them by their predecessors was simply not a sustainable entity. They had few options beyond patching the leaks with money and men and handing off the same unsustainable entity to their successors or pulling out and facing the inevitable.

JWing
06-15-2014, 03:08 AM
The insurgent situation today in Iraq is much different then before. It is much more homogenous. Serious analysts estimate that ISIS is responsible for anywhere from 75-90% of all attacks in Iraq. Some groups almost completely disappeared. The Islamic Army is an example. This week was the first time in 2-3 years that it claimed that it carried out an independent operation. 1920 Brigades, Hamas Iraq, etc. those groups are trying to make a comeback but were basically dead by 2011. ISIS by far is the largest, most well armed and effective group. It also controls large swaths of Syria which it administers like a state. After ISIS Ansar al-Sunna is likely the second biggest. It too sent fighters to Syria. It is closer to Al Qaeda central and a rival of ISIS. The Baathist Naqshibandi (JRTN) is third. It has cooperated with ISIS before but is really in its shadow as the constant attacks by ISIS upon its members over the last few months show. All these groups are trying to expand into the security vacuum but to say that they can make any serious challenge to ISIS is not possible right now. They are just very small compared to the Islamic State.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 08:11 AM
With that I agree, though isn't the guy's name Maliki, not Malaki?

I think we'd also do well to recognize that Saddam would have fallen sooner or later, to internal factors, external factors, or just plain age. All dictators do. Civil war along sectarian lines was going to be a probability in any post-Saddam scenario. The American mistake IMO was in embracing the illusion that this could be forestalled by "installing democracy". That was never going to work, and was a mistake from the start.



What "KSA and Russian private deal"? That supposed "deal" was anything but private, it was proposed last August and was never consummated.



Bollocks. As Ulenspiegel correctly points out, the "Silk Road" has been irrelevant for centuries.



The "Silk Road" doesn't follow Shi'a communities. That's one end of the Silk Road. The whole concept of the "Silk Road" was focused on land transport of trade goods from east to west. It was rendered irrelevant by maritime transport; in the age of the container ship it is long extinct.

What I see happening is something many people predicted in the early stages of the Iraq operation: the dissolution of Iraq into an Iranian-dominated Shi'a sector, a Sunni segment with militants and tribal leaders fighting for control, and the Kurds grabbing whatever they can hold. Given that Iraq was only ever held together by main force, that was always a lively possibility. I can't really blame the current administration for that, because I think the Iraq that was passed to them by their predecessors was simply not a sustainable entity. They had few options beyond patching the leaks with money and men and handing off the same unsustainable entity to their successors or pulling out and facing the inevitable.


Dayuhan---really before you start making comments show me you fully understand Khomeini, his writings and his speeches--heck he even influenced AQI under Zarqawi and now the ISIS with his expansion of Islam speeches which many commenters/pundits have never taken the time to fully read and understand.

Have you even walked the Silk Road?, dug up the IEDs on the Silk Road or chased Sunni insurgents down the Silk Road ---sketch an outline of the road and then in turn sketch the outline of the Shia global community and then tell me they do not match---heck even trace the towns in Iraq it ran through starting in Mandali and now especially go back and sketch in the towns exactly today where the Sunni tribes, Sunni insurgent groups and ISIS are sitting.

Notice the sketched outline of the Road it in fact fit the towns of the Sunni triangle?

By the way if the rumor of Iranian Quds coming into Baghdad is correct in the numbers of say 10K--they are not going to be airlifted in rather they will come via a road---namely on the Silk Road out of Mandali over Baqubah and then into Baghdad from the east. That my friend is why the Road is relevant. It is roughly a six/seven hour trip if one is not dodging IEDs and depending these days on the quality of the roadway and any interference by ISIS.

This sentence below indicates you fully do not understand current events in the world especially the ME.

"Bollocks. As Ulenspiegel correctly points out, the "Silk Road" has been irrelevant for centuries."

See Dayuhna what you and Ulenspiegel "define" as irrelevant is in fact relevant for the conflict between two regional hegomonists the KSA and Iran.

Glad you at least admit that the "private" conversations between the KSA and Russia in protecting the Russian oil prices in turn for kicking out Assad did in fact occur---Russia did not accept simply because they feel Assad is now in a secure place and they get to keep their naval port in Syria.? What would the impact have been. You realize until I sent you the link into the discussion even you "knew" nothing about it.

Now Dayuhan admit you would have never known about the conversation as you rightly state it was private---just how much of the international media "knew" about it and say what if it had been "accepted"

See Dayuhan here is another problem---regardless of what the world thinks and or does not think about Saddam 1) he was a Sunni secularist, 2) he "held" Iraq together, and lastly from a geostrategic view 3) he was a "buffer" between the Sunni and Shia and via Iraq Iran was boxed in. Notice the word "secularist" critical these days in a "radicalized Salafist world.

The US with the overthrow of Saddam released the Iranian Shia to expand and rival the KSA within the Muslim world and the regional hegemony game began then notice how often the term "Shia Crescent" starts getting mentioned in the ME.

The US with the 2005 elections "allowed" the first global democratically elected Shia government to take control of a major former enemy/ME country AND again back to the Silk Road fit the missing link of the countries the Road runs through ie Iraq.

Again you need someday to walk the Road especially from Mandali on the Iranian border over Baqubah, Fulluja and then up to the Syrian border---then walk it from the Syrian border to Lebanon and then at the end of the Road look back and tell me you do not "see" Shia in the AFG at one end of the Road and the Shia in Lebanon at the other end of the Road.

It amazes me that mention/Ulenspiegel state "the Road is irrelevant and there is nothing to the Green Crescent" when the King of Jordan says just the opposite.

Who should we listen to?

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 08:40 AM
The insurgent situation today in Iraq is much different then before. It is much more homogenous. Serious analysts estimate that ISIS is responsible for anywhere from 75-90% of all attacks in Iraq. Some groups almost completely disappeared. The Islamic Army is an example. This week was the first time in 2-3 years that it claimed that it carried out an independent operation. 1920 Brigades, Hamas Iraq, etc. those groups are trying to make a comeback but were basically dead by 2011. ISIS by far is the largest, most well armed and effective group. It also controls large swaths of Syria which it administers like a state. After ISIS Ansar al-Sunna is likely the second biggest. It too sent fighters to Syria. It is closer to Al Qaeda central and a rival of ISIS. The Baathist Naqshibandi (JRTN) is third. It has cooperated with ISIS before but is really in its shadow as the constant attacks by ISIS upon its members over the last few months show. All these groups are trying to expand into the security vacuum but to say that they can make any serious challenge to ISIS is not possible right now. They are just very small compared to the Islamic State.

JWing---here is where we differ in views--spent way to much of my time in Iraq interrogating Ansar al Sunnah types in the Baqubah area especially after we rolled up the single largest group in late 2005 which had been there since our coming into the area in late 2003. At that time and up through late 2006 after they were weakened from the constant fighting-- yes they maintained a close working relationship with their "religious neighbor" AQI, but what was more interesting even closer ties to the IAI as the IAI provided a high level of new technology for the IED fight to the ASA cells.

The AQI while yes far more aggressive in nature did not "control" territory in Diyala while they could not count on the tribes but surprisingly the tribes accepted ASA and IAI. Territorial control was always in the hands of the IAI/ASA and 1920 with heavy funding flowing from al Duri who had three safe houses in Diyala and regardless of what the US IC thought was coming and going with ease from Syria.

The working relationship for the groupings was AQI provided the intel tips/funding for a specific attack to the IAI who then conducted the intel collection and planning, then the IAI approached ASA as the lead strike unit and the IAI in turn contacted the 1920 for the foot soldiers. At the same time AQI was far more into the suicide bombing side and the IAI and ASA felt it was a waste of good manpower---much as is going on now with the car bombings in Baghdad which seem to be more VBIED attacks mixed with key suicide attacks which seems to indicate ISIS learned from their past mistakes. Independent of the AQI campaign plan the IAI/ASA had their own campaign plans which at times gave an impression of a far larger insurgency and often misled the IC on actual strengths.

Did they "argue" and on occasions kill each other yes, were some or less religious than others-yes they were--but did they fight for a common cause --yes they did. That was never fully understood by the US IC. Why---because of the common enemy the Shia and then the US or vice versa depending on what day of the week it was or what messaging video had been released.

My understanding of the IAI is based on a very long number of weeks of talking to the leader of the IAI who we "accidently" picked up in a sweep near Abu Ghraib---we had his 500 page handwritten journal which started three days after we arrived in Baghdad up to mid 2006, all of their core media release videos and a 15 minute interview with him and a Finnish journalist. He knew I had recognized him and I knew he knew---but did the national IC help out---not a single response in multiple messages out to them. From the lack of support one could today state it seemed as if they did not care and or were interested in allowing him back out.

I could never get the IC or national IC interested, nor interested in doing a formal translation of the entire document, nor a biometric study of his face and the journalist interview which by the way was a perfect match-- he walked out of Abu G three months later to never been seen again. Spent hours with my interpreter going over that journal and it was an eye opener in how the IAI had functioning since 1991.

And by the way he had a PhD in western Hebrew, spoke a beautiful Arabic, was really tall for an Arab, and had been an Iraqi Intelligence officer trained at the University of Baghdad and anyone knowing Iraqi ISI history knows the one cannot study the language of the "enemy" without approval from someone higher---by the way he still spoke a great Hebrew.

He walked just by the way as did the current ISIS leader did from Bucca in 2009 after we picked him up in Mosul in 2005. And we had no idea who the ISIS leader really was other than he had be picked up by JSOC.

IMO the same problem exists for the ISIS that existed in 2005/2006 for the AQI ---yes they were/are aggressive--but they still must control territory both in the triangle and in Syria which requires manpower so they will share the load and while it appears they control they will share much like they did in 2005 through 2008 especially in Diyala.

Especially if the Kurds get more aggressive around the perceived old green lines, the Qud Force comes in force and the Turks cut the rat runs to Syria and dodging drone strikes.

Firn
06-15-2014, 11:00 AM
---------------

Dayuhan and Ulenspiegel are correct that the Silk Road will never regain it's relative importance. It ran mostly on luxury goods which had a long life span and an attractive bulk/value ratio for slow, land-based transport. Think drugs and diamonds today. The current era is dominated by vast global value chains integrated by huge container ships on the physical side.

I will leave it there.

------------

Dayuhan
06-15-2014, 01:42 PM
Have you even walked the Silk Road?, dug up the IEDs on the Silk Road or chased Sunni insurgents down the Silk Road ---sketch an outline of the road and then in turn sketch the outline of the Shia global community and then tell me they do not match---heck even trace the towns in Iraq it ran through starting in Mandali and now especially go back and sketch in the towns exactly today where the Sunni tribes, Sunni insurgent groups and ISIS are sitting.

I've walked the other end... the end where the silk came from. Stop and ask yourself how it got the name "Silk Road". Where does silk come from? Hazard a guess. It's not anywhere in the Middle East.

The Silk Road was a conduit for the trade of goods from east to west. It is irrelevant because there is no more land based transit of goods from east to west, nor is there any reason for such transit or practical potential for such transit. No matter who controls the western end of what was once the "Silk Road" there still won't be any goods moving through. No silk, no spices, no mobile phones or tools or computers or cranes or any other thing. There's just no reason for them to move by land.

That territory may be strategically and economically significant in other ways. The roads are of course tactically and strategically relevant: roads always are - but as a Silk Road - as a conduit for the traffic of goods from east to west - it's meaningless. There aren't any goods to move. They're all on ships. There may indeed be some potential for intra-regional commerce and movement along portions of the old "Silk Road", but that's not a "Silk Road" any more. The whole identity and function of the "Silk Road" was in moving the products of the east to the markets of the west... and that's gone elsewhere, never to return.


Glad you at least admit that the "private" conversations between the KSA and Russia in protecting the Russian oil prices in turn for kicking out Assad did in fact occur---Russia did not accept simply because they feel Assad is now in a secure place and they get to keep their naval port in Syria.? What would the impact have been. You realize until I sent you the link into the discussion even you "knew" nothing about it.

Now Dayuhan admit you would have never known about the conversation as you rightly state it was private---just how much of the international media "knew" about it and say what if it had been "accepted"

You mean this "secret" conversation?

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

I know you've seen that article, because on another thread you cut/pasted directly from it in reference to the supposedly "secret" deal, though without citing it. That "secret" was leaked almost immediately, and the deal stopped on the spot.

The KSA doesn't "protect Russian oil prices", they protect their own price. Of course that means the Russians also benefit, but that's not the purpose. The Saudis will do all they can (quite a bit) to keep oil above $100 a barrel, because that's where they want it to be, for their own reasons. That of course keeps the price up for the Russians too, but that's not about "secret deals", that's just the Saudis lookin' out for #1.


See Dayuhan here is another problem---regardless of what the world thinks and or does not think about Saddam 1) he was a Sunni secularist, 2) he "held" Iraq together, and lastly from a geostrategic view 3) he was a "buffer" between the Sunni and Shia and via Iraq Iran was boxed in. Notice the word "secularist" critical these days in a "radicalized Salafist world.

The US with the overthrow of Saddam released the Iranian Shia to expand and rival the KSA within the Muslim world and the regional hegemony game began then notice how often the term "Shia Crescent" starts getting mentioned in the ME.

Yes, I know that. It's one of the reasons I thought the Iraq war was a bad idea from the start. Of course Saddam would eventually have fallen, if only to old age, and civil war and dissolution would be a strong possibility in any post-Saddam scenario. We just blundered in and jump-started the process, fired by the illusion of "installing democracy".

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 01:46 PM
---------------

Dayuhan and Ulenspiegel are correct that the Silk Road will never regain it's relative importance. It ran mostly on luxury goods which had a long life span and an attractive bulk/value ratio for slow, land-based transport. Think drugs and diamonds today. The current era is dominated by vast global value chains integrated by huge container ships on the physical side.

I will leave it there.

------------

Then we need to get Khomeini to redefine his statements concerning the "Green Crescent" and the King of Jordon to redefine his statements on the "Shia Crescent" and we then need to get the top Commander of the Quds Force to redefine his statements concerning the Shia global community he made two years ago in a rally in Tehran concerning the Silk Road.

Never did if I recall my comments state it had relevance for trade but it does have extreme significance for the concept of the "Green Crescent". It is though one heck of a smuggle route these days and always has been since 1600 by the way.

That is often the problem--some individuals hear and or read words and then jump with comments having never been there nor actually ever physically walked the Road nor know the names of towns along the Road that have significance say with the fighting now between the ISIS and Baghdad in say the town of Muqdadiyah.

Those towns of the Road that make up the Sunni triangle have relevance to those fighting there ---believe me and history makes up a lot of that significance.

Google the town name Muqdadiyah ---scenes of heavy fighting 2005 through 2009 between Shia, Sunni and on occasions Kurds with the US Army in the middle---check the significance of the town historically between the three groups and historically in Islam and Mohammed.

Google the historical Islamic significance of Mandeli, Muqdadiyah, Baqubah, Balad, Tikrit, and Mosul both from a Shia perspective and then from the Sunni perspective and then on top of it from a Kurdish/Arabic perspective. The Silk road became the preferred AQI and Sunni insurgency rat run out of Syria and into the Sunni triangle and that has no relevance?

Example of poor American understanding of that area and "ME history"---there was a historical figure from Muqdadiyah that if one looks at his name appears to be Shia but in fact was historically Arab Sunni tied to Mohammed ---in early 2006 a new insurgent group was setup in Baghdad, using that name as their new logo for recruiting purposes and pushed from there into Baqubah and when we captured their leader in Baqubah I had a hard time convincing the national level IC that in fact the group was Sunni not Shia based on the name and the significance of the name as tied to Muqdadiyah.

Now go back and trace the heavy US/Sunni/AQI/Shia fighting in those towns from 2004 through to 2010 and now with ISIS taking them over and then tie them to the comments of Khomenei and you will understand why I did not talk trade relevance.

Sometimes what we define as irrelevance has in the eyes of those that currently reside there a far deeper relevance.

Again trade in 1600 has nothing to do with the current geopolitics of the Sunni/Shia global clash and the various players in that clash and believe me religiously the Road has significance to those players.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 02:30 PM
I've walked the other end... the end where the silk came from. Stop and ask yourself how it got the name "Silk Road". Where does silk come from? Hazard a guess. It's not anywhere in the Middle East.

The Silk Road was a conduit for the trade of goods from east to west. It is irrelevant because there is no more land based transit of goods from east to west, nor is there any reason for such transit or practical potential for such transit. No matter who controls the western end of what was once the "Silk Road" there still won't be any goods moving through. No silk, no spices, no mobile phones or tools or computers or cranes or any other thing. There's just no reason for them to move by land.

That territory may be strategically and economically significant in other ways. The roads are of course tactically and strategically relevant: roads always are - but as a Silk Road - as a conduit for the traffic of goods from east to west - it's meaningless. There aren't any goods to move. They're all on ships. There may indeed be some potential for intra-regional commerce and movement along portions of the old "Silk Road", but that's not a "Silk Road" any more. The whole identity and function of the "Silk Road" was in moving the products of the east to the markets of the west... and that's gone elsewhere, never to return.



You mean this "secret" conversation?

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

I know you've seen that article, because on another thread you cut/pasted directly from it in reference to the supposedly "secret" deal, though without citing it. That "secret" was leaked almost immediately, and the deal stopped on the spot.

The KSA doesn't "protect Russian oil prices", they protect their own price. Of course that means the Russians also benefit, but that's not the purpose. The Saudis will do all they can (quite a bit) to keep oil above $100 a barrel, because that's where they want it to be, for their own reasons. That of course keeps the price up for the Russians too, but that's not about "secret deals", that's just the Saudis lookin' out for #1.



Yes, I know that. It's one of the reasons I thought the Iraq war was a bad idea from the start. Of course Saddam would eventually have fallen, if only to old age, and civil war and dissolution would be a strong possibility in any post-Saddam scenario. We just blundered in and jump-started the process, fired by the illusion of "installing democracy".

Dayuhan-- I have physically fought from the end of the Road starting in Lebanon in the 80s to the towns of Khalais, Muqdadiyah, Baqubah and Mandeli in 2005/2006/2007 up to the Iranian border itself.

Never once if you check my comments did I mention trade did I?

So let us get back to the significance of the Road with or without the word Silk and focus on the Sunni/Shia global clash that does in fact concern the "Road".

Comments I made to Firn concerning this misconception of trade follow for you to read and think about.

Then we need to get Khomeini to redefine his statements concerning the "Green Crescent" and the King of Jordon to redefine his statements on the "Shia Crescent" and we then need to get the top Commander of the Quds Force to redefine his statements concerning the Shia global community he made two years ago in a rally in Tehran concerning the "Road".

Never did if I recall my comments state it had relevance for trade but it does have extreme significance for the concept of the "Green Crescent". It is though one heck of a smuggle route these days and always has been since 1600 by the way.

NOTE: Dayuhan check the symbols carried on Shia "battle flags" by the way that were carried into the Bakka Valley when the 3000 Iranian Shia "volunteers" who came to fight in Lebanon somehow never made it to the fighting, but are still there. Those battle flags had the only symbol "Green Crescent" on them---and I am betting you understand the significance. By the way those "volunteers" left Tehran after their were blessed by none other than Khomeini personally---any significance to that? Notice the same type of "Green Crescent" flags carried by Shia into the Spanish Sahara.

That is often the problem--some individuals hear and or read words and then jump with comments having never been there nor actually ever physically walked the Road nor know the names of towns along the Road that have significance say with the fighting now between the ISIS and Baghdad in say the town of Muqdadiyah.

Those towns of the Road that make up the Sunni triangle have relevance to those fighting there ---believe me and history makes up a lot of that significance.

Google the town name Muqdadiyah ---scenes of heavy fighting 2005 through 2009 between Shia, Sunni and on occasions Kurds with the US Army in the middle---check the significance of the town historically between the three groups and historically in Islam and Mohammed.

Google the historical Islamic significance of Mandeli, Muqdadiyah, Baqubah, Balad, Tikrit, and Mosul both from a Shia perspective and then from the Sunni perspective and then on top of it from a Kurdish/Arabic perspective. The Silk Road became the preferred AQI and Sunni insurgency rat run out of Syria and into the Sunni triangle and that has no relevance? When we began to block it they just created rat runs parallel to it.

Example of poor American understanding of that area and "ME history"---there was a historical figure from Muqdadiyah that if one looks at his name appears to be Shia but in fact was historically Arab Sunni tied to Mohammed ---in early 2006 a new insurgent group was setup in Baghdad, using that name as their new logo for recruiting purposes and pushed from there into Baqubah and when we captured their leader in Baqubah I had a hard time convincing the national level IC that in fact the group was Sunni not Shia based on the name and the significance of the name as tied to Muqdadiyah.

Now go back and trace the heavy US/Sunni/AQI/Shia fighting in those towns from 2004 through to 2010 and now with ISIS taking them over and then tie them to the comments of Khomenei and you will understand why I did not talk trade relevance.

Sometimes what we define as irrelevance has in the eyes of those that currently reside there a far deeper relevance.

Again trade in 1600 has nothing to do with the current geopolitics of the Sunni/Shia global clash and the various players in that clash and believe me religiously the Road has significance to those players.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 04:29 PM
Interesting take on Iran in Iraq.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/15/iran-is-the-biggest-loser-in-iraq.html

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 04:59 PM
JWing---this is what I meant when they are striking similarities between the QJBR/AQI/ISI now ISIS from 2006 to the ISIS of today 2014.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/06/analysis_isis_allies.php#

Thus the same similarities of the IAI/JRTN of then and now today.

The article on the security belts is highly accurate and was doable by ISI/IAI in 2006 just as it is today.

Even if everyone jumps in ie Iraqi Army stiffens, the Iranians jump in and the US unleashes drones and improves the ISR and the ISIS is either slowed and or stopped----the Sunni's have flipped and there is no going back as they truly do feel that that Malaki will never compromise thus it is better to fight and than to talk.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 05:28 PM
Dayuhan/Firn---this is why the Silk Road as it exists in Diyala province is critical as are the other parts of the Silk Road in Iraq. If you do the research of Zarqawi's belts concept for attacking Baghdad in 2006 you will notice portions of the Road were involved.

Notice now who is fighting and dying in Diyala-where the Road runs through and remember what Khomeini said about the Road.

"On Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-linked (often these pages are run directly by the IRGC for internal and narrative purposes) social media networks–which run the gambit from Twitter and Facebook to Google Plus and YouTube—have cast Moshajari as an IRGC fighter who had been “martyred” in the IRGC deployment to Iraq.

It is possible that Moshajari was actually killed in an accident while deploying with IRGC units to sections of Iraq bordering Iran. CNN reported that 500 IRGC had been deployed to Diyala, an Iraqi province on the border with Iran.

In Diyala Province, Kata’ib Hizballah and other Iraqi Shia Islamist groups backed by Iran have also reported being engaged in combat against units belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)."

Also an interesting background article on why ISIS headed back to Diyala.

Jessica D. Lewis, “The Islamic State of Iraq Returns To Diyala,” April 2014

davidbfpo
06-15-2014, 05:32 PM
This may sit better in the Syria thread (so cross-posted) where allegations of the Assad regime having a "Nelson's eye" to ISIS have been made.

So from Twitter (so maybe a "pinch of salt";)) just:
Seems Assad's army of terror finally started striking ISIL bases after largely ignoring, rather, aiding them, for more than a year. Assad is certainly not working on his free will. Either Iran ordered the strikes, or he realized if he doesn't strike, someone else/US will.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 05:42 PM
This may sit better in the Syria thread (so cross-posted) where allegations of the Assad regime having a "Nelson's eye" to ISIS have been made.

Assad is seriously concerned with the news that heavy arms and more fighters using US MRAPS and 114s for protection against Hezbollah and JAM are on the move back to Syria along with heavy artillery.

Assad's Army never on their own made gains on the ground until Hezbollah and JAM arrived.

It also appears that ISIS has MANPADs as well which will be going back to Syria eliminating the Syrian air side of the war.

ganulv
06-15-2014, 05:46 PM
Now, if you have some enlightening discourse to set us on a course that is different and what I failed to understand, I assure you I shall be delighted if you can clear the cobwebs.

Your thing is that the essential nature of Islam explains it all. It has been pointed out to you that it does not in the case of Indonesia. That is more than a stray data point considering Indonesia has more Muslim residents than any country in the world. You went to great lengths to massage the data into your model. You fell back on historical particularity to do so.

Now, let’s say that colonial administration were to be my magic bullet explanation for why democracy has not succeeded in most countries with majority Muslim populations. I am sure that it would be not very difficult for someone to come up with a nation which gives the lie to my one-size-fits-all explanation. I could do exactly the same thing you have and say, “Yeah, but. They don’t count because [laundry list of historical factoids].”

Now, if one chooses to dig into the historical background of all of the cases under consideration, one finds that all of them involve historical complexity. Freud said that sex explains everything; it doesn’t. Marx said capital explains everything; it doesn’t. You say religion explains everything about governance in the societies under discussion here; it doesn’t. That’s not to say that religion -- or sex or capital -- don’t matter, it’s to say that no one thing alone explains it all. (Feel free to say that that isn’t what you have been saying, but only if you are willing to go back and show me where you said otherwise.)

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 06:01 PM
Your thing is that the essential nature of Islam explains it all. It has been pointed out to you that it does not in the case of Indonesia. That is more than a stray data point considering Indonesia has more Muslim residents than any country in the world. You went to great lengths to massage the data into your model. You fell back on historical particularity to do so.

Now, let’s say that colonial administration were to be my magic bullet explanation for why democracy has not succeeded in most countries with majority Muslim populations. I am sure that it would be not very difficult for someone to come up with a nation which gives the lie to my one-size-fits-all explanation. I could do exactly the same thing you have and say, “Yeah, but. They don’t count because [laundry list of historical factoids].”

Now, if one chooses to dig into the historical background of all of the cases under consideration, one finds that all of them involve historical complexity. Freud said that sex explains everything; it doesn’t. Marx said capital explains everything; it doesn’t. You say religion explains everything about governance in the societies under discussion here; it doesn’t. That’s not to say that religion -- or sex or capital -- don’t matter, it’s to say that no one thing alone explains it all. (Feel free to say that that isn’t what you have been saying, but only if you are willing to go back and show me where you said otherwise.)

I personally have no interest in the Indonesian Muslim environment as it developed totally different from the ME as did the Indian Muslim environment and right now it is the ME that impacts the global Muslim community not vice versa.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 06:11 PM
Dayuhan---as I mentioned the symbolism of the Silk Road and how it is was used by the Shia---I will give you another tip.

Symbolism was a major part of both the Shia and Sunni insurgency and their various groups including first QJBR, then AQI then ISI and finally ISIS while for AQI certain symbolism has remained the same from 2004 to 2014.

One of the first and about only symbolism studies was done by the West Point Counter Terrorism Center---was never ever really used by the US Army in Iraq. It was never really updated after they completed the study.

This symbolism was especially used in their logos which was found on their videos and press releases. Symbolism is a critical part of the Shia/Sunni conflict in the ME and especially in Iraq and is a critical element in "radicalization" and recruitment.

Symbolism was also a form of communication between the various Islamic groups and lend creditability to each group.

The US IC never really paid any attention to the logos as they viewed it simply as propaganda---I was one of the few that could define groups simply by the logos as the logo says a lot about the thinking of the groups and their position on Islam---even the insurgency starting using logos of one group to put blame on any group during some of their internal "disagreements" in 2006/2007.

Example:

Saraya al-Dafa’ al-Sha’bi: Kata’ib Hizballah’s New Force in Iraq

SDS’s Symbolism

One of the first, and thus far only, pieces of imagery to come out regarding SDS has been their logo. The symbol features elements common to most Iranian-backed Shia Islamist organizations. These include the extended fist clenching a Kalashnikov-style rifle (in this case coming out of the final alif in “Saraya”). Underneath the rifle rests a globe with a map of Iraq in its center. It is likely that the globe, as with the symbol for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Lebanon’s Hizballah, represents the hope for global expansion of the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution. The map of Iraq in its center, as with Kata’ib Hizballah’s and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq’s logos demonstrates the group’s primarily Iraq-focused agenda.

Bill Moore
06-15-2014, 06:13 PM
Back to Iraq

I realize the following claim may not be accurate, but it would explain a lot if it is. Why would Maliki order his army to surrender/withdraw? One theory is to create conditions where he could declare a state of emergency, which would assist him during the upcoming elections. Its that part of the world, everything is possible.

http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/was-isiss-plunder-mosul-insider-job

Was ISIS's Plunder of Mosul an Insider Job?



"As Iraqi government forces crumbled in disarray before the assault [on Mosul], there was speculation that they may have been ordered by their superiors to give up without a fight. One local commander in Salahuddin Province said in an interview Wednesday: 'We received phone calls from high ranking commanders asking us to give up. I questioned them on this and they said, This is an order.”


TRAC sources in the region confirm that the retreat by the Iraqi soldiers was well planned, perhaps at the highest level of government.

This attempt to show the various actors and how they interact is helpful, but far from complete.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/13/world/middleeast/in-iraq-crisis-a-tangle-of-alliances-and-enmities.html?_r=0

In Iraq Crisis, a Tangle of Alliances and Enmities



The major players in the Iraq and Syria crisis are often both allies and antagonists, working together on one front on one day and at cross-purposes the next. Here are brief sketches of some of the confluences and conflicts in the deepening crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/world/middleeast/rebels-fast-strike-in-iraq-was-years-in-the-making.html?google_editors_picks=true&_r=0


Rebels’ Fast Strike in Iraq Was Years in the Making

When I read through this I have to wonder if our intelligence was actually broken, or if the administration decided to white wash the intelligence on ISIS because it didn't fit their narrative?


In 2007 the group published a pamphlet laying out its vision for Iraq. It cited trends in globalization as well as the Quran in challenging modern notions of statehood as having absolute control over territory. Mr. Fishman referred to the document as the “Federalist Papers” for what is now ISIS.

Under this vision, religion is paramount over administering services. Referring to citizens under its control, the pamphlet states, “improving their conditions is less important than the condition of their religion.” And one of the most important duties of the group, according to the pamphlet, is something that it has done consistently: free Sunnis from prison.

“When you go back and read it, it’s all there,” Mr. Fishman said. “They are finally getting their act together.”


The group’s recent annual report, wrote Alex Bilger, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, makes clear that, “the ISIS military command in Iraq has exercised command and control over a national theater since at least early 2012,” and that the group is “functioning as a military rather than as a terrorist network.”

In short they're expanding their control in both Syria and Iraq, and while extremely violent they're able to generate support by directing the people's ire against the Shia. We're focused now on Mosul, but don't forget they still control two big cities in Western Iraq and a good part of Eastern Syria.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 07:00 PM
Back to Iraq

Bill ---you might be right about the martial law bit---he attempted it right after the collapse of the 4 divisions---but the parliament refused to pass the martial law bill by simply not showing up to vote---still has not been passed.

It is the last thing that stands in the way of Malaki becoming the "new" Saddam and some of the Shia leaders openly say that about Malaki.

US intel was broken for a number of reasons---all of the Sunni insurgent groups including AQI always released their battle videos, IED strike videos, thinking, manifests, ideas etc. on the web and even carried on massive conversations amongst themselves all on the web.

They even once released an IED training video depicting exactly where to place the IED strikes on every mine road clearance vehicle being used in Iraq in 2008/2009 and then released a series of actual strike videos over the next few days--all as hands-on learning via the net for the insurgent groups to watch in their various safe houses. There was a lot of cross sharing among the various groups.

At times it reminded me of US Army Special Forces UW training.

They never really cared if we watched, listened, and or downloaded---I was able to inject into the NTC training scenarios things seen in a 0200 battle video taken off one of the jihadi web sites ie say the RKG 3 anti tank grenade released in a single AQI video and roll it into the next day BCT scenario along with the battle videos as learning materials.

Most of the officers though felt, thought, and openly disliked using the videos because they would openly state we were being used by the enemy---as it was "propaganda".

davidbfpo
06-15-2014, 09:14 PM
The following is meant to provide an overview of the military situation in Iraq for non-experts.

Link:http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/06/14-iraq-military-situation-pollack#.U52uBxm5MgY.twitter

Very good explanation and the caveat is well worth it too:
Caveat. It is exceptionally difficult to understand the dynamics of ongoing military operations. Oftentimes, the participants themselves do not know why they are winning or losing, or even where they are in control or where their troops are. For non-participants, it is often equally difficult to gain more than a rudimentary sense of the combat without access to the sophisticated intelligence gathering capabilities—overhead imagery, signals intercepts, human reporting, etc.—available to the United States and some other governments. As one of the CIA’s Persian Gulf military analysts during the 1990-91 Gulf War, I noted the difficulty that many outside analysts had in gauging the capabilities of the two sides and following the course of operations because they did not have access to the information available to us from U.S. government assets. Consequently, readers should bring a healthy dose of skepticism to all such analyses of the current fighting in Iraq, including this one.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 09:43 PM
Bill M---this was taken from the today's NYTs article on Iraq which goes to the heart of a lot of the IC failures in Iraq that are coming home to roost.

It refers to battlefield reporting and that simply amazes me because from 2008 onwards the major Sunni insurgent group IAI and AQI released via the internet jihadi sites a monthly rollup of activities broken down by type much as this article reflects.

Now if one reads the NYTs article it seems that the US "wakes" up and says wow amazing that they are acting like a military.

I kept passing on these monthly reports for months and no one absolutely no one took interest as the responses were about the same every time---it is just propaganda, the numbers they are providing are fakes, they are trying to make themselves look bigger than they are, and they are just outright lying.

Now it seems everyone "wakes up" and thinks this stuff is new when it has been there for one and all to read and it was not even classified and it came from the horses mouth directly via the internet delivered to your desktop and free.

What is equally amazing is that the Army and the IC now makes anything taken literally from "open source" and unclassified now classified at least at the Secret and many times TS levels---can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind that move as it is totally dumb since the insurgency released it publicly ---what are we then trying to hide via the classification process.

Taken from the NYTs article:

More recent annual reports, including one that was released at the end of March and ran more than 400 pages, list in granular detail the group’s successes, through suicide attacks, car bombs and assassinations, on the battlefield.

The group’s recent annual report, wrote Alex Bilger, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, makes clear that, “the ISIS military command in Iraq has exercised command and control over a national theater since at least early 2012,” and that the group is “functioning as a military rather than as a terrorist network.”

This last paragraph is amazing---from late 2005 early 2006 onwards all the insurgent groups were functioning as a military we just never wanted to admit what we were seeing daily.

Example---the first use of the RCIEDs (purchased as toys in the local markets) were used against the Army three months after we arrived in Baghdad--(when did we finally recognize the seriousness of the IED threat?)-did anyone ask themselves then just how was it possible that a supposedly ragtag group of "crazies" were that well organized?

The problems currently in Iraq cannot be placed alone on the ISIS or Malaki.

OUTLAW 09
06-15-2014, 10:04 PM
[QUOTE=davidbfpo;157427]Link:http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/06/14-iraq-military-situation-pollack#.U52uBxm5MgY.twitter

David--the Brookings article is actually a solid primer especially agreeing in what I have been commenting on ---that the old Sunni insurgency side was never out of business ie IAI now JRTN and Ansar al Sunnah.

Agree the Anbar is worth watching ---but I am betting on Diyala being the next launch point as that was always the center of gravity for the entire insurgency from 2005 onwards-- but the US Army never recognized it nor did they ever recognize that Diyala was the R&E center for the insurgency as a whole as the families of many of the insurgents resided in Diyala province.

Especially the Diyala river valley areas.

A former SWJ Editor Mike Few made the Thunder Runs through that area and it was the scene of some of the heaviest face to face fighting seen up to that point. AQI/IAI did not back down even in the face of US armor.

Dayuhan
06-15-2014, 11:25 PM
Never did if I recall my comments state it had relevance for trade

If you're talking about the "Silk Road", you're talking about east/west trade, because the "Silk Road" was by definition an east/west trade corridor. The term never referred to a single physical road, but to a network of routes. The roads from Shanghai to Xinjiang trace part of the old "Silk Road". They still exist, and they are not insignificant, but to call them a "Silk Road" in the modern context would be a ridiculous anachronism, because there is no more Silk Road. Believe me, you're not gonna see a whole lot of silk going from Shanghai to Xinjiang, let alone beyond.

Americans do seem to have a certain infatuation with the term, judging from its frequent and generally absurd resurrection in the Afghanistan discussion. Possibly the historical romanticism associated with the term appeals. It would probably be better to simply discard the term, as it causes nothing but diffusion and confusion. Many of the regional transport routes that once constituted parts of the "Silk Road" still exist, and as transport routes always do they maintain local and regional relevance. They are not in any sense a "Silk Road" or part of one, because there is no more "Silk Road", owing to the silk having gone elsewhere.

JMA
06-16-2014, 12:03 AM
If you're talking about the "Silk Road", you're talking about east/west trade, because the "Silk Road" was by definition an east/west trade corridor.

Enough already!

Outlaw stated this early on:


Notice how the Silk Road follows the "Green Crescent" or global Shia "communities".

Try - as difficult as it may be for you - to accept his use in that context... and for heavens sake move on.

AmericanPride
06-16-2014, 01:29 AM
In US COIN doctrine, it mirrors Mao Zedong's model of insurgency with three phases: the incipient phase, the guerrilla warfare phase, and the war of movement. In the first phase, Al Qaeda struck the United States through terrorism - USS Cole, embassies in Africa, 9/11, et. al. As a consequence of the Iraq War, Al Qaeda and its affiliated forces transitioned to the second phase and waged a bloody guerrilla war against the US and the Iraqi government. Now, after the US withdrawal and the failure of the central Iraqi government to consolidate its power (and emboldened by the opportunities in Libya and Syria), the insurgency has entered the third phase, the war of movement, with the outright occupation of much of northern Iraq. If the purpose of the War on Terrorism as a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq was to prevent this process from occurring, then it has failed.

Warnings about this possibility were made before 2003 and were ignored. What did the war in Iraq accomplish?

TheCurmudgeon
06-16-2014, 01:55 AM
AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.

If we give them credibility via airstrikes or drone attaches, they win, even if they do not control the ground. If they collapse under their own weight, then we win. It is that simple.

Bill Moore
06-16-2014, 02:48 AM
TheCurmudgeon,

With the exception of this being a Maoist model which we liberally misinterpret every insurgency as Maoist I agree with your comments. If you read the Management of Savagery I think you'll see that parallels their approach more closely; however, no movement follows someone's else's strategy blindly if they have half a brain, and this group certainly does. I think we risk missing reality if we attempt to view this conflict through a Maoist lens. We'll see what we want to see, and miss important differences.

To your point about governance, and ISIS collapsing under their own weight. Historically that seems to be the pattern, but assuming that will be true in the future assumes ISIS is not a learning organization. Using Fall's theory of "competitive control" (recently resurfaced in Kilcullen's new book), I think ISIS has a chance for at least short term stability and control in the areas they took over.

I think the Iraqi Army could challenge their control of these areas, but if Maliki uses Shia militia to conduct this fighting it will probably increase the strength and effectiveness of the ISIS. A lot of unknowns.

carl
06-16-2014, 05:02 AM
AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.

If we give them credibility via airstrikes or drone attaches, they win, even if they do not control the ground. If they collapse under their own weight, then we win. It is that simple.

You may be right, but I am skeptical. I think they have the ruthlessness and the ideology needed to make a go of repressive police state regardless of how the locals feel about it. Remember something like this played out once before and the tribes could not overcome AQI on their own. They were too weak. They needed the support of the strongest tribe, the US military, to beat AQI. That particular tribe isn't around to support them anymore if ISIS wears out its welcome. They may just have to take it this time.

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 06:21 AM
Enough already!

Outlaw stated this early on:

Try - as difficult as it may be for you - to accept his use in that context... and for heavens sake move on.

JMA--totally concur---Dyauhan still does not understand that much of the Islamic insurgencies regardless where they occur is all about "symbolism" something you saw years ago in the "nationalism" wars.

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 06:30 AM
TheCurmudgeon,

With the exception of this being a Maoist model which we liberally misinterpret every insurgency as Maoist I agree with your comments. If you read the Management of Savagery I think you'll see that parallels their approach more closely; however, no movement follows someone's else's strategy blindly if they have half a brain, and this group certainly does. I think we risk missing reality if we attempt to view this conflict through a Maoist lens. We'll see what we want to see, and miss important differences.

To your point about governance, and ISIS collapsing under their own weight. Historically that seems to be the pattern, but assuming that will be true in the future assumes ISIS is not a learning organization. Using Fall's theory of "competitive control" (recently resurfaced in Kilcullen's new book), I think ISIS has a chance for at least short term stability and control in the areas they took over.

I think the Iraqi Army could challenge their control of these areas, but if Maliki uses Shia militia to conduct this fighting it will probably increase the strength and effectiveness of the ISIS. A lot of unknowns.

Bill ---what many seem to forget when they hear the words AQ now ISIS is that in the Sunni triangle there are other players involved that are more temperate and while also religious tend towards secular in nature.

ISIS and all the Sunni groups are in fact very astute learning machines and ISIS knows what happened the last time they went totally radical-the Awakening.

The Brookings article that David linked to will be the most accurate estimate of the way forward in the coming days.

What will be more interesting is how the ISIS implements Zarqawi's 2006 strategy against a 9M Shia city with far less combat power that can be projected unless right how they are hoping through open and projected violence fear becomes a combatant which is a strategy.

Knowing the groups that I dealt with before they do have a strategy.

Note: these groups have always had strategies and campaigns---we could never get the BCTs going through the NTC to understand that--and the strategies and campaigns with the campaign goals were always made public.

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 06:45 AM
In US COIN doctrine, it mirrors Mao Zedong's model of insurgency with three phases: the incipient phase, the guerrilla warfare phase, and the war of movement. In the first phase, Al Qaeda struck the United States through terrorism - USS Cole, embassies in Africa, 9/11, et. al. As a consequence of the Iraq War, Al Qaeda and its affiliated forces transitioned to the second phase and waged a bloody guerrilla war against the US and the Iraqi government. Now, after the US withdrawal and the failure of the central Iraqi government to consolidate its power (and emboldened by the opportunities in Libya and Syria), the insurgency has entered the third phase, the war of movement, with the outright occupation of much of northern Iraq. If the purpose of the War on Terrorism as a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq was to prevent this process from occurring, then it has failed.

Warnings about this possibility were made before 2003 and were ignored. What did the war in Iraq accomplish?


The true failure and it was the worst failure of all times outside of us getting into Iraq was the total lack of understanding that inside Iraq after 1991 there was an underground Salafist insurgency underway against Saddam.

This insurgency was being driven by the Sunni grouping Islamic Army in Iraq which was already using RCIEDs against us four months after we arrived.

This insurgency was in a massive life or death battle with the Iraqi State Security and if a member was caught he was hanged within the next day or two---all mosche prayers were monitored and ISI officers were constantly watching the mosche members.

AND they were very well structured and funded AND this is the most important take away--within three weeks after we arrived in Baghdad they were as Mao defines it in a Phase two guerrilla war and we answered by using COIN against a guerrilla war.

The setup of the insurgency was contained in a handwritten journal by the leader of the group started three days after we entered Iraq until mid 2006--day for day RCIED circuit design to circuit design in full detail---the Abu names he mentioned throughout the journal were virtually the Who's Who of the entire Sunni insurgency---notice Sunni insurgency not AQI. telephone numbers, names, funds received, funds pass out, towns where cells were setup--Mao would have been proud.

The Army did not feel that it was a necessity to fully translate the journal---they did about 120 pages out of the 500 and it was an eye opener.

We "accidently" picked him up in a sweep near Abu G but he walked three months later---"wrong person in the wrong place thing".

I could never get the national IC to run biometrics---both we and I knew he was the IAI leader--at that point I realized the Army was only half hearted in the fight and really did not care about winning---just as the current leader of ISIS was in Bucca and walked in 2009.

I have been saying that the none recognition of a Phase two guerrilla war was the worst mistake we made since 2006 --but was constantly ignored.

I wrote about the leader of the IAI in an article for Tom Ricks and the comments that were merger as well.

slapout9
06-16-2014, 09:50 AM
Question for anyone. Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 10:13 AM
Question for anyone. Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?

slapout ---one better and if following Mao's phase three why not call it a Sunni/Shia war to settle the 1400 year old religious debate inside Islam.

That what this is in fact all about ---1400 years of unsettled religious debate.

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 10:55 AM
The Kurds have been helping embattled Iraqi troops and now the Iraqi Army strikes them with Hellfires and "claims" fog of war.

The Iraqi Army has been positioning itself almost face to face along the Kurdish border areas for literally the last 12 years and have come within inches of open warfare with the Kurds over the Kurdish oil questions.

Now that Iraq is receiving open Quds Force troop reinforcements especially in the Diyala region what makes the Kurds think they will not be attacked as is ISIS. Who knows we might even see a Kurdish/ISIS alliance against the Iraqi Shia, Iran, and Malaki-funnier things have happened before in Iraq.

From WaPo today:

IRBIL, Iraq — Since al-Qaeda-linked renegades swept into northern Iraq, Kurdish forces have played a behind-the-scenes role in rescuing embattled Iraqi soldiers from checkpoints and bases, staving off more losses for the troops.

But a disastrous end to one such operation Saturday is threatening to derail their military cooperation against the militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Furious Kurdish military officials accused Iraqi forces of firing mortars and Hellfire missiles at Kurdish fighters, killing six and injuring 43.

Iraqi officials said the attack was a mistake. One Iraqi official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said that the Kurdish troops had been asked to withdraw from that area. “You have to expect casualties in war,” he said.

Iraq plays a double game---the Kurds while helping the Iraqi's pushed back into the contested green line areas and the Iraqi's want them out much like in Muqdadiyah in Diyala. Yes they like help but they will still take territory for the Shia that is in another ethnic area.

ISIS has started a full scale ethnic war and it is tied to oil revenues and a 1400 year old unsettled religious debate.

JWing
06-16-2014, 05:58 PM
AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.

If we give them credibility via airstrikes or drone attaches, they win, even if they do not control the ground. If they collapse under their own weight, then we win. It is that simple.

ISIS already administers large swaths of Syria and now is trying to do the same in at least Mosul. They run schools, bus and electricity systems, etc. in Syria for months now. I have an interview about that coming up this week.

JWing
06-16-2014, 06:00 PM
Here's my latest interview

Iran And Its Shiite Militias Mobilize In Iraq Interview With Phillip Smyth (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/iran-and-its-shiite-militias-mobilize.html)

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 06:42 PM
For anyone wanting to see how slick a jihadi website is done these days.

Just make sure your latest virus update is done before viewing and yes I am assuming the NSA monitors it.

http://www.al-qimmah.net/showthread.php?p=101567

TheCurmudgeon
06-16-2014, 06:47 PM
ISIS already administers large swaths of Syria and now is trying to do the same in at least Mosul. They run schools, bus and electricity systems, etc. in Syria for months now. I have an interview about that coming up this week.

That is a relatively small area in a war zone. It is not a country sized area that ISIL has to actively defend against other states. That requires trade with other nations for commodities, an active administrative apparatus, the ability to operate an economy, a military with armor and aircraft. They have the resources based on what they have already stole, but do they have the ability to actually run a country?

Are you confident enough to wager that, assuming ISIL is smart enough to consolidate its gains rather than trying to create the Caliphate in one fell swoop, that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will still exist in the terrain they now hold twelve months from now?

I am not seeing any scenario, up to and including ISIL obtaining nuclear weapons, where they are still holding all that terrain this time next year.

JWing
06-16-2014, 07:20 PM
ISIS has been able to hold its territory in Syria for quite some time fighting against all kinds of other groups. How much of the territory will they be able to hold onto in Iraq? No idea, but the fighting there is going to drag on for a long time.

TheCurmudgeon
06-16-2014, 07:35 PM
The problems ISIL will have in governing deal not only with the normal logitstics of a state, but different interpretations of Salafist political thought (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/saudi-arabia-debate-salafism-governance-isis.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=8db3943fde-January_9_20141_8_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-8db3943fde-93069393):


The experience of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has stirred controversy within Saudi Arabia, and prompted discussion about the religious stance toward choice, shura (religious guidance), sovereignty, the concept of allegiance, the legitimacy of authority, and issues related to democracy and its connection to legislation.

The parties engaged in this Saudi debate can be divided into two categories.

The first is a critical, offensive movement believing the experience of ISIS indicates the inability of political Salafism to grasp the concept of the modern state. Advocates of this view believe political Salafism represents a tyranny that must be destroyed. They argue that political Salafism will provide at best a political regime similar to Iran's Khomeini-style system.

The second category is a critical, defensive movement that believes the ISIS experience has been tyrannical and a failure. At the same time, they say this experience has nothing to do with political Salafism. This category presents a different view of the Salafist political legacy, showing how Salafism has respected the will of the people and has focused on the necessity of people accepting their rulers as opposed to rulers being imposed on them. Nonetheless, the proposals of this category are still vague as to who has the right to elect their rulers. Does the circle include all people or is it limited to influential religious figures, known in Islamic political thought as Ahl al-Hal wal Aqad?

The second category also tries to depart from Saudi religious rhetoric by emphasizing the freedom to criticize and peacefully oppose authority, even if this freedom is strictly governed by Sharia.

Abdallah al-Maliki, an offensive critic, belongs to the Islamic Enlightenment current in Saudi Arabia. He recently sparked controversy with his May 11 article in al-Tagreer newspaper criticizing political Salafism, writing that it cannot establish a system of rule that can be held accountable, as it bans and criminalizes all forms of opposition, criticism and protest against authority. Despite the differences among Salafist movements, writes Maliki, from jihadist Salafism to Saudi government loyalists Jamia Salafism, they all refuse and criminalize opposition to authority.

TheCurmudgeon
06-16-2014, 07:38 PM
ISIS has been able to hold its territory in Syria for quite some time fighting against all kinds of other groups. How much of the territory will they be able to hold onto in Iraq? No idea, but the fighting there is going to drag on for a long time.

Administering territory in a war zone is easy as long as you are the badest kid on the block. The people who live there will gladly trade their freedom for the security you provide. That is not the case when you are the antagonist creating the chaos. Now you can "rent" loyalty as long as you can keep the population in fear, but that requires constant pressure from a cohesive central power. We will see if ISIL is up to the task.

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 07:45 PM
There is an interesting article today in Foreign Policy under Tom Ricks which points to two items;

Taken from the article:
It wasn't ISIS alone that conquered a full third of Iraq in the past few days -- it was a full-blown Sunni insurgency consisting of ISIS, Sunni Arab Baath party elements from both Syria and Iraq, and the Iraqi and Syrian Sunni tribes that all joined to cooperate on beating back the Iranians and their proxies in Baghdad and Damascus. Many of these fighters are referring to their campaign as a "revolution."

The United States gave us assurances during the Awakening that they would stand with us if we turned our arms against al Qaeda and joined the political process. We devastated al Qaeda alongside the U.S. Army; we participated in the elections; and we won. We want our share in the New Iraq, not to be treated as second class citizens. If this does not happen, we will take up arms again, and this time we will retake Baghdad or we will burn it to the ground." Why is anyone back in Washington surprised that we have another Sunni insurgency after the genocide in Syria, after Maliki's humiliating power grabs, and after we abandoned the tribes who did indeed obliterate al Qaeda in Iraq?

Has it struck anyone in Washington that the Iraqi central government now controls less than half of its "sovereign" territory? As with Hezbollah and Syria , we're now looking at a rump, sectarian, Iranian-allied central government that is overtly supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and that has totally lost control of its Sunni Arab and Kurdish provinces, not due to terrorism alone, but to an increasingly popular insurgency that, I suspect, has at least the tacit support of the vast majority of the global Muslim community after Baghdad's complicity in helping Iran wage genocide in Syria.

We are almost certainly witnessing the start of a global holy war between Sunnis and Shiites -- the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the Great Schism in Europe, when millions of Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other for centuries, bleeding Europe of a third of its population, fracturing nations, and plunging it into the Dark Ages.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/16/my_3_major_worries_about_iraq_right_now_especially _that_were_on_verge_of_holy_war

Now there is another point that should be directed to the current WH and Obama---how does the American government justify conversations with Iran in how to counter ISIS---exactly the same Iranian government who via JAM, the Special Groups killed and wounded a high number of US military.

How does that same government "explain" that move to the families? Especially when against Mahdi the Army was held back repeatedly held back by the Dept of State.

Third question might be if joint ops with Iran does that not in effect finally prove to the Sunni that Americans are not their "friends" thus the ISIS way forward is totally correct.

TheCurmudgeon
06-16-2014, 07:59 PM
Now there is another point that should be directed to the current WH and Obama---how does the American government justify conversations with Iran in how to counter ISIS---exactly the same Iranian government who via JAM, the Special Groups killed and wounded a high number of US military.

How does that same government "explain" that move to the families? Especially when against Mahdi the Army was held back repeatedly held back by the Dept of State.

I suppose the same way we justified defending West Germany from the Soviets after thousands of U.S. Soldiers were killed by Germans. That was then, this is now.

TheCurmudgeon
06-16-2014, 09:13 PM
ISIS already administers large swaths of Syria and now is trying to do the same in at least Mosul. They run schools, bus and electricity systems, etc. in Syria for months now. I have an interview about that coming up this week.

When you do the interview, could you please ask what economic system they are using for major services like electricity, gas, and water? Is it a socialist style system where the local population is dependent on the ad hoc ISIL government to pay for and provide the services or is it a free market system where those services are provided by private entrepreneurs.

Also if you could ask if the government system is clearly a theocracy or if it has fascist leanings (militaristic system with a centralized economy and a constant enemy who must be attacked)?

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 11:09 PM
I suppose the same way we justified defending West Germany from the Soviets after thousands of U.S. Soldiers were killed by Germans. That was then, this is now.

So we went to war for WMD which was none, we fought then AQI who evidently survived well, and we fought hard with a surge to end the ethnic cleansing which was largely driven by the Shia/Iran/Malaki, then we allowed military personnel to be killed by EFPs coming in large numbers from the Quds Force/Iranian Intelligence to now do a deal with the Shia which will be perceived by the Sunni to be American driven ethnic cleansing of Sunni that will drive more into the camp of the ISIS which will turn cause the US/global public at large more grief?

Does that all make sense to you and it has nothing to do with WW2--it has to do with 2014.

4.6KIAs and over 100K WIAs---so in the end who is responsible--civilian leadership and or military leadership and or both?

Now explain the above to the average taxpayer and the families who lost members and we wonder why the world thinks we are dysfunctional?

My concern is the perception that say talks we will be having with Iran concerning ISIS which is Sunni will promote even more violence if Hellfires start raining down fired by the US---and the sharing of ISR with a country that still declares the US Satan and wants us out of the ME and strengthens them as a regional hegemon--what do we get out of it?

The current Iranian leader might be viewed as a moderate but he still does not have control over the hard right wing conservatives in government, the military and the universities and they really do not want us in the ME.

So really in the end what do the talks get for us the US when even our key ally the KSA will go ballistic on the idea that the US is firing missiles at Sunni's regardless of political leanings--center, left, right meaning secular, Salafist and or Takfirist

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 11:12 PM
When you do the interview, could you please ask what economic system they are using for major services like electricity, gas, and water? Is it a socialist style system where the local population is dependent on the ad hoc ISIL government to pay for and provide the services or is it a free market system where those services are provided by private entrepreneurs.

Also if you could ask if the government system is clearly a theocracy or if it has fascist leanings (militaristic system with a centralized economy and a constant enemy who must be attacked)?

There is here in Berlin a well known Sunni researcher on one of the universities that just released in German a book on the Salafi and Takfiri direction of Islam where he used the word to sum it up--Islamic fascism and the dirt hit the fan and he is under death threats and police protection.

But if one takes the definition of fascism he might not be so wrong.

OUTLAW 09
06-16-2014, 11:19 PM
The problems ISIL will have in governing deal not only with the normal logitstics of a state, but different interpretations of Salafist political thought (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/saudi-arabia-debate-salafism-governance-isis.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=8db3943fde-January_9_20141_8_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-8db3943fde-93069393):

Zarqawi was a Takfirist and basically ISIS is Takfiri not Salafist--a big difference---that is why the ISIS is able to kill Sunni Awakening members by declaring them first non Muslims/enemies of Islam. Takfirists are the only ones who can kill a fellow Muslim and not be considered for punishment under the Koran.

The Sunni/Kurdish group Ansar al Sunnah was Salafist as where a number of other Sunni insurgent groups as well as several in Syria---that is why the "political differences" that break into the open at times. And some had a mix of Salafist and secular members.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 01:14 AM
Thanks. I did not think Al Bagdhadi claimed to be a Takfiri, although I knew he claimed to be a Salafist, although I understand the distinction.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 01:20 AM
There is here in Berlin a well known Sunni researcher on one of the universities that just released in German a book on the Salafi and Takfiri direction of Islam where he used the word to sum it up--Islamic fascism and the dirt hit the fan and he is under death threats and police protection.

But if one takes the definition of fascism he might not be so wrong.

From the little I can garner it seems to be built on a militaristic Fascist type system. I can't really tell how their economy works, although my guess is that there is a central funding system that "owns" everything in the name of Allah, similar to a fascist state economy.

These systems can only exist as long as they have a enemy. That would not be hard, since it seems the world is their enemy. Still, they require gains from military victories to fund their operations, at least in the short term. On that front they seem to be doing OK. I will wait to see what else I can dig up.

Thanks for the information.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 01:28 AM
So we went to war for WMD which was none, we fought then AQI who evidently survived well, and we fought hard with a surge to end the ethnic cleansing which was largely driven by the Shia/Iran/Malaki, then we allowed military personnel to be killed by EFPs coming in large numbers from the Quds Force/Iranian Intelligence to now do a deal with the Shia which will be perceived by the Sunni to be American driven ethnic cleansing of Sunni that will drive more into the camp of the ISIS which will turn cause the US/global public at large more grief?

Does that all make sense to you and it has nothing to do with WW2--it has to do with 2014.

4.6KIAs and over 100K WIAs---so in the end who is responsible--civilian leadership and or military leadership and or both?

Now explain the above to the average taxpayer and the families who lost members and we wonder why the world thinks we are dysfunctional?

My concern is the perception that say talks we will be having with Iran concerning ISIS which is Sunni will promote even more violence if Hellfires start raining down fired by the US---and the sharing of ISR with a country that still declares the US Satan and wants us out of the ME and strengthens them as a regional hegemon--what do we get out of it?

The current Iranian leader might be viewed as a moderate but he still does not have control over the hard right wing conservatives in government, the military and the universities and they really do not want us in the ME.

So really in the end what do the talks get for us the US when even our key ally the KSA will go ballistic on the idea that the US is firing missiles at Sunni's regardless of political leanings--center, left, right meaning secular, Salafist and or Takfirist

My point was simply that the winds of political leaning change. We hate someone today, tomorrow we may need to work with them. I think it is foolish and short sighted to believe that the U.S., or any government, really stands on principle.

That said, I think the U.S. is making a mistake if we condition security assistance to Iraq on democratic reforms in the Maliki government. If they really want democracy to work they should divide the country into three parts where there is at least a minimum of traditional homogeneity. Then maybe power sharing among the tribes would be possible. The funny thing is that Maliki was headed in the only direction one can go in in a place like Iraq, strong man politics. He just never got a chance to consolidate his power. He probably would have been overthrown and executed by someone with more of a knack for such things once he got close to have dictatorial control. That is the way these things go.

We will waste blood and treasure again and have the same chaos between the three parties to contend with when this is over unless we acknowledge that Iraq is not Kansas ToTo.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 01:49 AM
War on the Rocks 5 Questions with Ambassador James F. Jeffrey on ISIS and Iraq (http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/5-questions-with-ambassador-jeffrey-on-isis-and-iraq/):


..., from Pakistan to Mali, it’s now obvious that within the Sunni Middle East when authority erodes, terrorists with an Al Qaeda philosophy will spring up and gain traction. Attempting to stem this by imposing Western institutions and ideals has failed miserably. This is a profoundly troubling phenomenon.

While I would not limit this comment to the Sunni's, it should be clear that attempting to install western democracies is not the answer.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 03:57 AM
Does anyone know how trustworthy Al-Akhbar.com is?:confused:

JWing
06-17-2014, 04:59 AM
When you do the interview, could you please ask what economic system they are using for major services like electricity, gas, and water? Is it a socialist style system where the local population is dependent on the ad hoc ISIL government to pay for and provide the services or is it a free market system where those services are provided by private entrepreneurs.

Also if you could ask if the government system is clearly a theocracy or if it has fascist leanings (militaristic system with a centralized economy and a constant enemy who must be attacked)?

Unfortunately I already did the interview so couldn't include those questions but those are very good.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 06:34 AM
From the little I can garner it seems to be built on a militaristic Fascist type system. I can't really tell how their economy works, although my guess is that there is a central funding system that "owns" everything in the name of Allah, similar to a fascist state economy.

These systems can only exist as long as they have a enemy. That would not be hard, since it seems the world is their enemy. Still, they require gains from military victories to fund their operations, at least in the short term. On that front they seem to be doing OK. I will wait to see what else I can dig up.

Thanks for the information.

Your comments/questions show some insight that I tend to miss from some national pundits---if one wants to understand the funding flows look at the "pillars" of Islam and how the donations are calculated and what it is to be used for. Even the foreign donations coming from say KSA, Jordan, or Qatar---they view them as well under the "pillars" concept.

When one "walks" the various jihadi sites the government is not far behind as it should be if done correctly. One though has to understand the jihadi's also know this thus a game is on concerning the attaching of a lot of different viruses from keystroke Trojans to pure outright viruses that are brutal to remove. There was an old GDR Stasi saying that is an example of this "private" war---the Stasi use to refer to their espionage efforts as "the war on the invisible front".

If one wants a more thorough understanding just read the Snowdon artilcles.

If say the NSA felt that the jihadi's were second rate when it comes to the internet---as early as mid 2006 they were chatting and placing in pdf manuals a particular secure chat US software program which was over the counter which was at a solid security level so they have for a long time fully understood our collection abilities. A number of the more interesting sites now have a invite only and secure floating logons which unless you are invited you will never get in---what is interesting is top Russian maifa stolen credit sites work the same way.

So have a really strong virus program and scan every document two or more times.

A good general site for "safe" downloads is jihadeology.net which offers a wide spread of jihadi groups to read about.

Dayuhan
06-17-2014, 07:57 AM
That said, I think the U.S. is making a mistake if we condition security assistance to Iraq on democratic reforms in the Maliki government. If they really want democracy to work they should divide the country into three parts where there is at least a minimum of traditional homogeneity.

I suspect that this is what they are in the process of doing right now. It's ugly, and I expect it will get uglier before it's done. It's also not in our control. I don't know that it ever was.

Gen Petraeus asked in 2003 "tell me how this ends". I guess we're finding out... and I suspect that once we selected "installing Democracy" as an objective, this ending, or some variation on the theme, was pretty much inevitable.

Ray
06-17-2014, 09:24 AM
War on the Rocks 5 Questions with Ambassador James F. Jeffrey on ISIS and Iraq (http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/5-questions-with-ambassador-jeffrey-on-isis-and-iraq/):

While I would not limit this comment to the Sunni's, it should be clear that attempting to install western democracies is not the answer.

Well said.

One cannot superimpose on another one's own value system.

That only will create conflicts.

Imagine a hypothetical environment where there is a Muslim majority (as is feared in Europe) the Sharia is imposed on the Western world.

Will that be accepted?

Ray
06-17-2014, 09:36 AM
The mandate system has had long-lasting effects on the Middle East. Most of the borders of these modern Middle Eastern states were drawn almost arbitrarily by European powers in ways that would benefit themselves, rather than those who would be forced to live in the new states (Gelvin, 183). Although some effort was made to ensure that each of the new nations would be economically as well as politically viable, there were so many gross oversights that economic development and politically stability in the Middle East have been severely hampered. As a result, many of these boundaries are the subjects of long-standing conflicts. Several modern states continue to claim ancestral territories such as Iraq with Kuwait and Israel and Palestine with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The nation of Iraq was artificially created out of three former Ottoman provinces with wildly disparate ethnic and religious identities (Gelvin, 183). Since its establishment as a new monarchy in 1921, Iraq has been "notorious for its political stability" (Gelvin, 184). The Shiite majority of the country was, until very recently, ruled over by a Sunni minority. The Kurds, although mostly comprised of Sunnis, were an ethnic minority who would have preferred to govern themselves rather than be ruled by Arabs (Gelvin, 184). The British ignored these problems because of the many benefits they saw in having hegemony over the region: the oil-rich northern region would provide Britain with cheap oil; the fertile plains in the central region could be exploited as a breadbasket to feed England's most important colony, India; and by including access to the Persian Gulf, Britain could easily ship Iraq's natural resources. Incidentally, Britain established Iraq with a vacancy at its head, one which they quickly filled with Faysal, an ally that the British had recently betrayed and now badly needed to appease (Gelvin, 182).

The area that now comprises Jordan, Israel, and the disputed Palestinian territory has been sub-divided several times since it fell to British control. Originally called "Palestine" by the League of Nations, it was later split by the British along the Jordan River into smaller territories called "Palestine" and "Jordan" so that the throne of the newly-created Jordan could be given to 'Abdallah, another disgruntled ally, as a political gesture of appeasement. Unfortunately, dividing the region along the natural boundary of the river may have made geographic sense but was an economic blunder, as it gave Jordan no natural economic resources. As such, it has never been able to stand on its own, depending on foreign subsidies to remain solvent (Gelvin, 183). Palestine, on the other hand, was given to the Zionists to become the new nation of Israel in 1948, a decision that is still the center of intense conflict 60 years later.

Syria is perhaps the best example of the European mandatory powers riding roughshod over local opinion. Syria elected its own parliament following WWI to decide where its boundaries lay and which nation, if any, would be given mandatory powers over it. In 1919, the General Syrian Congress formally protested the decision of the League of Nations that Syria was "among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power" (Khater, 201). However, the League of Nations placed Syria under the control of France, a decision that was unacceptable to Syria's leaders, and stripped away large amounts of territory claimed by Syria. France diminished Syria even further by splitting off what is now Lebanon, a region largely populated by Christians, so that they would have a Christian nation in the region to rely on (Gelvin, 181).
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-mandate-system-post-wwi-era-middle-east-6429966.html


The root of the issues?

This is also interesting:

Power and Promises: Redrawing the Boundaries of the Middle East
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/lessons/bestofyolo/documents/Power_Promise_2011.pdf

Ray
06-17-2014, 10:08 AM
The manner in which the Sunnis are spreading their tentacles by naked aggression and subtle soft power by spawning madrassas that churn out radicalism and terrorists, one wonders what is the role of Saudi Arabia.

It is no secret that Saudi money has assisted in the increase of madrassas and mosques that subscribe to Wahhabi Islam in South Asia, Indonesia and Philippines.

Saudis are the apple of the eye to many and so are they working below the radar scan and attempting domination of the Islamic world and thereafter calling the shots in the international arena?

I maybe political incorrect, but I like to rise above the partisan clutter for which I maybe forgiven or corrected, if you will.

What is happening around the world is deeply disturbing and does upset the otherwise status quo of live and let live.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 01:23 PM
Does anyone know how trustworthy Al-Akhbar.com is?:confused:

If you are referring to the online English newspaper al-akhbar then it is Iranian leaning with some saying not directly proven Iranian funding as well.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 01:27 PM
If you are referring to the online English newspaper al-akhbar then it is Iranian leaning with some saying not directly proven Iranian funding as well.

Thanks, It has a pretty detailed history of Al Baghdadi. If it is to be trusted then ISIL rapid advance into IRAQ is less a matter of military prowess and more a matter of home turf advantage. It was most of the key players old stomping grounds. His second in command is a former Iraq Army Officer. They knew who to trust and who not to.

If accurate, then they will have trouble extending influence beyond that territory. I can't say how many Sunni's will follow them willingly - how much of the traditionally Sunni territory they can maintain. We will see.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 01:31 PM
Unfortunately I already did the interview so couldn't include those questions but those are very good.

Oh well, thanks anyway.

Yadernye
06-17-2014, 01:55 PM
My concern is the perception that say talks we will be having with Iran concerning ISIS which is Sunni will promote even more violence if Hellfires start raining down fired by the US---and the sharing of ISR with a country that still declares the US Satan and wants us out of the ME and strengthens them as a regional hegemon--what do we get out of it?

The current Iranian leader might be viewed as a moderate but he still does not have control over the hard right wing conservatives in government, the military and the universities and they really do not want us in the ME.

So really in the end what do the talks get for us the US when even our key ally the KSA will go ballistic on the idea that the US is firing missiles at Sunni's regardless of political leanings--center, left, right meaning secular, Salafist and or Takfirist

I think this hits the matter on the head. There will be no solution to the current situation in Iraq and Syria that does not address the Sunni/Shi'a proxy civil war being waged by Saudi Arabia and Iran. Any potential U.S. action in Iraq must be assessed in this light.

JMA
06-17-2014, 02:14 PM
Yep. We'll see how we do in the 2016 election.

It will not go well Carl... says me sitting far away from the US. Collectively the US electorate does not have the smarts to make an intelligence voting choice... as the world has learned from history.

Two current matters to ponder. First in an earlier post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=155035&postcount=994) we see how the guys who got it right didn't get elected and now we see the loser in the last election also got it right back in 2007:

In 2007, Romney Predicted Current Events In Iraq So Accurately He Must Have Had A Time Machine (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/147607-2007-romney-predicted-current-events-iraq-accurately-must-time-machine/)

Now the US is about to elect another failure to the highest office...

I ask every American I run into who supports Hilary to list her achievements while at State or anywhere and... you guessed it... nothing.

Not one success story which is a record to make her a sure fire winner in the next election. So for heavens sake stop trying to export the American version of democracy around the world... its already badly scewed up and don't need it to get any worse. Yes Carl its happening in our lifetime... the implosion of the USA.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 02:14 PM
I think this hits the matter on the head. There will be no solution to the current situation in Iraq and Syria that does not address the Sunni/Shi'a proxy civil war being waged by Saudi Arabia and Iran. Any potential U.S. action in Iraq must be assessed in this light.

Yadernye---completely correct---the Holy War that has been on the drawing boards 1400 years ago is now in full swing.

Baqubah in Diyala province is the center of gravity for the Sunni's if they move towards Baghdad---we had our heaviest fighting there with the Thunder Runs in the Diyala river basin, the palms grooves rival anything I ever saw in VN bamboo jungles, Zarqawi and al Duri had a number of safe houses there, Zarqawi called for an Islamic state there and he died there, and AQI and the Islamic Army in Iraq a Baathist/Salafi Sunni group were never driven out of Baqubah and Diyala borders Iran. It has as well hundreds of small rat runs to all major Sunni towns and cities.

There have bee verified reports of Quds Forces and JAM fighting there now and dying as well there.

If the report below is correct from today's WAPO then with Iranian Shia fighting against Sunni's in Baqubah and surroundings then in fact the Holy War has started and we need to really stay out of what is developing and sit back and let the two regional hegemons Iran and the KSA fight it out as they have been doing in Syria.

The real danger is the Putin Doctrine in mini format---if Iran cannot dampen down the Sunni and lose control of the Sunni triangle and the Kurdish region anyway there will be then a push from the Iranian hardliners to "take control" of the Shia Iraq much as the Crimea. But instead of language and culture it will be about religion that causes an annexation.


From WAPO today:

Three police officers said the station, which has a small jail, came under attack by Islamist militants in Diyala province on Monday night. The attackers tried to free the detainees, all suspected Sunni militants, the agency reported. The police officers said the Shiite militiamen killed the detainees at close range.

As long as Malaki refuses to do a deal with the Sunni on power/oil revenue sharing the Holy War is a go and from reports coming out of Baghdad he is betting the Iranian card in this poker game.

Interesting to see that the Iraqi Ambassador to the US stated "we have selected the US as a "strategic partner" and we ask that partner for help BUT when the "partner" states who have not implemented power sharing and are in fact killing/torturing Sunnis everyday via your security forces then Malaki goes silent and does want he wants to do a trait shown to us since the 2010 elections when he basically committed a coup against the winner.

He has an interesting definition of a "partnership".

JMA
06-17-2014, 02:29 PM
I maybe political incorrect, but I like to rise above the partisan clutter for which I maybe forgiven or corrected, if you will.

Ray, IMHO there is too much political correctness which is used as a cheap means of censorship. Like in the US any criticism of Obama is written off as racist.

You referred earlier to the Wolfowitz Doctrine which if you take the Wikipedia article at face value is a direct example of how by sanitising the wording all meaning is lost.

See here: Wolfowitz Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine)

The example of the Russian threat.

First draft wording:


We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

All meaning lost in final draft:


The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.

The world worries that the two countries that have the ability to destroy the earth have such unstable and incompetent leadership... and damn right too.

.

JWing
06-17-2014, 05:18 PM
Here's my latest piece

The Islamic State of Iraq Attempts To Create A State in Syria And Iraq Interview With Aaron Zelin (http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-islamic-state-of-iraq-attempts-to.html)

Aaron Zelin is from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and I discussed with him how ISIS has tried to set up a proto-state in Syria and is now doing the same in Mosul

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 05:43 PM
AP, I do not agree that this is Al Qaeda. However, it does loosely follow the Maoist doctrine that the next step is actual creation of a state. None-the-less, this is where they are at their weakest - having to control not only a war but also control a state. This is where they will fail, if they are given the time and space to fail.


With the exception of this being a Maoist model which we liberally misinterpret every insurgency as Maoist I agree with your comments.

From a structural perspective, the name of the organization is really a matter of semantics. The protracted popular war (PPW) as a model I think is applicable regardless of its origins in Maoist political theory. The value in communist theory is not its ideologically prescriptions for the ills of capitalism, but it's rigorous dialectical materialism which divorces analysis from the subjective normative values that so often cloud assessments. The Islamist movement was born in its current iteration in 1979 - the Iranian Revolution, the attack on the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We are witnessing today the culmination of an escalating series of events which trace their roots directly to those three events.

That said, I do agree with TC (and with the COIN FM) that the 'insurgency' is most vulnerable when transitioning from one phase of conflict to the next. I do not think ISIS is incapable of governing in the most broad and basic sense - that is, to monopolize violence in its territory and to extract rent from the population. As another poster stated, they have done that already in Syria. Fundamentalist movements have been successful in those basic tasks in Iran (1979), Afghanistan (1996), and Saudi Arabia (~1924). I have no illusions that ISIS will somehow form a Westphalian, bureaucratic, complex state. That's not in their politics.

Here's what we know: the ISIS is well-organized, relatively well-armed, apparently relatively well-disciplined, and flush in cash. The question is how they will translate that into sustainable political power. There are clearly undercurrents we are not observing given their ability to mount a Tet-like surprise offensive across northern Iraq in a matter of days. Who are their power-brokers and stake-holders? Does ISIS have a state-sponsor (looking at you Saudi Arabia)? Overt intervention by Iran and/or the United States could degrade their material capabilities but probably add to their political and ideological legitimacy. After all, it was the original US invasion of Iraq that spurred their growth and consolidation in the first place.


Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?

Why can't it be both?

From a US perspective, we should be considering what this change means in the security dynamics of the region. The weakened Syrian and Iraqi governments are displaced by violent, fundamentalist movements - that's not a coincidence after 35 years of violence in the region and the total delegitimization of the secular regimes.


The root of the issues?

Boundary issues are pretexts for conflict, not cause of conflict in themselves. How many peaceful border disputes exist elsewhere? Since 1979 there has been a gradual regime change in the politics of the region - from the secular Arab nationalists to the religious fundamentalists. This is compounded by the competing fundamentalisms of Iran and Saudi Arabia, and US penetration of the region with its odd couple allies in Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt; none of which presently constituted make for 'natural' alliances with one another. ISIS is the culmination of the escalating religious fanaticism, the degeneration of governance and legitimacy, and the proliferation of weapons and cash. With every state failure and war, where do the weapons go? Say Iraq beats back the ISIS offensive or the Syrian government makes peace with its secular opponents, where do the insurgents migrate then? The PLO was a similar problem after being expelled first from Palestine and Jordan, making their way to Lebanon and Syria and contributing to the civil war in the former country.

I disagree that this is a Shia/Sunni issue - it is that issue superficially, but as a pretext. The root cause is political; the way power is organized and distributed in the countries and region in question. Resistance movements - secular, religious, whatever - will continue to emerge in the Middle East until those political problems are solved. Some groups like ISIS are apparently more successful than others. It doesn't have to be that way.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 05:58 PM
Thanks, It has a pretty detailed history of Al Baghdadi. If it is to be trusted then ISIL rapid advance into IRAQ is less a matter of military prowess and more a matter of home turf advantage. It was most of the key players old stomping grounds. His second in command is a former Iraq Army Officer. They knew who to trust and who not to.

If accurate, then they will have trouble extending influence beyond that territory. I can't say how many Sunni's will follow them willingly - how much of the traditionally Sunni territory they can maintain. We will see.

In my 18 months of dueling against them on the intel side and talking with the Sunni insurgents individually for literally hours and having to really learn their thinking and the reasons behind the why just to talk with them---one thing that stuck me while we in the rest west assume they are aggressive, brutal, and "crazies" BUT if one takes the time to fully understand their logic built on the Koran and how it affects their daily lives and their outlook on politics they are not so "crazy". But one has to put one's preconceptions, biases, religion behind one's self---but working within a system that does not allow for private opinions even in the face of reality on the ground-- since I have left that world the world actually makes sense.

The ISIS and the other major Sunni insurgent groups do not really want to takeover Iraq--but they do want to punish Baghdad along the way---they understand the numerical differences since Saddams' fall--what they want is a piece of Iraq that they can rule as their Sunni piece and they wanted a part of the oil revenue sharing as well as power sharing. They learned from their 2005 refusal to vote and in 2010 came out in strength and supported a secular Shia who won and we the West refused to push Malaki out the door---our mistake not the Sunni's. When Malaki drove over their protest camp in December 2013 and killed Sunni's the West meaning we the US did not lift a finger.

The Sunni's via their "Awakening" ---not our "Awakening" took on AQI and pushed them out and what did they get? Nothing for their efforts. Did they get officer positions in the Iraqi Army of Security Forces---no in fact they were driven out, were their politicians respected--no driven out under charges of being "terrorists", did the Bremer passed anti Baathist law get rescinded which we the US indicated would happen for the "Awakening"?-No.

What you see now is a unified to a large degree of Sunni's across the board who are revolting against the Shia Malaki and against the US who they view as actually supporting Malaki and not following through on their promises.

Now comes the hard part--if in an attempt to rein in ISIS the Shia via Iran will be attacking other Sunni groups along the way and with the memories of ethnic cleansing of 2006-2008 in the back of their minds--this reinforces then the Sunni and then watch how the sidelines of the KSA, Jordan, the Gulf Sunni states get involved---there is a certain automatism then in gear.

The core question is this what ISIS wants as they inherited Zarqawi's ideas and he was pushing for a Holy War? Or do they really believe they only want a Caliphate that is the Sunni triangle and the Sunni areas in Syria---are they content with that---am not so sure as the Salafists/Takfiri's have a complete hatred of the Shia again based on their reading of the Koran.

On top of this the Kurds are attempting to finally get the additional territory they were pushed back from in 2011 in the current turmoil.

My question is where are the political types and the political pundits who drove this mess into the ground in 2003?---they never paid any price for their mistakes but those that "believed" them suffered, lost, and will never be quite the same---and now they are coming out of the woodwork again with the same arguments.

They will never admit they have set the ME on fire for years to come.

Ray
06-17-2014, 06:01 PM
Ray, IMHO there is too much political correctness which is used as a cheap means of censorship. Like in the US any criticism of Obama is written off as racist.

You referred earlier to the Wolfowitz Doctrine which if you take the Wikipedia article at face value is a direct example of how by sanitising the wording all meaning is lost.

See here: Wolfowitz Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine)

The example of the Russian threat.

First draft wording:



All meaning lost in final draft:



The world worries that the two countries that have the ability to destroy the earth have such unstable and incompetent leadership... and damn right too.

.

I have read the Defence Policy Guidelines, along with the National Economic Policy, both during Cheney's time as Secretary of Defence..

I used Wiki since I could not find that.

I am also aware that when that Policy got leaked, then a politically correct document was manufactured.

Ray
06-17-2014, 06:05 PM
Boundary issues are pretexts for conflict, not cause of conflict in themselves. How many peaceful border disputes exist elsewhere?


Coming from a nation where the boundaries were arbitrarily chalked out and in areas the boundaries kept vague, and where there were religious divisions that festers, I understand what it is to be a victim of such machinations , if you will.

I also understand sectarian divides which are inflammable at the slightest pretext like the Shia Sunni divide, which we used to encounter regularly every Mohurrum. Luckily, with education and strict control, it appears to have become a thing of the past, even though there still is some space wherein it can still erupt.

And since I live in a country which is the said to have the second/ third largest Muslim population and living cheek by jowl, I have a fair idea of how the Muslims tick. And it is not theoretical or opinion acquired from a distance or opinion acquired through forced condescension of a situation thrust on one.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 06:12 PM
In my 18 months of dueling against them on the intel side and talking with the Sunni insurgents individually for literally hours and having to really learn their thinking and the reasons behind the why just to talk with them---one thing that stuck me while we in the rest west assume they are aggressive, brutal, and "crazies" if one takes the time to fully understand their logic built on the Koran and how it affects their daily lives and their outlook on politics they are not so "crazy". But one has to put one's preconceptions, biases, religion behind one's self---but working within a system that does not allow for private opinions since I have left that world --the world actually makes sense.

The ISIS and the other major Sunni insurgent groups do not really want to takeover Iraq---they understand the numerical differences since Saddams fall--what they want is a piece of Iraq that they can rule as their Sunni piece and they wanted a part of the oil revenue sharing as well as power sharing. They learned from their 2005 refusal to vote and in 2010 came out in strength and supported a secular Shia who won and we the West refused to push Malaki out the door---our mistake not the Sunni's.

The Sunni's via their Awakening ---not our Awakening took on AQI and pushed them out and what did they get? Nothing for their efforts.

What you see now is a unified to a large degree Sunni's across the board who are revolting against the Shia Malaki. and against the US who they view as actually supporting Malaki and not following through on their promises.

Now comes the hard part--if in an attempt to rein in ISIS the Shia via Iran will be attacking other Sunni groups along the way and with the memories of ethnic cleansing of 2006-2008 in the back of their minds--this reinforces then the Sunni and then watch how the sidelines of the KSA, Jordan, the Gulf Sunni states get involved---there is a certain automatism then in gear.

The core question is this what ISIS wants as they inherited Zarqawi's ideas and he was pushing for a Holy War? Or do they really believe they only want a Caliphate that is the Sunni triangle and the Sunni areas in Syria---are they content with that---am not so sure.

On top of this the Kurds are attempting to finally get the additional territory they were pushed back from in 2011 in the current turmoil.

I understand the collectivist mindset and the way they think. And to be honest, the religious bent is really not that different from the Right Wing Religious groups here in the states. Their religious beliefs are guiding principles in their lives and they feel that they should be the foundation of all law. It is not really that hard to understand, groups like ISIS just taken to the extreme.

From what I can tell ISIS is a group that takes orders from no country. They have managed to provide their own funding through various criminal enterprises, so they are beholden to no one. While it is too early to tell, it would seem that their aims are limited to the Sunni sections of Syria and Iraq. They do not want a holy war, they want their own State. The question is can they really make it work? It is one thing to let slip the dogs of war, particularly a war built on so deep and personal a belief system as religion. It is another to rein those dogs in.

I don't think we should get on the side of Maliki. I personnaly believe that we should find a moderate Sunni and back him. Then once we have routed ISIS, let him keep the territory as a seperate state. Let the Kurds have their state. Let the Shiite have theirs. Disolve Iraq. I don't see any other way to keep these groups from doing this again in a year. From what I can tell they have been doing this since Iraq's inception as a nation.

I keep thinking that we learned the wrong lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union: Let me offer a short alternative history. It is 1989 and the Soviet Union stands on the verge of collapse. In fear of the chaos and devastation the internal collapse of a nuclear power might yield, the United Nations with Yeltzin’s consent puts together a Peacekeeping force to help stabilize the situation. The mandate includes installing a democratic state while maintaining the Soviet Union’s territorial integrity. Initially things go well but over time it becomes clear that power sharing is problematic. Elections yield a Russian President that Georgians and Ukrainians don’t trust. The voices of moderates are drowned out by sectarian ultranationalists who begin terrorist campaigns to break away from central control. And while the peacekeepers do their best to keep order, and the politicians argue that they key is democratic reforms and greater power sharing, the country falls into the exact chaos the peacekeepers were sent to forestall. Sound impossible? I would turn your attention to the former Yugoslavia. The real history is much more pleasant. The Soviet Union peacefully dissolved into fifteen separate states along traditional ethnic and historic lines. But it might have been different if we foolishly tried to hold together a country that did not view itself as a single sovereign territory. I think that is the foolish mistake we are making in Iraq.

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 06:14 PM
Ray,

I think resolving the boundary questions would go a long way in removing the pretext for conflict in the Middle East, but it would only displace the violence onto some other pretext; much the same way that destroying the legitimacy of the secular Arab nationalists promoted the emergence of Islamism. Violence will always find its outlet unless the actual root causes of violence are addressed. I don't think boundary changes in the Middle East will suffice - not to mention all the other legal, ethical, economic, and political problems that would emerge from such a transformation.

Why do groups like ISIS form? Is it because of misdrawn boundaries? Or is there something deeper? I don't think the Shia-Sunni explanation goes a long way either; who has the power and wealth? And lastly, to what extent is it in US interests to put a stop to all state-sponsorship by the region's actors of armed religious fanatics?

Ray
06-17-2014, 06:21 PM
I was listening or seeing a TV Debate on the situation in Iraq.

A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

How far is that correct?

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 06:28 PM
I was listening or seeing a TV Debate on the situation in Iraq.

A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

How far is that correct?

If you look at any national operating movement - violent or otherwise - that is nearly always the case. It was true for the Bolsheviks, the IRA, Viet Minh, the Republicans and Democrats, and for ISIS. Really the question is how much fidelity do we have on their internal dynamics, and what is holding them together? What will break them apart? How is affecting their goal-making and strategy? Almost always the problems if internal cohesion are caused by power relationships, and they are resolved through a number of methods: formation of stable coalitions, formal division, purges, demotions, massacres, etc.

Ray
06-17-2014, 06:35 PM
Ray,

I think resolving the boundary questions would go a long way in removing the pretext for conflict in the Middle East, but it would only displace the violence onto some other pretext; much the same way that destroying the legitimacy of the secular Arab nationalists promoted the emergence of Islamism. Violence will always find its outlet unless the actual root causes of violence are addressed. I don't think boundary changes in the Middle East will suffice - not to mention all the other legal, ethical, economic, and political problems that would emerge from such a transformation.

Why do groups like ISIS form? Is it because of misdrawn boundaries? Or is there something deeper? I don't think the Shia-Sunni explanation goes a long way either; who has the power and wealth? And lastly, to what extent is it in US interests to put a stop to all state-sponsorship by the region's actors of armed religious fanatics?

The problem with Islamic people, as has been my experience, is that each one is a lord in himself or what we call khalifa (Caliph). Unlike others, they have a tremendous energy to be one up on the other - a highly competitive spirit. That is a good thing, but most used not in a positive way. In fact, the nearest example I can find is that it is like the crabs in a pail syndrome - bring the other down. That is what is happening amongst the Shias and Sunnis. Note the mindless massacre of each other in Pakistan, even though they have the same God, the same Prophet, the same book they consider holy and the same genetic stock.

The root cause, as would be my personal opinion, is not the esoteric wonders of freedom and democracy that the West wants to impose on them. They couldn't care less. The root cause is the historical transmogrification of Islam after the death of their Prophet where Spiritual Islam gave way to Temporal Islam. In short, the quest for POWER for control over all Muslims.

I said that they are highly competitive and that is what grips them. And they are not known to forget slights either or any dilution of their religious and traditional beliefs - that is why you have the Honour killings or even interpreting religious diktats without concern of the contemporary environment and interpretations. A timewrap, so to say.

If there were boundaries drawn that kept the Sunnis separate from the Shias, then it would be less of the problem that we see now; not that they would still not fight amongst each other. They would do so as separate nations - the desire to be supreme in being the real and true Muslim being too ardent a fire to douse with reason! At least that would be easier to handle.

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 06:46 PM
Ray,

I think you bring up a great point. Islam provides the political environment in which to compete for power and legitimacy - the Sunnia/Shia divide is one such mechanism to distribute power. Much like in the US how 'conversatism' or 'liberalism' provides the context in which Republicans and Democrats resolving internal conflicts - but mostly through the electoral process starting with primaries and moving through the general election. It's why you see politicians picking up and letting go of supposedly deeply held principles that are really just ideological leverages in the political battle.

So there's a couple of chess boards being played simulatenously in the Middle East - one is the region, another is each individual state, and still another is Islam. The secular regimes prior to 1979 had this problem as well as they competed for the mantle of leading their anti-Zionist alliance arrayed against Israel. But this fundamentally a political problem - not a cultural or religious one. Who has the power and who wants it? The Middle East is unstable because so many people are not part of the formal political process. And after many years of conflict and radicalization, democratization only intensifies these perceptions. How do we deescalate the conflict in the Middle East and what political problems do we need to solve to do that?

JWing
06-17-2014, 06:49 PM
I was listening or seeing a TV Debate on the situation in Iraq.

A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

How far is that correct?

Would disagree. Iraqi insurgency is made up of a bunch of small groups with ISIS dominating. ISIS is a unified group with a command structure, departments, etc. He might have been mixed up and was talking about the insurgency in general in Iraq

JWing
06-17-2014, 06:51 PM
Question for anyone. Why are we calling this an Insurgency instead of a Sunni vs. Shia Civil War?

Because that would ignore the thousands of Sunnis who are in the security forces fighting the insurgency. It would also ignore the several tribes in Anbar who are aligned with the government and fighting militants there as well. Would also ignore the fact that when Ayatollah Sistani called for people to rise up against the insurgency he said that it was the duty of ALL Iraqis to fight not just Shia. Plus the huge amount of intermarriage in Iraq between teh two sects.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 06:58 PM
Ray,

I think you bring up a great point. Islam provides the political environment in which to compete for power and legitimacy - the Sunnia/Shia divide is one such mechanism to distribute power. Much like in the US how 'conversatism' or 'liberalism' provides the context in which Republicans and Democrats resolving internal conflicts - but mostly through the electoral process starting with primaries and moving through the general election. It's why you see politicians picking up and letting go of supposedly deeply held principles that are really just ideological leverages in the political battle.

So there's a couple of chess boards being played simulatenously in the Middle East - one is the region, another is each individual state, and still another is Islam. The secular regimes prior to 1979 had this problem as well as they competed for the mantle of leading their anti-Zionist alliance arrayed against Israel. But this fundamentally a political problem - not a cultural or religious one. Who has the power and who wants it? The Middle East is unstable because so many people are not part of the formal political process. And after many years of conflict and radicalization, democratization only intensifies these perceptions. How do we deescalate the conflict in the Middle East and what political problems do we need to solve to do that?


AP--
There is a totally other point that is not being clearly seen that is a driver of the ISIS which actually surprised me as I have not heard it mentioned at all in any of the long conversations with captured AQI and IAI members and cell leaders.

There was a short 3 minute battle video released shortly after the fall of Mosul that has not shown back up on the jihadi sites which means to me as someone who has watched hundred of hours of these videos---someone screened it and took it off---it would surprise people to know just how tightly they control the messaging even back in 2006.

The speaker was in the standard fighter/balaclava garb carrying though an Mark 4 shouting the standard ISIS victory slogans---then he pointed to the Mosul city limits town sign and stared straight into the camera and shouted "this is now the end of Sykes-Picot"-- end of the statement.

That was something that was not anticipated and was a total surprise---so a Sunni from the ME are a well educated European jihadi as many jihadi's I have talked to would not even know the term Sykes-Picot?

So is ISIS following the Putin Doctrine and changing territorial boundaries based say on religion or as in the case of Crimea on Russian culture and language?

Or is there thinking inside ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle and Syria should in fact be a totally new country that has some oil assets and if a new country are they not open then to financial support for the other Sunni governments of the ME?

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2

Ray
06-17-2014, 07:12 PM
Because that would ignore the thousands of Sunnis who are in the security forces fighting the insurgency. It would also ignore the several tribes in Anbar who are aligned with the government and fighting militants there as well. Would also ignore the fact that when Ayatollah Sistani called for people to rise up against the insurgency he said that it was the duty of ALL Iraqis to fight not just Shia. Plus the huge amount of intermarriage in Iraq between teh two sects.

Why did the Iraqi Army just quit before giving battle and let the ISIS run amock?

Did the Sunnis stand their ground along with the Shia in the Iraqi army?

Just wanted to know.

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 07:12 PM
Outlaw,

What are 'borders'? Borders are (usually) mutually agreed upon territorial boundaries between different power centers. They are organized around geography, culture, population, or sometimes just convenience. But most importantly, in the Westphalian conception of the state, they are reinforced by strong normative values and the mechanisms through which such values are enforced (principally violence but occassionally diplomacy and other conflict resolution mechanisms). ISIS does not accept these principles since principles are propagated through the political system by the dominant power - and ISIS is in opposition to the dominant power. Here in the West we are generally dismissive of this fundamental difference and assert a legal or normative right that's only self-reinforcing and generally has no legitimacy among the opposition (otherwise, why would they be taking up arms if they were satisfied with the status quo?).

Borders will change. Sure. They are indicators of political organization but not the source of political power in themselves. The concern for me is that ISIS (1) has a globalized agenda, unlike the pre-2001 Taliban, and (2) it is centrally located in the most volatile region and further situated between the two dominant competitors in the Muslim world: Iran and Saudi Arabia. I expect to see this conflict as one to be fought to the death, at least as far as ISIS is concerned. It will be business as usual in Riyadh and Tehran.

Ray
06-17-2014, 07:17 PM
AP--
There is a totally other point that is not being clearly seen that is a driver of the ISIS which actually surprised me as I have not heard it mentioned at all in any of the long conversations with captured AQI and IAI members and cell leaders.

There was a short 3 minute battle video released shortly after the fall of Mosul that has not shown back up on the jihadi sites which means to me as someone who has watched hundred of hours of these videos---someone screened it and took it off---it would surprise people to know just how tightly they control the messaging even back in 2006.

The speaker was in the standard fighter/balaclava garb carrying though an Mark 4 shouting the standard ISIS victory slogans---then he pointed to the Mosul city limits town sign and stared straight into the camera and shouted "this is now the end of Sykes-Picot"-- end of the statement.

That was something that was not anticipated and was a total surprise---so a Sunni from the ME are a well educated European jihadi as many jihadi's I have talked to would not even know the term Sykes-Picot?

So is ISIS following the Putin Doctrine and changing territorial boundaries based say on religion or as in the case of Crimea on Russian culture and language?

Or is there thinking inside ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle and Syria should in fact be a totally new country that has some oil assets and if a new country are they not open then to financial support for the other Sunni governments of the ME?

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2

Make sense of all this confusion.

ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle

Divide all Muslim nations on their sectarian affiliations.

Won't bring peace. It will at least bring some Method to this Madness.

But will it be permitted?

The leverage that some countries have in the Middle East to keep it on the boil because of the intense hatred of each other = Sunni vs Shia - will vanish!

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 07:18 PM
Because that would ignore the thousands of Sunnis who are in the security forces fighting the insurgency. It would also ignore the several tribes in Anbar who are aligned with the government and fighting militants there as well. Would also ignore the fact that when Ayatollah Sistani called for people to rise up against the insurgency he said that it was the duty of ALL Iraqis to fight not just Shia. Plus the huge amount of intermarriage in Iraq between teh two sects.

JWing--the ethnic cleansing in the 2006-2008 periods was often targeted against the mixed marriage individuals and mixed communities and many of the refugees on the move were from mixed marriages---the ethnic killers from say the Sunni side would kill the Shia partner and the Shi killers would kill the Sunni partners or both killing groups would simply kill the entire family to include children.

This focus on targeting mixed marriages by both sides was seen for the first time in say Muqdadiyah near Buqubah and in Buriz in mid to late 2005. The focus on specific ethnic killings of say Shia began for the first time outside of Baghdad in again Muqdadiyah in the summer of 2005 during a wedding when a suicide bombers killing over and wounding in the 100 range-- Zarqawi wanted to see the reactions of the ethnic groups-Zarqawi was experimenting with the idea in early 2005.

His idea was that if one could destroy the mixed marriages meaning the two religions could co-exist and did exist for years--- then the idea of a Sunni Caliphate would go nowhere.

The ISIS has been targeting the Awakening personnel extremely effectively over the last two years---in Mosul the ISIS literally had lists of Awakening members which is today an automatic death sentence if caught.

Would argue Sistani was well respected by Sunni's when we were still in Iraq but he missed a critical opportunity for taking a firm position concerning the 2010 elections but he did/said nothing--a number of leading Sunni's had tried to get him motivated to engage in the Malaki conflict but again he did nothing so I do not think his "voice" carries much weight with Sunni's after the protest camp clearing ops ordered by Malaki in Dec 2013. Many thought that in the 2005 elections he would have gotten more involved--he simply was interested in religious matters and did not want to get into the political infighting. It was interesting that he was behind the drive for early elections, but settled with Bremer for 2005 being the first election.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 07:38 PM
Make sense of all this confusion.

ISIS leadership that the new Caliphate boundaries of say the Sunni triangle

Divide all Muslim nations on their sectarian affiliations.

Won't bring peace. It will at least bring some Method to this Madness.

But will it be permitted?

The leverage that some countries have in the Middle East to keep it on the boil because of the intense hatred of each other = Sunni vs Shia - will vanish!

Actually the ISIS is doing nothing more or less than what Putin is doing in first the Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine.

The Putin Doctrine as Putin in his recent Crimea DUMA speech stated---as a new international norm----territorial boundaries can in fact be changed to reflect ethnicity, culture, and or language regardless of treaties, agreements, or memorandums.

Now just add the word religion--- and then ISIS/al Baghdadi are in fact using the Putin Doctrine to change territorial boundaries---so why can Putin do it but not ISIS?

davidbfpo
06-17-2014, 07:39 PM
American Pride's post (229) deserves an answer, even if from an armchair. AP was respoinding to Ray's post:
A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.

How far is that correct?

AP:
If you look at any national operating movement - violent or otherwise - that is nearly always the case. It was true for the Bolsheviks, the IRA, Viet Minh, the Republicans and Democrats, and for ISIS. Really the question is how much fidelity do we have on their internal dynamics, and what is holding them together? What will break them apart? How is affecting their goal-making and strategy? Almost always the problems if internal cohesion are caused by power relationships, and they are resolved through a number of methods: formation of stable coalitions, formal division, purges, demotions, massacres, etc.

Yes 'any national operating movement' is a coalition that starts around a cause, nationalism / independence / communism / liberty / religion etc. Invariably this cause starts small and a "spark" gives their cause traction way beyond the small group. When violence dominates the small group are totally committed, less so those who sympathise and assist - rarely do they assist the 'authorities'. If the later's (not always just the nation-state) methods and objectives fail to gain traction or popular support by being an effective response violence continues. Over a long period the small group's cause is seen as illegitimate and ineffective - enabling the 'authorities' to exploit human weaknesses within the group.

Now how the 'colour revolutions' fit is a moot point in my thoughts and this has been discussed in several SWC threads.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 07:51 PM
Outlaw,

What are 'borders'? Borders are (usually) mutually agreed upon territorial boundaries between different power centers. They are organized around geography, culture, population, or sometimes just convenience. But most importantly, in the Westphalian conception of the state, they are reinforced by strong normative values and the mechanisms through which such values are enforced (principally violence but occassionally diplomacy and other conflict resolution mechanisms). ISIS does not accept these principles since principles are propagated through the political system by the dominant power - and ISIS is in opposition to the dominant power. Here in the West we are generally dismissive of this fundamental difference and assert a legal or normative right that's only self-reinforcing and generally has no legitimacy among the opposition (otherwise, why would they be taking up arms if they were satisfied with the status quo?).

Borders will change. Sure. They are indicators of political organization but not the source of political power in themselves. The concern for me is that ISIS (1) has a globalized agenda, unlike the pre-2001 Taliban, and (2) it is centrally located in the most volatile region and further situated between the two dominant competitors in the Muslim world: Iran and Saudi Arabia. I expect to see this conflict as one to be fought to the death, at least as far as ISIS is concerned. It will be business as usual in Riyadh and Tehran.

I would argue that in fact ISIS is actually following the new Putin Doctrine since the Crimea---meaning regardless of treaties, agreements and memorandums---territorial boundaries can in fact be changed due to ethnicity, culture and language---ISIS just adds the word religion.

So provocatively---why is then Putin "allowed" to change Ukrainian boundaries based on ethnicity, culture and language- but then ISIS cannot change anything based then on religion?

They need the boundary changed to prove to the rest of the Islamic community that it can indeed be done--it is all about the narrative.

carl
06-17-2014, 08:02 PM
It will not go well Carl... says me sitting far away from the US. Collectively the US electorate does not have the smarts to make an intelligence voting choice... as the world has learned.

Now the US is about to elect another failure to the highest office...

I ask every American I run into who supports Hilary to list her achievements while at State or anywhere and... you guessed it... nothing.

Not one success story which is a record to make her a sure fire winner in the next election. So for heavens sake stop trying to export the American version of democracy around the world... its already badly scewed up and don't need it to get any worse. Yes Carl its happening in our lifetime... the implosion of the USA.

I can't argue strongly against anything you say. I would note that Hillary is very strongly disliked by a significant number of Americans. The people in the media aren't in that group so overseas you may get a distorted view of what the Americans really think. You definitely get a distorted view if you went by what American NGO types in Africa say. (I don't know what business ex-pat types think.) So we may surprise you, I hope so anyway.

The implosion of the USA. Lordy what a grim thought...for the world as well as us.

TheCurmudgeon
06-17-2014, 08:05 PM
I would argue that in fact ISIS is actually following the new Putin Doctrine since the Crimea---meaning regardless of treaties, agreements and memorandums---territorial boundaries can in fact be changed due to ethnicity, culture and language---ISIS just adds the word religion.

So provocatively---why is then Putin "allowed" to change Ukrainian boundaries based on ethnicity, culture and language- but then ISIS cannot change anything based then on religion?

They need the boundary changed to prove to the rest of the Islamic community that it can indeed be done--it is all about the narrative.

I am curious, do you think they give that much attention to the narrative from a "western" point of view? I mean, do any of the political or international relationship conventions of the Western World really matter to them?

As you noted, they knew about the Sykes-Picot, but they also made a point of trashing it.

On a realted note, it is clear to me (as a Westerner) that the videos being released are intended to a) strike fear in the hearts of thier enemys, and b) encourage others to join based on thier dominance (everyone wants to be associated with the biggest kid on the block). But they have to know that these videos will be siezed upon by Westerners who will never see their Calaphite as legitimate. I don't think Al Baghdadi is really so stupid as to believe that he can survive as the ruler of a state without at least tacid Western approval. (I actually don't think he is stupid at all). So what is his end game?

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 08:06 PM
Outlaw,

There is no "Putin Doctrine" specific to the manipulation of borders, and even if it were, Russia's influence on the political culture of the Middle East - especially among Islamist circles - is nil. To which treaties is ISIS a party? Which political authorities does ISIS recognize? ISIS is a paradigm shift - it rejects the status quo in favor of new rules and norms. Every measurement of legitimacy in the Western paradigm is either reevaluated or totally discarded by Islamism. Who cares if ISIS is following some kind of "Putin Doctrine"? What we should care about is whether ISIS' power can be sustained, and if so, what are the consequences for the old order?

AmericanPride
06-17-2014, 08:11 PM
TC,

Al Baghdadi is well-educated, and after surviving for many years in the insurgency, I agree with you that he is not 'stupid'. But I think you may be over-estimating the importance of "Western approval". What does that mean in practice? That the West is not actively trying to overthrow the government? Iraq and Libya demonstrates that there are states out there who's existence will be quickly called into question as soon as the opportunity arises. The strength of movements like ISIS is not their ability to capture "Western approval" but to know that "Western approval" is a farce that exists by default when the West perceives it does not have the political or military capabilities to effect change.

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 08:19 PM
Outlaw,

There is no "Putin Doctrine" specific to the manipulation of borders, and even if it were, Russia's influence on the political culture of the Middle East - especially among Islamist circles - is nil. To which treaties is ISIS a party? Which political authorities does ISIS recognize? ISIS is a paradigm shift - it rejects the status quo in favor of new rules and norms. Every measurement of legitimacy in the Western paradigm is either reevaluated or totally discarded by Islamism. Who cares if ISIS is following some kind of "Putin Doctrine"? What we should care about is whether ISIS' power can be sustained, and if so, what are the consequences for the old order?

Here is the problem---ISIS and the related Sunni insurgent groups have in fact proved that their power can be sustained at least from 2003 to until now 2014---they outlasted the US Army, JSOC, and Malaki's 300K man military do you not think--and they will outlast the Iranian Quds Force. Remember Iran is struggling now on two fronts, struggling with a massive failing economy and is taking losses---yes they had staying power in the Iraq war but the mood of the younger Iran is definitely not for a war if one listens to the social media.

Secondly, to mention Sykes-Picot in a formal ISIS battle video released on their primary web site is not a "fluke" or "accident" which alludes to their full understanding of territorial boundaries and what they mean thus a Caliphate claim that crosses two up to now international recognized countries Syria and Iraq would in theory mean the dissolution of the two existing countries to pull off a Caliphate or as they stated Sykes-Picot is "dead".

Just as Putin in fact stated that signed agreements protecting territorial boundaries are now a thing of the past ISIS has declared Sykes-Picot "dead" and that will have an impact in the ME.

Ray
06-17-2014, 08:30 PM
Al Qaeda-inspired ISIS militants now ‘world’s richest terror group’ after looting nearly a half-billion from Iraq bank: reports
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-qaeda-inspired-isis-militants-world-richest-terror-group-looting-half-billion-iraq-bank-report-article-1.1828661

Any comments?




http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1828185.1402628103!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/iraq-map.jpg?enlarged

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 08:30 PM
This article is really interesting as it comes from the Voice of Russia and is probably right now a very balanced press release on the Iraqi issues especially coming from Russia.

Is now Malaki trying to stir up Shia anger against the Saudi's who are sitting with a well trained Army and Air Force on his southern border and itching to "assist" fellow Sunni brothers since 2003 especially now that their regional hegemon rival Iran is engaged in killing Sunni's near their border.

Malaki does not seem to understand just where al-Baghdadi and the supporting Sunni insurgent groups are headed.

There is now a dynamic in play that even the US cannot gauge where it is headed--maybe they should have not teed off the KSA over Syria.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_17/Iran-blames-Saudi-Arabia-for-promoting-genocide-by-backing-Sunni-militants-6099/

OUTLAW 09
06-17-2014, 08:37 PM
Any comments?




http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1828185.1402628103!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/iraq-map.jpg?enlarged

Not even the mothership AQ comes anywhere close to what the bank robbery got ISIS.

Now they can fund their Shia war and create the Caliphate---their recruiters have already fanned out across Europe- a few have been arrested.

Go back and research where the Sunni are situated/residing in Iraq---they are actually the majority population along the southern border to the KSA--watch how ISIS will swing mobile units undetected (right now Baghdad is fighting the "near" fight and not seeing the "far" fight) down to the southern flank while they have the attention of the Quds Force in Diyala and then makes a dash across the open desert to the south of Baghdad--they really do enjoy utilities---and the KSA sits on the southern border. Zarqawi laid it all out in 2006.

Two things have impressed me with this AQI/ISIS generation---their great use of swarming tactics and speed ---it is almost like the US use of "shock and awe" only in reverse.

davidbfpo
06-17-2014, 08:42 PM
This is the first of two pointers. to commentaries by analysts.

First, from Kings of War a new voice:
That’s why I’m delighted to have had the opportunity to speak in our first Kings of War podcast (18 mins) with Dr Victoria Fontan[/URL], currently Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Duhok University in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Victoria, as you will hear, has been kicking around Iraq in one capacity or another for over a decade now and is currently working on her second PhD with us in the War Studies Department (having turned to the dark side) researching ‘slow insurgency in Iraq’. She has been studying ISIS since 2010 and has done more and more intimate interviews with them than any other researcher I know.

The link to the summary & podcast, with some surprises which I cite below:[URL]http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2014/06/isis-the-slow-insurgency-kowcast-vol-1/? (http://www.victoriacfontan.com)


ISIS has not emerged from nowhere. They were not ‘fading away’ before the onset of the Syrian civil war; rather, they were regrouping, cleaning up their house (imagine the rooftop discussion between Ali La Pointe and Ben M’Hidi in The Battle of Algiers when he declares that before they take the fight to the French they’re first going to sweep up the pipes and dope dealers in the Casbah). Up to July 2013, at least in Salaheddin province, ISIS’s attacks were paid for by the Turkish government, not private donors from the Gulf as is commonly mistaken. ISIS’s presence in Syria did not ‘just happen’; rather, it was orchestrated by Turkey, which then decided to back up the wrong horse–Nusra, in the Spring of 2013. This last aspect of Victoria’s strategic diagnosis is, in my view, the most worrisome.

What we are seeing is not ‘just’ a civil war but an incipient schismatic war with thick tentacles linking it abroad in a patently ominous manner...... While speaking with Victoria the first thought of the near future of the Middle East which sprang to mind was one akin to the Balkan tragedy of the 1990s–only on a larger scale, with more money for weapons and willing suppliers, and with even less scope for external mitigation.